An official website of the United States Government.

Court rules

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Back to Document Comments (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001/comment)

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Comment from Wroblewski, Jonathan

Posted by the United States Courts on Sep 16, 2025

Docket (/docket/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003)

/ Document (USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) / Comment

Comment

Judge Dever, Sara, Nancy, Members of the Committee -- I hope you all are well.

I published this week on our Substack -- sentencing.substack.com -- an essay on the Committee's work and on

the pending Rule 17 amendment proposal. I am submitting the essay as public comment on the proposal. The

comments reflect my admiration for the Committee and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and my

concerns about one important aspect of the pending Rule 17 proposal. [If you want to skip the admiration part

and get straight to the comments, jump past the first seven paragraphs.]

Please let me know if you have any questions about the essay or if there's anything more I can provide to

assist you in your work. I know the comments will receive your full consideration.

-Jonathan Wroblewski

Attachments

Rule 17 Comment Substack 091525

Download (https://downloads.regulations.gov/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0003/attachment_1.pdf)

Give Feedback

Thank you for all you're doing to further the cause of justice. My best to you and yours,

Sentencing Matters Substack

Dashboard

Court Review Should Be Required Before Our

Personal Information Is Subpoenaed

A proposal to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure would allow unchecked

subpoena power

JONATHAN J. WROBLEWSKI

SEP 15, 2025

There are three foundational texts used in the federal criminal justice system: the

Federal Criminal Code, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines. They are used every day by litigants and judges in federal

courts across the country. One of the texts is a respected model for states and

countries around the globe. The other two are muddles in need of structural reform.

Substantive federal criminal law — the federal criminal code — has evolved, crime by

crime, bit by bit, over the last 250 years. OHenses are scattered throughout the dozens

of titles of the U.S. Code. There are overlapping and inconsistent provisions.

Minimum and maximum penalties are incoherent across crimes. So are mens rea —

intent — elements. Congress recognized that the code was a mess in 1966, almost 60

years ago, when it created the National Commission on Reform of Criminal Laws. The

Commission was chaired by former California Governor Edmund G. Brown and

included distinguished members of Congress, academia, the judiciary, and more. It

developed a reformed code that was considered in Congress but never enacted.

Thanks for reading Sentencing Matters

Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new

posts and support my work.

Subscribed

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been roundly criticized — scorned really —

since the Trst draft of the Guidelines Manual was rolled out in 1986. Some of the most

common criticisms of the federal guidelines were inventoried by the Connecticut

General Assembly some years ago as it was considering adopting guidelines itself —

The [federal] sentencing guidelines are too complex, inZexible, and severe and are

much more so than guidelines designed by any other jurisdiction.

Some prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation o[cers are negotiating

dispositions that adjust or sidestep the guidelines to produce reasonable

sentences that trial judges will accept and that will not be appealed. Thus, a new

sentencing disparity has developed between those who follow the guidelines to

the letter and those who avoid them as unjust.

The guidelines, especially regarding drug oHenses, produce harsh sentences that

often result in diHerent treatment based on the race of the defendant.

The guidelines contribute to prison overcrowding.

The Connecticut General Assembly, like so many other legislatures, wanted nothing to

do with the federal Guidelines.

But if the federal code and federal Guidelines are fundamentally Zawed and generally

shunned by the states, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are, by contrast, a

model. Although the federal criminal justice system is in many ways quite diHerent

from the typical state system, the Federal Rules have been replicated in basic structure

and content by numerous states. The rules are mostly a coherent whole; they follow a

consistent style and use of terms; they employ words e[ciently and sparingly; and the

policies underlying them are generally viewed as fair, balanced, and reasonable.

A big part of the reason for the Rules’ success lies with the bodies involved in creating

and amending them and the process used in their development. The rules are

promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, pursuant to delegated

statutory authority found in the Rules Enabling Act. Congress retained the power to

reject proposed rules or amendments, to modify them, or to enact rules or

amendments itself. It rarely does any of these.

The criminal procedure rules and their amendments are drafted in the Trst instance by

the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, part of the Judicial Conference of the

United States. The Committee consists of appointed judges, a U.S. Department of

Justice representative — full disclosure: I was that representative for many years —

practicing lawyers, and legal scholars. It meets twice a year in-person, and

subcommittees meet remotely intermittently between meetings to discuss proposals.

All ideas for changes to the rules submitted to the Committee are considered. After

public comment is sought on any proposal under serious consideration, draft rules or

amendments are submitted to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and

Procedure, another Judicial Conference committee which oversees all the various rules

committees (criminal, civil, appellate, bankruptcy, and evidence). The Standing

Committee in turn submits them to the Judicial Conference, which Tnally

recommends them to the Supreme Court for approval. The process is slow and

cumbersome — it generally takes at least three years to develop and move an

amendment through the process — and highly deliberative. It leads to a respected

product.

--This year, the Advisory Committee on the Criminal Rules has proposed and published

for comment only one amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The

proposal would amend Rule 17, which governs the use of subpoenas in criminal

matters. After receiving several requests to review the rule, the Committee found the

existing rule, which is essentially unchanged from what was Trst adopted in 1944,

needed an update. “[T]he rule’s existing guidance about obtaining, reviewing, and

responding to subpoenas to produce items is ambiguous and incomplete, and it has

produced conZicting interpretations that ahict multiple aspects of subpoena

practice.” See, Comm. on Rules of Pract. And Proc., Preliminary Draft, Proposed

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure,

and the Federal Rules of Evidence (Aug. 2025).

The proposed amendment would provide that needed update. It spells out the

proceedings to which the rule would apply; when subpoenas may be issued without

informing the opposing party; the circumstances that require the production of the

subpoenaed material to the court rather than to the requesting party; and the rules for

disclosure of subpoenaed material to the opposing party. Most importantly, the

amendment would change the standard that prosecutors and defense attorney must

meet to obtain a subpoena.

Under the controlling Supreme Court precedent, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,

700 (1974), in order to obtain a subpoena and thus require production of any material,

the moving party must show –

(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise

procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the

party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in

advance of trial, and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend

unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith

and is not intended as a general “Tshing expedition.”

Id. The heart of the rule is that to obtain a subpoena, a request must be speciTc, and

the material sought must be relevant to, and admissible in, a criminal proceeding. The

proposed amendment would change the standard for obtaining a subpoena, requiring

only that the information sought is deTned with speciTcity and that it is “likely to be

admissible as evidence in the designated proceeding.” The Committee explains the

change in detail in a memorandum accompanying the proposal. The change seems to

be a modest and reasonable one in light of the testimony the Committee heard in its

consideration of various proposals to amend Rule 17. So do most of the other changes.

But there is one provision of the proposal that is concerning. It is the one that

authorizes prosecutors and defense attorneys, generally, to prepare and serve a

subpoena without any motion and thus without any review by a court. The only

exceptions to this new rule would be for subpoenas for a victim’s personal and

conTdential information or a subpoena issued by someone representing themselves. A

person who is not a victim in the case — for example, a witness, or an uncharged coconspirator, or a family member of the defendant, or anyone else — could have their

personal or conTdential information subpoenaed without any court review and thus

without any Tnding that the information sought will indeed be “likely to be admissible

as evidence in the designated proceeding.” And because personal or conTdential

information is often held by a third party, the subpoena could be issued without any

notice to the person whose information is being sought.

This is troubling for several reasons. First, the Supreme Court has already ruled that in

some circumstances — for some personal and conTdential information — the Fourth

Amendment requires a warrant supported by probable cause for the government to

demand that information and that the use of a common subpoena for the information

violates the Constitution. While we don’t yet know the full and precise scope of the

information that is so constitutionally protected, in those circumstances, the proposed

amendment provides no protection from unconstitutional uses of subpoenas. This

seems like a serious Zaw in the proposal.

As importantly, without some review by a court, meeting the rule’s own standard —

“likely to be admissible as evidence in the designated proceeding” — will also be left

solely to the care and judgment of the very prosecutors and defense lawyers issuing the

subpoenas. It will be the honor system, leaving the interests of those whose private

information is being sought in the hands of the very people seeking it. This seems

inconsistent with the foundational role of the courts to adjudicate competing interests

and values among those involved in litigation. To protect citizens in their rights —

constitutional and rules based — the proposal should be amended to require both a

motion and court review before a subpoena for private or conTdential information is

issued and also to provide a default protective order for such information when a

subpoena is approved by a court.

--The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and eHects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” As

many Supreme Court cases have recognized, the basic purpose of the Fourth

Amendment “is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary

invasions by governmental o[cials.” Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of

San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 528 (1967).

For many years, there was serious doubt about whether or not a subpoena was a search

or seizure subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. There was also

Supreme Court precedent that limited Fourth Amendment protections of property

held by third parties (the “third-party doctrine”). But in Carpenter v. United States, 585

U.S. 296 (2018), the Court made clear that it “has never held that the Government may

subpoena third parties for records in which the suspect has a reasonable expectation

of privacy.” The Court recognized explicitly both that subpoenas implicate the Fourth

Amendment — in some circumstances, at least — and that information held by third

parties — also, in some circumstances — is protected by the Amendment.

For those unfamiliar with subpoenas, here is what one looks like –

Whether seeking information for the prosecution or the defense, the subpoena invokes

the authority of a United States District Court, a government entity and state actor. It

“commands” (in bold and ALL CAPS) production of “books, papers, documents, data,

or other objects” under threat of sanction, including, potentially, conTnement. Under

the pending proposal, subpoenas could be issued directly by prosecutors and defense

attorneys. They would be able to obtain from the clerk of the local district court presigned subpoena forms, like the one above. Prosecutors and defense attorneys would

themselves type in the name of the person to whom the subpoena is directed, the

books, papers, documents, data, or other objects being sought, and the time and place

the materials are to be produced.

Regardless of which party issues the subpoena, the subpoena is a federal court order

that demands compliance by those receiving it. And in some circumstances, it is sent

to a third-party which is holding the information and not the person whose

information is being sought.

In Carpenter, the government sought cell-site location information about Mr.

Carpenter from a wireless carrier with a subpoena issued to the carrier. The

government wanted to learn of Carpenter’s movements over time — through the cellsite information — to see if he might have been involved in a string of robberies. The

Court held that subpoenas, in certain circumstances, implicate the Fourth

Amendment. And it also held that the third-party doctrine — that people have no

reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with a third party

— does not apply to the “modern-day equivalents of an individual’s own ‘papers’ or

‘eHects.’” The Court reasoned that the clear implication is that “the documents should

receive full Fourth Amendment protection.”

The Supreme Court’s holding that some “books, papers, documents, data, or other

objects” are protected by the Fourth Amendment, even if in the hands of a third party,

means that they are not obtainable through court order except upon a showing to a

court of probable cause. The Supreme Court concluded that Fourth Amendment

protections extend to a detailed log of a person’s movements over time, the

circumstance at issue in Carpenter. But the Court also said –

This is certainly not to say that all orders compelling the production of documents

will require a showing of probable cause. The Government will be able to use

subpoenas to acquire records in the overwhelming majority of investigations. We

hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a

legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party.

Of course, the challenge left by the Supreme Court’s decision is to identify those cases

“where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party.”

This can only be done eHectively by a court and certainly not by the party who wants

the information.

In 2008, the Criminal Rules Committee recognized as much; that “dignity and privacy”

requires a “protective mechanism” when a subpoena is issued to a third party to

disclose personal or conTdential information about a victim. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17,

Committee Note (2008). “Third party subpoenas raise special concerns because a third

party may not assert the victim's interests, and the victim may be unaware of the

subpoena.” Id. So said the Committee itself. This is no less so for non-victims as it is

for victims. The 2008 amendment requires “judicial approval before service of a

subpoena seeking personal or conTdential information about a victim from a third

party.” Id. So should subpoenas seeking personal or conTdential information about

anyone. Victims and their privacy interests certainly deserve respect. But the

Constitution requires the same for the rest of us too. We all deserve the equal

protection of our privacy by the courts.

Moreover, as to the current proposal, the Committee itself recognizes that while “more

Zexibility” than the Nixon standard is appropriate, that it is still necessary to retain

“some relationship to admissibility” in the rule. By doing so, the rule narrows “the

scope of what can be sought by tying the information to the designated proceeding

and further preventing ‘Tshing expeditions.’” In its report to the Standing Committee,

the Advisory Committee quoted the Criminal Division Chief for the U.S. Attorney’s

O[ce for the Western District of North Carolina. “Admissibility is what tethers [the

information sought] to the trial or hearing; if you sever that, it becomes a completely

diHerent beast.”

What makes a “Tshing expedition” troubling is not that it is a search for relevant

evidence. It is the competing value of privacy and conTdentiality of those whose

information will be picked through during the expedition. Providing some threshold

standard before that expedition begins is a protection for that privacy and

conTdentiality.

So, who determines whether a su[cient connection exists between the information

sought and admissibility? Under the proposed rule, it is the party issuing the subpoena

itself. “The new text imposes upon a party the duty to ensure that every subpoena to

produce items meets this standard, including those obtained and served without

motion.” Committee Note, lines 279-281. Without any court review of the connection

to admissibility, the proposal adopts an honor system and relies on interested

advocates to ensure the connection.

Such a system will make it a certainty that the standard will not be consistently

followed; not because my brother and sister prosecutors and defense attorneys are not

well-meaning (although it doesn’t take much imagination these days to see the abuses

of the rule coming by some attorneys, perhaps if only for vengeance or intimidation).

Rather, it is because human beings, including prosecutors and defense lawyers, have

self-serving bias. This seems self-evident. But whether you think so or not, there is

much behavioral law and economics literature that undermines any notion that

prosecutors and defense attorneys will act in an unbiased way, in applying the

proposed rule or elsewhere. As then-Professor (and now Third Circuit Judge)

Stephanos Bibas spelled out in just one examination of this, self-serving bias “leads

people to interpret information to Tt their opinions or interests. People tend to recall

selectively the information that is favorable to their preexisting views and to interpret

that information in self-serving ways.” Bibas, Plea Bargaining Outside the Shadow of

Trial, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2463 (2004). That’s why we have judges; to arbitrate conZicting

interests. To rely on the honor system would be quite a break from the way the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure are generally crafted and adjudicated when competing

and fundamental interests are at stake. And it would sacriTce foundational privacy

interests and sidestep what is the very purpose of federal courts: to protect those

interests.

It may very well be, as some testiTed during the initial consideration of the proposal,

that judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are all ready to sidestep the courts here

in the issuance of subpoenas. But those whose privacy interests are at stake — those

not represented on the Committee — will certainly have a diHerent view.

--The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are indeed a model for states and foreign

countries alike. One of the reasons is the public, collaborative, and deliberative

process that is part of their development. All who are interested in the privacy and

dignity of those involved in the criminal justice process should review the Rule 17

amendment proposal and consider whether a motion requirement and court review of

the motion and the basis for the requested subpoena are necessary to protect

fundamental interests. Be part of the process.

I believe a motion should certainly be required for all subpoenas seeking private or

conTdential information, as is already the case when that information sought belongs

to a victim. If the Committee does add such a requirement, it should also make clear in

the Committee Note that if no motion is made and a subpoena is issued by one of the

parties themselves for private and conTdential information, that some sanction for the

oHending attorney should be imposed. Such a clear statement and consequence is

needed to help ensure compliance with the motion requirement. A better approach

still would be to require motions for all subpoenas.

The rule should also include a provision that provides a default protective order for

private and conTdential information obtained by a party through a subpoena, even

when a motion is required. Under the proposal, there is nothing to prevent a party

who obtains private and conTdential information by subpoena from sharing it with

whomever they wish, including the public — except when the government obtains the

information for a grand jury proceeding, which circumstance is governed by Rule 6

and its secrecy requirements and exceptions. While there may be some circumstances

where the information sought by subpoena will be subject to some other privacy law

or regulation, the scope of such protection — including whether it Zows with the

information from the third party who held the information to the litigant who

requested it — is murky at best. There is no reason that the default rule should not be

to protect the information from further disclosure; there is no competing value.

Without these suggested changes, the proposal needlessly — and in some cases

unconstitutionally — puts the private or conTdential information of innocent people

at risk.

Thanks for reading Sentencing Matters

Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new

posts and support my work.

Subscribed

Discussion about this post

Comments

Restacks

Write a comment...

Top

Latest

Discussions

A Lesson in Kayfabe

While we wait and pray for a SCOTUS smackdown

APR 21 • JONATHAN J. WROBLEWSKI

In the Ministries: Fear, Loathing, Ethics, and a Good Fight

When Voldemort takes control of the Ministry of Magic in the seventh Harry

Potter book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, there is a purge of the…

FEB 3 • JONATHAN J. WROBLEWSKI

A Thought Experiment: Imagine the U.S. Sentencing

Commission’s Policy Priorities if Kim Kardashian and Lil

Wayne Filled the Two Commission…

Some disruptive, out-of-the-box thinking might be just what the Commission

needs

JUL 7 • JONATHAN J. WROBLEWSKI

Undeniable Cruelty

Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it was dropping its

pending environmental enforcement lawsuit against Denka Performance…

Elastomer…

MAR 13 • JONATHAN J. WROBLEWSKI

Don’t Be Fooled; There Won’t Be a DoGE Dividend

Indiscriminate Cuts are Harmful to the Bottom Line

FEB 21 • EDGAR CHEN AND JONATHAN J. WROBLEWSKI

The Most Important Sentencing Conference You May Have

Never Heard Of

NASC 2025: The Future of Sentencing Commissions

AUG 4 • STEVEN L. CHANENSON

Solitude and Leadership

This is our time . . .

FEB 14 • JONATHAN J. WROBLEWSKI

Is This Where the iPhone and AI Are Taking Us Next?

“I said, ‘Be careful, his bowtie is really a camera.’” America, Simon and

Garfunkel (1968)

MAY 5 • JONATHAN J. WROBLEWSKI

Did the Sentencing Commission Just Make the Guidelines

Even Worse?

Twenty years after the Supreme Court's decision in Booker v. United States, the

Commission finally adjusts the Guidelines Manual

APR 14 • JONATHAN J. WROBLEWSKI

The Sentencing Matters Substack: One Year In

We've surprised ourselves with this project; and we hope to expand and

improve it in year two

AUG 11 • JONATHAN J. WROBLEWSKI

See all

Start writing

Get the app

Substack is the home for great culture

An official website of the United States Government.

Back to Document Comments (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001/comment)

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Withdrawn

Comment from Alvan, Cesar

Posted by the United States Courts on Nov 17, 2025

Docket (/docket/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003)

/ Document (USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) / Comment

Reason Withdrawn

This comment was withdraw and re-posted under the Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure as it relates to Appellate Rule 15.

There are no documents available to view or download

Give Feedback

Comment ID

USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0004

Comment Details

An official website of the United States Government.

Back to Document Comments (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001/comment)

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Comment from Noel, Morgan

Posted by the United States Courts on Dec 10, 2025

Docket (/docket/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003)

/ Document (USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) / Comment

Comment

Give Feedback

I support these changes to Rule 17. Before going into substantive changes, the edits to enhance clarity are

well done. Shifting phrases like “title of the proceeding,” to “proceeding’s title” is helpful for clarity. Similarly,

changing “require” to “order” helps clarify the way something is required. Changing “witness” to “recipient”

also clarifies the broadness of potential subpoena’s targets.

It's also very helpful that Rule 17 now makes it clear that this rule does not bar subpoenas for non-trial

proceedings.

As far as the loosening of the Nixon criteria, I do feel that the “likely to lead to” formulation is superior to the

“likely admissible” language the current proposal uses. Undoubtedly the “likely admissible” standard is a

superior revision, but I do lean the way of the New York City Bar Committee in believing that the broader

formulation is useful for defense attorneys, and I don’t think it would have allowed excessive “fishing

expeditions” since you would still have a concrete tie to admissibility.

Comment ID

USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0005

Tracking Number

miq-tvav-ud93

Comment Details

Received Date

Submitter Info

An official website of the United States Government.

Back to Document Comments (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001/comment)

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Comment from Zaki, Joseph

Posted by the United States Courts on Dec 30, 2025

Docket (/docket/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003)

/ Document (USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) / Comment

Comment

This comment addresses proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (Subpoena),

including third-party subpoenas for electronically stored information (ESI). The submission supports the rule’s

objective and proposes a narrow, administrable clarification for the Committee Note: when a subpoena seeks

digital evidence, the “designated items” may include ordinarily associated integrity context that is reasonably

necessary for evidentiary use, and “reasonable particularity” may be satisfied using objective system identifiers

commonly used to locate ESI.

A short, technology-neutral Committee Note clarification would reduce inconsistent practice by confirming that

a Rule 17 subpoena may, where appropriate and not unduly burdensome, designate integrity-related artifacts

ordinarily maintained with the item, such as system metadata and logs tied to creation, storage, access, export,

and retention, and may specify objective identifiers (for example, object IDs, event IDs, account or device

identifiers, hashes when available, and narrow time windows) to describe the designated items with precision.

The Committee Note should also recognize courts’ discretion to impose reasonable protective conditions

(phased production, limited inspection, sealing, and tailored redactions) to protect legitimate privacy,

confidentiality, and security interests while preserving verifiability.

Attachments

Give Feedback

The comment does not propose new discovery obligations or broaden subpoena scope. Rather, it explains

why, in modern digital systems, production of “content only” often fails to provide the minimum context required

to evaluate authenticity, completeness, and whether the produced item is the correct object. This gap

predictably increases motion practice and admissibility disputes later.

Comment on Criminal Procedure 17 (Joseph Zaki)

Download (https://downloads.regulations.gov/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0006/attachment_1.pdf)

Comment ID

USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0006

Tracking Number

mjs-nz39-ski2

Comment Details

Submitter Info

Received Date

Dec 30, 2025

About Bulk Data Download

Learn

Reports

FAQ

Commenting Guidance

(/bulkdownload) (/agencies) (/learn) (/dotreports) (/faq) (/commenting-guidance)

Privacy & Security Notice (/privacy-notice) | User Notice (/user-notice) |

Accessibility Statement (/accessibility) | API Requests (https://open.gsa.gov/api/regulationsgov/) |

FOIA (https://www.gsa.gov/reference/freedom-of-information-act-foia)

Support (/support)

Give Feedback

(/about)

Agencies

Comment on Proposed Amendments to

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17

(Subpoena)

Docket: USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003

Submitted by: Joseph Zaki (individual technical commenter)

Topic: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (Subpoena) proposed

amendments

Executive Summary

Modern criminal cases frequently depend on third-party held electronic evidence (ESI), including

video, sensor outputs, cloud records, and system logs. When digital materials are subpoenaed,

the evidentiary value often depends on associated integrity and provenance artifacts that are

routinely maintained with the underlying data. I support clarifications to Rule 17 that reduce

inconsistent practice and motion-driven delay, while keeping subpoenas appropriately particular

and minimally burdensome for recipients.

This comment recommends that the Committee clarify, in the Committee Note, that:

1. Digital “designated items” may include ordinarily associated integrity artifacts (for

example, access logs, audit logs, export logs, hashes, and time stamps) when

necessary for evidentiary use.

2. “Reasonable particularity” can be satisfied using modern objective identifiers (for

example, object IDs, event IDs, hashes, and narrow time windows).

3. Courts may structure production to protect sensitive information while preserving

integrity (for example, phased production, inspection, sealing, and tailored redactions).

4. Productions should avoid a common failure mode: producing content without the integrity

context that allows the court and parties to evaluate authenticity and reliability.

Recommendations

1) Clarify that digital “designated items” can include ordinarily associated

integrity artifacts

For many forms of ESI, the “item” is not just a single file. The evidentiary item frequently

includes accompanying records that establish how the item was created, stored, accessed, and

exported. Without that context, parties often litigate authenticity and completeness later,

increasing burden on courts and recipients.

A short Committee Note clarification would help confirm that a subpoena may identify and

request integrity artifacts that are ordinarily associated with the digital item and reasonably

necessary for evidentiary use, such as:

●

access logs and audit logs related to the account, dataset, or repository holding the item

export logs or download logs for the item

retention logs or deletion indicators relevant to completeness

hashes, signatures, attestations, and time stamps associated with the item or export

process

● provenance manifests or system-generated metadata routinely maintained with the item

2) Confirm that “reasonable particularity” accommodates modern

identifiers

Digital systems commonly index evidence using objective identifiers. A subpoena can be more

precise, and less burdensome, when it specifies identifiers such as:

●

object IDs, event IDs, case IDs, device IDs, or account IDs

content hashes (when available)

narrow time windows

repository or bucket names, dataset labels, or system record types

Clarifying that such identifiers can satisfy reasonable particularity will improve drafting quality

and reduce disputes about breadth.

3) Encourage protective structuring that preserves integrity without

unnecessary exposure

Subpoenas for digital evidence can implicate privacy, security-sensitive system details, or

confidential operational information. Courts should be encouraged to structure production in

ways that protect legitimate interests while preserving evidentiary integrity, for example:

● phased production (integrity artifacts first, content second where appropriate)

● limited inspection or controlled access

● sealing, protective orders, and tailored redactions that preserve verifiability (for example,

hash-anchored originals under seal)

This approach reduces recipient burden and supports reliable later use in proceedings.

4) Avoid producing “content only” without integrity context

A recurring practical problem in digital evidence practice is production of the file or clip alone,

without the metadata and logs that allow parties to evaluate authenticity, completeness, and

chain of custody. This often pushes the dispute downstream into motion practice and hearings.

A Committee Note clarification that integrity artifacts may be requested, when ordinarily

associated and reasonably necessary, would reduce that failure mode.

Suggested Committee Note Language (for consideration)

The following is offered as optional clarifying language for the Committee Note:

In cases involving electronically stored information, a subpoena may describe the

“designated items” with objective identifiers used by modern systems, including

object identifiers, event identifiers, account or device identifiers, hashes, and narrow

time windows. Where appropriate to enable evaluation of authenticity, integrity, or

completeness, the subpoena may also identify ordinarily associated records

maintained with the electronic item, such as access logs, audit logs, export logs,

time stamps, and other system-generated metadata. Courts retain discretion to

impose reasonable conditions and protective measures to reduce burden and

protect legitimate privacy, confidentiality, and security interests while preserving the

integrity of the produced materials.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Joseph Zaki

An official website of the United States Government.

Back to Document Comments (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001/comment)

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Comment from Federal Magistrate Judges Association

Posted by the United States Courts on Jan 16, 2026

Docket (/docket/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003)

/ Document (USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) / Comment

Comment

The Federal Magistrate Judges Association submits the attached comments

Attachments

FMJA Comments Final

Give Feedback

Download

Comment ID

USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0008

Tracking Number

mkh-b192-k6hz

Comment Details

Submitter Info

FEDERAL MAGISTRATE JUDGES ASSOCIATION

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SET FORTH IN THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT DATED AUGUST 2025

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts published an invitation for comment

on proposed rule changes to be effective in December 2026. The proposals include changes to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7.1, 26, 41, 45, and 81; Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17;

and Federal Rule of Evidence 609. The proposals also include a new Federal Rule of Evidence

707.

The proposed rule changes are of interest to the Federal Magistrate Judges Association

(“FMJA”) because they address issues that come up in matters before Magistrate Judges. The

FMJA is a voluntary association comprised of active, full-time, part-time, recalled, and retired

Federal Magistrate Judges. These comments were prepared by the FMJA Rules Committee,

which consists of 26 active Magistrate Judges from districts of all sizes across the country. The

comments were approved by the FMJA Board of Directors. Accordingly, the FMJA Rules

Committee has considered these proposed rule changes and, with the full support of the FMJA

board, provides the following comments for consideration.

A. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

1. FRCP 7.1

Rule 7.1 requires that parties make certain disclosures to the court to assist it in

determining whether a conflict of interest might exist that requires disqualification or recusal of

an assigned judge under Canon 3C(1)(c) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The

Rule is calculated to reach a majority of circumstances that are likely to call for disqualification

based on a judge having a financial interest in a matter.

In response to concerns that the current Rule does not adequately alert judges to

possible grounds for recusal, the proposed amendment clarifies and expands the types of

organizations that must make disclosures.

Rule 7.1(a)(1) currently requires a “nongovernmental corporate party or

nongovernmental corporation that seeks to intervene” to file a “statement that identifies any

parent corporation or any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock” or,

alternatively, “to state that there is no such parent or owner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(1)(1)(A-B).

These statements must be filed with a party’s first appearance and upon any corporate changes

impacting the information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(b).

The first proposed change is to substitute the term “business organization” for the word

“corporation” in recognition that business entities may have non-corporate forms. The other is

to require disclosure of any business organization that directly or indirectly owns 10% or more

of the party.

The FMJA fully supports these changes to Rule 7.1 because they will assist judges in

making recusal decisions and help to flag potential conflicts of interest at the outset of a case.

2. FRCP 45 and 26

The Advisory Committee proposes changes to Rule 45 and a corresponding change to

Rule 26. There are two proposed changes to Rule 45. The first change is that Rule 45(b)(1) be

amended to clarify how subpoenas must be served and to allow for alternative methods of

service upon application to the court and a showing of good cause. The proposal also would

allow for witness fees to be tendered either at the time of service or within a 14-day notice

period when it requires attendance at a trial, hearing, or deposition.

The second change is that Rule 45(c) be amended to allow a subpoena to compel

remote testimony so long as the testimony is within 100 miles of a witness’s residence, even if

it is more than 100 miles from the issuing district. This change also necessitates the proposed

change to Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(i), which would require a party to specify in its pretrial disclosures

whether any of the witnesses the party expects to present will provide remote testimony.

a. Rule 45(b)(1)

Magistrate Judges frequently handle subpoena disputes, including issues about service

of subpoenas. The proposed changes clarify ambiguity in the current Rule around service and

align service of subpoenas with methods of serving complaints under Rule 4(e)(2)(A-B) and

methods of service that courts have long found to be reasonable, including service by mail or

commercial carrier if there is confirmation of receipt. In particular, the amended Rule would

permit personal service to a named person, service by leaving a copy of the subpoena “at the

person’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who

resides there;” by “sending a copy to the person’s last known address by a method of United

States mail or commercial-carrier delivery, if the selected method provides confirmation of

actual receipt;” or by “using another means that is authorized by the court for good cause and

is reasonably calculated to give notice.”

The FMJA supports the proposed changes to Rule 45(b)(1) because it is often difficult

and costly to serve someone personally, and because the alternative methods of service will

minimize the costs of service and delays associated with failed service, while verifying that the

subpoena was delivered. The FMJA also supports the change insofar as it gives courts

discretion to allow for other methods of service for good cause, something courts already are

empowered to do with complaints. These changes also will reduce motion practice concerning

methods of service.

The proposed changes to Rule 45(b) also include a requirement that subpoenas be

served at least 14 days before a person is required to attend a trial, hearing or deposition,

which the FMJA also supports because this provides a minimum baseline for what is reasonable

notice and allows a party sufficient time to object in advance of a deadline for attendance.

While 21 days’ notice would in some ways be preferable to 14 days because a subpoenaed

party may not be able to retain counsel and object within 14 days, we recognize that a longer

period may not be practical given other deadlines in a litigation and the timing of when a party

learns of the need to subpoena a witness. Nevertheless, we suggest that the Advisory

Committee Notes emphasize that practitioners should attempt to give more than 14 days’

notice when possible.

The last proposed change to Rule 45(b) is that the party serving the subpoena will be

permitted to tender the fee and the mileage allowed by law either at the time of service or “at

the time and place the person is commanded to appear.” The FMJA appreciates the desire for

flexibility in the tendering of the fee and costs, but believes that the proposed amendment

does not take into account the needs of pro se and low-income individuals who may need the

modest fee and costs in order to travel to the place of the deposition. Individual Magistrate

Judges who often handle motions to compel compliance with subpoenas and pro se matters

are aware of situations when individuals could not afford travel. Accordingly, we suggest the

Advisory Panel consider requiring tendering of the fee and costs at least 3 business days before

the attendance is required unless the individual who is subpoenaed consents to tendering of

the fee and costs on the date of the appearance.

b. Rule 45(c)

The proposed change to Rule 45(c) specifies that for remote testimony, the place of

attendance is “the location where the person is commanded to appear in person.” This change

is proposed to extend the issuing court’s power to compel attendance, clarifying that the

court’s subpoena power is nationwide so long as the witness is not required to travel farther

than 100 miles. For purposes of Rule 43 and Rule 77(b), remote testimony is deemed to occur

in the court where the trial or hearing is conducted.

Subsequent to the 1991 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that

substantially modified the procedures for issuance of Rule 45 subpoenas, conflicts developed

regarding “the place of compliance” and the proper venue for resolving subpoena-related

disputes. The 2013 amendments consolidated the rules regarding “the place of compliance”

and made clear that a party seeking relief from a subpoena must file a motion in the court for

the district where compliance is required. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), (d)(1), (d)(3).

Recognizing that resolution of subpoena-related disputes by the issuing court may be

warranted, the 2013 amendments also added new subsection (f), which authorizes the court

where compliance is required to transfer a Rule 45 motion to the issuing court if either the

person subject to the subpoena consents or the court finds exceptional circumstances. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 45(f).

As explained in the 2013 Advisory Committee Notes:

To protect local nonparties, local resolution of disputes about subpoenas is assured by the

limitations of Rule 45(c) [requiring that the place of compliance be tethered to the

location of the subpoenaed nonparty] and the requirements in Rules 45(d) and (e) that

motions be made in the court in which compliance is required under Rule 45(c). . . .

. . . The prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to

subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a superior position to

resolve subpoena-related motions. In some circumstances, however, transfer may be

warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court's management of the underlying

litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion or the

same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts. Transfer is appropriate only if

such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with the subpoena in

obtaining local resolution of the motion.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f), Advisory Committee Notes (2013).

The FMJA endorses the Advisory Committee’s proposed amendment to Rule 45(c)(2) to

ensure the authority to issue a subpoena to compel remote court testimony when appropriate

under Rule 43(a) and agrees that the location where the person is commanded to appear,

rather than the issuing district, should be considered the “place of attendance.” That is, “place

of attendance” is the “place of compliance” under Rule 45(d)(3).

While the FMJA endorses the change, the Advisory Committee may wish to consider

additional amendments to Rule 45(d)(1) and (d)(3), which concern the place of enforcement of

subpoenas. The current Rule requires a party issuing a subpoena or the party objecting to a

subpoena to seek relief from the court for the district where compliance is required. While the

2013 amendments favored local resolution of subpoena disputes over the interests of the

issuing court, the issuing court’s interest in managing its docket and controlling the progress of

trial alters that balance when the subpoena at issue involves trial testimony and in cases where

the witness is providing remote testimony, diminishing the need for the court in the witness’s

place of residence, if different from the issuing court, to become involved. Additionally,

expansion of Rule 45(f)’s provision allowing an attorney authorized to practice in the district of

compliance to file papers and appear as an officer of the issuing court when seeking relief from

a subpoena would enable the issuing court to resolve trial subpoena disputes while continuing

to protect the non-party from the burden and expense of obtaining representation in a foreign

district. All this being said, to protect local non-party witnesses subpoenaed for trial, it may be

prudent to consider adding language to the rule or the advisory committee notes that

encourage issuing courts to make reasonable accommodations to non-party witnesses

(especially those who are pro se) who are not physically located within 100 miles of the issuing

court’s district, such as allowing the witness to assert objections during an on-the-record

telephonic or video conference or incorporate the language of Rule 45(f), which states that “An

attorney licensed to practice in the issuing district may appear as an officer of the issuing court

solely to object to a subpoena for remote trial testimony.

c. Corresponding Changes to Rule 26

The Advisory Committee recommends a proposed amendment to Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(i) to

clarify that each party’s pretrial disclosures must specify whether any of the witnesses the party

expects to present will provide testimony remotely. The FMJA supports this change because it

alerts the parties to the need for remote testimony at the outset of a case to allow for sufficient

planning and coordination. This will minimize issues that often come up about whether remote

testimony is permitted and is consistent with the intent of the Rules to encourage transparency

in discovery and minimization of costs.

The amendment also simplifies the task of serving the subpoena by removing the

requirement that the witness fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1821 be tendered at the time of service as a

prerequisite to effective service. Though tender at the time of service should be done

whenever practicable, the amendment permits tender to occur instead at the time and place

the subpoena commands the person to appear. The requirement to tender fees at the time of

service has in some cases further complicated the process of serving a subpoena, and this

alternative should simplify the task. However, as noted above, in the case of low-income

individuals, it may be better to require tender of fees no later than three days prior to the day

the person is required to appear to account for individuals who may need the fees and costs to

travel to the proceeding. The Rule could allow for tendering of fees and costs on the date of

attendance if the witness consents.

3. FRCP 41

The proposed changes to Rule 41 would add language clarifying that a plaintiff may

voluntarily dismiss “one or more of its claims” in a multi-claim case and clarify that, under Rule

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a stipulation of dismissal need be signed only by all parties who have appeared

and remain in the action.

While many courts have operated as if Rule 41 allowed for this, some courts concluded

that the Rule as written did not permit the filing of “partial dismissals” on the grounds that the

Rule suggested a case could not be so narrowed by the parties. Magistrate Judges often handle

cases on consent, including multi-party cases where this issue has arisen. The proposed

changes provide clarity and allow for proper streamlining of cases. The FMJA agrees with the

Advisory Committee that the amended Rule is more consistent with widespread practice and

the general policy of narrowing the issues during pretrial proceedings and therefore endorses

the change.

4. FRCP 81

The proposed change to Rule 81 clarifies when and whether a party to a removed action

must demand a jury trial. It proposes that a party who demanded a jury trial prior to removal

need not renew the demand after removal but that if no demand was made prior to removal, a

demand must be made within 14 days after filing a notice of removal or being served with a

notice of removal. This change eliminates confusion (and a trap for the unwary) that arose

under the current Rule, particularly in states where jury demands are made long after the filing

of an initial pleading. The Rule also clarifies that Rule 38, which governs demands for jury trials,

applies to removed cases.

Magistrate Judges are frequently asked to resolve motions concerning whether a party has

waived a right to a jury trial. The new Rule will eliminate motion practice on this issue and provide

clarity for parties, particularly in those states with rules that differ from the federal rule.

Accordingly, the FMJA endorses this rule change.

B. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

1. FRE 609

The proposed amendment to Rule 609(a)(1)(B), which currently allows for impeachment

of criminal defendant witnesses with convictions not involving dishonesty or false statement if

the probative value of the conviction in proving the witness’s character for truthfulness

outweighs the prejudicial effect. The amendment would make the Rule more exclusionary by

providing that the probative value of the conviction would have to “substantially” outweigh its

prejudicial effect. The proposed addition of “substantially” is likely to have the effect of courts

considering more carefully the admission of such evidence. The FMJA endorses this change

because it minimizes the potential for prejudice to criminal defendants and focuses the jury on

the conduct at issue in the trial rather than the individual’s past conduct.

2. FRE 707

The proposed new Rule pertains to evidence created by artificial intelligence (“AI”) or

“machine-generated evidence” designed to address reliability of computer-generated evidence

and to ensure that it is properly regulated for reliability and authenticity. It requires that AIgenerated evidence, if offered without an expert witness, must satisfy the requirements or Rule

702(a)-(d). That is, if machine output is the equivalent of expert testimony, it is not enough to be

self-authenticated under Rule 902(13); rather, there must be other assurances of reliability under

the preponderance of evidence standard applicable to expert testimony.

Magistrate Judges are frequently called upon to rule on FRE 702 applications and

understand the concern about AI-generated evidence.

However, the FMJA believes this

proposed Rule is premature, particularly when the Rules of Civil Procedure do not yet expressly

address AI and when there are other rules of evidence that exist to deal with AI-generated

exhibits, which in the near-term would be summaries, demonstratives or calculations or images—

all of which can be exchanged in discovery or pre-trial or in connection with an expert report and

explored through standard discovery methods. Additionally, insofar as AI, and generative AI in

particular, is fast evolving, the FMJA believes that it is more prudent to see how AI-generated

materials are introduced and see what problems actually arise before creating a rule that may be

unnecessary or become quickly outdated. In other words, the FMJA believes it is too early to

assess the full scope of issues with AI evidence and that a Daubert analysis may not be the best

way to assess such evidence. The FMJA supports consideration of amendments to the Rules of

Civil Procedure that would require disclosure of AI generated documents so that the opposing

party has an opportunity to explore the manner in which the documents were generated and

evaluate reliability concerns.

C. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

There is only one change proposed to the Criminal Rules. The recommended change is to

Rule 17 to allow subpoenas to third parties for information “relevant and material to the

preparation of the prosecution or defense” to address a lack of clarity about whether the

standard in United States v. Nixon applied and restricted defense subpoenas.

The FMJA enthusiastically endorsed this Rule change because it will provide much needed

clarity and lead to consistency across districts.

An official website of the United States Government.

Back to Document Comments (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001/comment)

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Comment from Anonymous

Posted by the United States Courts on Jan 26, 2026

Docket (/docket/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003)

/ Document (USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) / Comment

I did not see if there were particular prompts/questions that were directed to the public to answer. As such, I

am going to just comment on what I noticed while reviewing the information on Rule 17. It is commendable

and noted the thoroughness of the amendments to Rule 17. I want to call to question and suggest a few

things. Is there and should there be specification on what is meant in 17c2A by “when available”? Do you

mean to say when this is needed for the trial?

In addition, for 17(c)(2)(A), I do not know if this is stated, and maybe this should be clarified or stated so as

to not leave room for any loopholes or uncertainty in interpretation that may cause undue duress to those at

the receiving end of this section. Specifically, that the subpoena is not unnecessarily calling to witness or

information that would cause undue stress, as may be if a witness, for example, is subpoenaed multiple

times if more than 1 type of hearing is necessary, if the information is still the same, unless new information

has come to light. In which case, I wonder if it should be stated that only this new information should be

brought into the trial (by the witness or the data, etc.) and old information should not be said live in the

courtroom. Instead, maybe it should be included that this information that has already been given can be

recalled from the records taken by the court from the previous hearings.

In regards to 17(c)(2)(B)(iii), would the statement “or contain information that is, likely to be admissible

as evidence in the designated proceeding” leave room for a potential fishing expedition to be done by either

party? Could it be interpreted that information could be subpoenaed to possibly find something if there is a

slight chance that it could be admissible in court, even in actuality it may not be. From my perspective, it

seemed as though information or witnesses could be subpoenaed if it is likely that the information could be

admissible in court, but who dictates what could be admissible in court before the trial/hearing begins

(especially in cases where the admissibility of the information could not be known until the trial)? I

understand that there are/may be checks for this, but what about in the latter case? At this point, the

damage/perspective of the jurors has already been altered with this information, which could affect the

credibility of the other party’s case in the eyes of the jurors, even if the information is not true/no longer

admissible. Would there possibly be a need to change the “likely to be admissible” phrase to specify the

admissibility of the evidence that would be subpoenaed a bit more (as this could be left for interpretation

and potential fishing for information)?

Give Feedback

Comment

For 17(c)(2)(C), I think that a court order should apply, especially to determine the credibility of the

subpoena and not cause the person undue duress.

For 17(c)(2)(E), what would the court consider “good cause”? I wonder if maybe the answer to this should

be placed in here after “good cause.” I understand that there is a wide range for this, but maybe listing

categories that would fall under this would be simpler in order to better specify this.

For line 122, pg. 86 on the PDF version [17(c)(6)], to clarify, does this mean if only the item that is being

subpoenaed exists?

For line 128 [17(c)(6)], does promptly need to be specified/defined here?

For lines 334-344, I think there should be a distinction on what circumstances or when motions may not be

needed. If they do not fall under these categories that could be included in this section, then a motion is

needed. As stated that this occurs in some courts, I think it is good that a motion and a court order be

issued for every subpoena, as it creates further checks and balances, which adds fairness to the trial.

As mentioned previously for 17(c)(2)(E) but now in discussion for line 380-398, I think this section should

state what is included/meant for “good cause” by the court. This can be done by listing categories, for

example. In addition, if the defense has a good and solid strategy, would the other party knowing their

strategy cause an inability for their strategy/approach to work in their favor? Should there be more

constraints on how the ex parte subpoena option should be used by the defense? I think that specifications

should be made so that this should not be taken advantage of.

Comment ID

USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0009

Tracking Number

mkr-kq1t-cp8l

Comment Details

Submitter Info

Received Date

Give Feedback

Jan 23, 2026

About Bulk Data Download

(/about)

Agencies

Learn

Reports

FAQ

Commenting Guidance

(/bulkdownload) (/agencies) (/learn) (/dotreports) (/faq) (/commenting-guidance)

An official website of the United States Government.

Back to Document Comments (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001/comment)

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Comment from International Attestations, LLC

Posted by the United States Courts on Feb 10, 2026

Docket (/docket/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003)

/ Document (USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) (/document/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0001) / Comment

Comment

IAUS

The drafters of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, in part, propose rules that are touching upon how

procedure is impacted by new technology regarding notice of and place for giving remote testimony (Civil Rules

26 and 45) along with the admissibility of that which is machine-generated (Evidence Rule 707). Also, business

organizations will now be included as part of the provision addressing corporations (Civil Rule 7.1) as well as a

shift to individual claims rather than entire action dismissals (Civil Rule 41).

IAUSA proposes that the Judicial Conference further consider the rules in the international context something

they exemplified that they already "get" by enriching pathways for inclusion of American borne personages

whether individual, corporate agency, or other. They "get" business in the context of the Federalist Papers and

the International Court of Justice. They "get" claims-based (rather than entire case-based) dismissals with a

caution to understand them in the U.S. jurisprudence of the line-item veto. And they "get" technology's

Give Feedback

This comment generated by the Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski of International Attestations, LLC(R)(IAUSA) is

developed at the prompting of the periodic and regular review of the rules through a rule making process that is

generated by the U.S. Courts as presented by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee (JCAC). For the

2026 Comment Period, the Committee presented its proposed procedural rule-changes for the U.S. bodies of

law pertaining to Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, Criminal and Evidence (Collectively, The Rules. Separately

Appellate Rules, Bankruptcy Rules, Civil Rules, Criminal Rules, and Evidence Rules). Ms. Kotulski has

submitted testimony for the Civil Rules, and she is focusing her comments on three topics that also includes a

review of one of the proposed changes to Evidence.

The drafters of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, in part, propose rules that are touching upon how

procedure is impacted by new technology regarding notice of and place for g giving remote testimony (Civil

Rules 26 and 45) along with the admissibility of that which is machine-generated (Evidence Rule 707). Also,

business organizations will now be included as part of the provision addressing corporations (Civil Rule 7.1) as

well as a shift to individual claims rather than entire action dismissals (Civil Rule 41).

influence on the Courts--and may well wait some more time to make rules when their rules are not quite ripe for

publication yet. (Comment Attached from the Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski of International Attestations, LLC)

Attachments

2026.2.9 Rules for Judicial Conference Changes

Download (https://downloads.regulations.gov/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0010/attachment_1.pdf)

Comment ID

USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003-0010

Tracking Number

mlg-45sg-19ia

Comment Details

Submitter Info

Received Date

About Bulk Data Download

(/about)

Agencies

Learn

Reports

FAQ

Give Feedback

Feb 9, 2026

Commenting Guidance

(/bulkdownload) (/agencies) (/learn) (/dotreports) (/faq) (/commenting-guidance)

Privacy & Security Notice (/privacy-notice) | User Notice (/user-notice) |

Accessibility Statement (/accessibility) | API Requests (https://open.gsa.gov/api/regulationsgov/) |

FOIA (https://www.gsa.gov/reference/freedom-of-information-act-foia)

Support (/support)

INTERNATIONAL ATTESTATIONS, LLC® (IA) (USA)

Judicial Conference of the United States of America

GETTING INTERNATIONAL MATTERS IN U.S. RULE CHANGES:

CLAIMS, BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS & TECHNOLOGY

Comments for Proposed Rule Changes 2025-2026

Prepared by:

IA Phone:

IA Email:

IA Website:

Date Submitted:

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski

(860) 394-0645

melissa@internationalattestations.com

https://internationalattestations.com

Monday, February 9, 2026, 11:59 p.m. PST

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

U.S. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMENTS (2026)

FROM INTERNATIONAL ATTESTATIONS, LLC ®

GETTING INTERNATIONAL MATTERS IN U.S. RULE CHANGES:

BUSINESSES, CLAIMS, & TECHNOLOGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................... I

FOR PUBLICATION AT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

REGULATIONS.GOV ............................................................................ IV

ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. V

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ............................................................... VI

ORGANIZATIONAL STATEMENT: INTERNATIONAL

ATTESTATIONS, LLC ® ................................................................... VIII

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................... X

WRITTEN COMMENTS

I. INTRODUCTION: INTERNATIONAL ATTESTATIONS

ENCOUNTERS THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE RULE

CHANGES FOR 2026 .................................................................... - 1 -

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

II. PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGEMENTS BY INTERNATIONAL

ATTESTATIONS ............................................................................ - 6 A.) GETTING BUSINESS: COMMENDATIONS & CAUTIONS FOR BETTER

PERFECTING LEGAL TERMS OF ART THROUGH THE USE OF “BUSINESS

ORGANIZATIONS” (CIVIL RULE 7.1) ................................................. - 7 B.) GETTING CLAIMS: THE LINE-ITEM VETO MAY BE GOOD LAW TO LOOK

TO IN CLAIMS VERSUS ACTIONS BASED IN CIVIL RULE 41 ............. - 12 C.) GETTING TECHNOLOGY: WHETHER AND HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR NEW

TECHNOLOGY (CIVIL RULE 26 & 45; EVIDENCE 707) .................... - 13 III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ - 15

DOCUMENTS

DOCUMENTS LIST ................................................................................. 1

DOCUMENT 1. INTERNATIONAL ATTESTATIONS & HONOR

USE LICENSING ..................................................................................... 3

DOCUMENT 2. TESTIMONY (CIVIL RULES 7.1, 26, 41, 45;

EVIDENCE 707) OUTLINE, NOTES ON IA TESTIMONY, NOTES

ON OTHER TESTIMONIES .................................................................. 5

DOCUMENT 2.1 ORIGINAL OUTLINE .......................................................... 6

DOCUMENT 2.2 JANUARY 27, 2026: CIVIL RULES 7.1, 26, 41, & 45 .......... 7

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

DOCUMENT 3. RELEVANT IAUSA ARTICLES (MOST RECENT

FIRST) BY THE HON. MELISSA A. KOTULSKI ............................ 11

DOCUMENT 3.1 UNSC ’26: NATURALLY CASTING LATVIA’S WOODEN

BREADBASKET & AID KIT (JANUARY 12, 2026) ....................................... 12

DOCUMENT 3.2 INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS & LAW ENFORCEMENT

BUREAU & ICJ 2022 REDUX (NOVEMBER 14, 2025)................................ 17

DOCUMENT 3.3 OUTSIDE TESTIMONY SUBMISSION DATES ARE HERE!

(MAY 5, 2025) ......................................................................................... 23

DOCUMENT 3.4 ANALYSIS OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL’S CLASS OF

2024 (JANUARY 30, 2024) ....................................................................... 26

DOCUMENT 3.5 U.S. SUPREME COURT: WITHER THE CYBER? (JULY 25,

2023) ....................................................................................................... 34

DOCUMENT 3.6 UNITED NATIONS & GLOBAL COUNTER-TERRORISM

STRATEGY (JUNE 13, 2023) ..................................................................... 37

DOCUMENT 3.7 OBLIGATIONS IN ADVISORY OPINIONS AT THE ICJ (APRIL

25, 2023) & CONSEQUENCES IN ICJ ADVISORY OPINIONS: QUESTIONS &

HOLDINGS (MAY 16, 2023) ...................................................................... 43

DOCUMENT 3.9 NATIONALITY & HOOPS AT COURT (MAY 17, 2022) ........ 65

DOCUMENT 4. NOTES TO SUPPORT COMMENTS (INTERNAL

DOCUMENT) .......................................................................................... 67

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

iii

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

FOR PUBLICATION AT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

REGULATIONS.GOV

1.) Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure (Posted August 13, 2025, Due February 16, 2026)

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USC-RULES-AP-20250001/document.

2.) Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules

of Bankruptcy Procedure (Posted August 13, 2025, Due February

16, 2026) https://www.regulations.gov/document/USC-RULES-BK2025-0002-0001.

3.) Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(Posted August 13, 2025, Due February 16, 2026)

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USC-RULES-CV-2025-0004.

4.) Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure (Posted August 13, 2025, Due February 16, 2026)

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USC-RULES-CR-2025-0003.

5.) Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure (Posted August 13, 2025, Due February 16,

2026). https://www.regulations.gov/document/USC-RULES-EV2025-0034-0001.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

ABBREVIATIONS

Appellate Rules

Bankruptcy Rules

Civil Committee

Civil Rules

CERD

CAS

Criminal Rules

Evidence Rules

IAUSA

ICJ

ILC

JCAC

The Rules

The Rules of Appellate Procedure

The Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure

The Rules Committee dedicated to the Rules of

Civil Procedure at the Judicial Conference of the

United States of America

The Rules of Civil Procedure

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Racial Discrimination

Court of Arbitration for Sports

The Rules of Criminal Procedure

The Rules of Evidence

International Attestations, LLC

International Court of Justice

International Law Commission

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee

The body of rules for appellate, bankruptcy, civil,

criminal, and evidence procedures.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

This comment generated by the Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski of

International Attestations, LLC© (IAUSA) is developed at the

prompting of the periodic and regular review of the rules through a

rulemaking process that is generated by the U.S. Courts as presented

by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee (JCAC). For the 2026

Comment Period, the Committee presented its proposed procedural

rule-changes for the U.S. bodies of law pertaining to Appellate,

Bankruptcy, Civil, Criminal, and Evidence (Collectively, The Rules.

Separately Appellate Rules, Bankruptcy Rules, Civil Rules, and

Criminal Rules, and Evidence Rules). Ms. Kotulski has submitted

testimony for the Civil Rules, and she is focusing her comments on

three topics that also includes a review of one of the proposed changes

to Evidence.1

1 For the record, the other proposed rule changes are worthy of comment as well: 1. Appellate Rule

15 (Review or Enforcement of an Agency Order—How Obtained; Intervention) addressing incurably

premature petitions or applications; 2. Bankruptcy Rule 2002 (Notices) in the context of captions

referring to Form 416B requirements for a caption and Bankruptcy Forms 101 (Voluntary Petition

for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy) showing which Employer Identification Number is required

and 106C (The Property You Claim as Exempt) determining exempted assets; 3. Civil Rule 81

(Applicability of the Rules in General; Removed Actions) pertaining to jury demand after removal; 4.

Criminal Rule 17 (Subpoena) regarding relevance and materiality in subpoenas to third parties of

applicability, codification of a Nixon standard, motion and order timing, ex parte proceedings, place

of production, preservation of disclosure policies, and clarification of provisions for different

proceedings; 5. Evidence Rule 609 (Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction) regulating

the probative value and prejudicial effect of convictions in a "protective" balancing test. These Rules

can be instructive for analysis of the other rules. For example, IA’s argument that New Evidence

Rule 707 be tabled or nixed entirely may be emboldened by comparison to approaches to Criminal

Rule 17—which had gone through a potential erasure from that body of rules.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

The drafters of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, in part,

propose rules that are touching upon how procedure is impacted by new

technology regarding notice of and place for giving remote testimony

(Civil Rules 26 and 45) along with the admissibility of that which is

machine-generated (Evidence Rule 707). Also, business organizations

will now be included as part of the provision addressing corporations

(Civil Rule 7.1) as well as a shift to individual claims rather than entire

action dismissals (Civil Rule 41).

IAUSA proposes that the Judicial Conference further consider the rules

in the international context something they exemplified that they

already "get" by enriching pathways for inclusion of American borne

personages whether individual, corporate agency, or other. They "get"

business in the context of the Federalist Papers and the International

Court of Justice. They "get" claims-based (rather than entire casebased) dismissals with a caution to understand them in the U.S.

jurisprudence of the line-item veto. And they "get" technology's

influence on the Courts--and may well wait some more time to make

rules when their rules are not quite ripe for publication yet.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

vii

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

ORGANIZATIONAL STATEMENT: INTERNATIONAL

ATTESTATIONS, LLC ®

International Attestations, LLC® is a small, woman-owned

organization borne from Hartford/Wethersfield, Connecticut (USA) that

is focused on international affairs, international law, and constitutional

law. The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski, the Founder, Owner, &

President of the organization, brings over forty years of experience in

these fields—inclusive of rule-making procedures at the local, state,

federal, and international levels. In fact, her experience with the

centered diplomatic community at the U.S. State Department was

buttressed by a direction of her gaze to Regulations.gov whilst further

applying Administrative Law (Professors Andy Grewal & John Reitz)

after developing expertise in that work in the Nation’s capitol and other

situses. This led to her advocacy of the platform to the U.S. Supreme

Court during the rule changing efforts of 2022, which she sent via U.S.

Post because electronic filings were unavailable and which led to the

Clerk to send her a laudatory note on the matter.

The milestones of the three-year-old organization to-date have been

wide-ranging at each level—

Serving as a presiding judge by applying International Court of

Justice (ICJ) jurisprudence for the betterment of the next

generation of the international law community.

Ensuring that national judiciaries were compliant with treaty

standards set out by international bodies like G.R.E.C.O. with

the U.S. State Department,

Engaging with ICJ and International Law Commission (ILC)

activities in a formal setting at the General Assembly of the

United Nations.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

viii

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Conducting a series of blogposts dedicated in relevant part to

the study of Federal Courts and Affairs, including an

understanding of the rules-based processes in the U.S. and

beyond its borders.

Analyzing intensively the hot zones of Israel and

Russia/Ukraine, amongst other places around the globe that

involve U.S. military and government as well as UN

engagement—even attending the emergency session for Israel

in late 2023 at the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Immersing herself in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence from

an early age, inclusive of studies through George Washington

University, George Mason University, and the U.S. Supreme

Court Historical Society.

Throughout all of this time, Judge Kotulski has continued to deepen her

understanding of rules-making engagement in the context of

international law arenas with her profound understanding of the

procedures in part arising out of the legacy of the American Bar

Association’s Rule of Law communities (currently overseen by former

Justice Stephen Breyer). International Attestations, LLC has several

other forthcoming projects, including supporting the Honorable

Kotulski in her efforts to serve as an advocate at international courts

with an aspiration to continue to serve as a judge and an arbitrator.

Some say she may even be amongst the candidates for the next ICJ

judge for the United States of America.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

U.S. Constitution (not in exclusio)

Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (commerce)

Art. II, §2 (Treaties)

Art. III, §2 (cases and controversies)

Rules

Fed. R. of Appellate Procedure (2025).

Rule 15. Review of Enforcement of an Agency Order—How

Obtained; Intervention.

Fed. R. of Bankruptcy Procedure (2025).

Rule 2002. Notices.

Official form 101. Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for

Bankruptcy.

Official form 106C. Schedule C. The Property You Claim as

Exempt.

Fed. R. of Civ. Procedure (2025).

Rule 7.1. Disclosure Statement.

Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing

Discovery.

Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions.

Rule 45(b). Subpoena (Service)

Rule 45(c). Subpoena (Place of Compliance)

Rule 81. Applicability of the Rules in General; Removal Actions.

Fed. R. of Criminal Procedure (2025).

Rule 17. Subpoena.

Fed. R. of Evidence (2025).

Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction.

Rule 707. Machine-Generated Evidence.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

International Court of Justice Selected Jurisprudence

1. Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic

Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. United States of America).

2. Applicability of Art. VI, Section 22 of the Convention on the

Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Advisory

Opinion of 15 December 1989.

3. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of

All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian

Federation), Order of 15 October 2008.

4. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of

All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. UAE), Judgement of

February 4, 2021.

5. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of

the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on

the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v.

Russian Federation), Judgment of 8 November 2019 (Preliminary

Objections).

6. Application of the International Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia Herzegovina v.

Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007.

7. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment

of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment of 3

February 2015.

8. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic

Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005.

9. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic

Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, Judgment of 9 February 2022.

10.

Certain Iranian Assets, Judgment of March 30, 2023;

11.

Certain Iranian Assets, Judgement of March 30, 2024,

Separate Opinion of Judge ad Hoc Barkett (USA).

12.

Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), Judgment of 17 July 2019.

13.

Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory

Opinion of July 23, 2025.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

International Court of Justice Jurisprudence (continued)

14.

Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Written

Statement of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting

Countries (OPEC), March 19, 2024.

15.

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay),

Judgment of 20 April 2010.

16.

Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion of 28 May

1951.

17.

Whaling in the Antarctic, Judgment of 31 March 2014.

International Law Commission Rapporteur Regimes

(Chronological)

Representation of States in their Relations with International

Organizations of a Universal Character (1959-1971: Abdullah El-Erian

of Egypt).

Treaties concluded between States and international organizations or

between two or more international organizations (1970-1982: Paul

Reuter, France).

Status, privileges and immunities of international organizations, their

officials, experts, etc. (1976-1992: Leonardo Días-González of

Venezuela; Abdullah El-Erian of Egypt).

Responsibility of international organizations (2002-2011: Giorgio Gaja,

Italy).

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

xii

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, Oral Argument Transcript,

Kagan Question (2025).

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, Slip Op. 24-568 (2026)

(Jackson, J., dissenting).

Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) (Stevens, J.) (overruled by the

Line-Item Veto Act).

Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, (1997) (Rehnquist, CJ).

Other Sources

Federal rules of the English-Language nations listed in Constitutions

Section (skimmed).

Testimonies of those on Civil Procedure (January 27, 2026).

Federalist Papers Numbers 9, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 29, 36, 42, 45, 47,

59, 69, 81.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

xiii

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

WRITTEN

COMMENTS

INTRODUCTION: INTERNATIONAL ATTESTATIONS

ENCOUNTERS THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE RULE

CHANGES FOR 2026

The Judicial Conference of the U.S. (2025-2026) has accomplished some

great milestones with the current set of proposed rule changes. First

and foremost, they showed that shifts in court proceedings can and will

be modulated, that the concept of finality does not apply, and that

experience with the rules can come in many forms.

Published for comment on August 15, 2025, all five (5) categories of the

Rules have at least one change this year: Appellate (1), Bankruptcy (3),

Civil (4), Criminal (1), and Evidence (2). The Appellate Rule change in

Rule 15 (Review or Enforcement of an Agency Order—How Obtained;

Intervention) provides avenues for improving on the trap of “incurably

premature” by adding a new part (d) before intervention and fees (new

[e] and [f]) that mandates party filing of a new or amended petition for

review when challenging the disposition of a petition for rehearing,

reopening, or reconsideration. The next change to the Rules is the

Bankruptcy Rule 2002 (Notices) and the Forms 101 (Voluntary Petition

for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy) and 106C (Schedule C: The

Property You Claim as Exempt). The first change to the Bankruptcy

Rules provides for a change in the caption expected on filings as

prescribed by Rule 1005 as arising in Form 416B. The form-based

changes clarification for elicitation of Employer Identification Number

(EIN) for business filers and not the business hiring the individual filer

(Form 101) and clarification for “assets exempted” (Form 106C).

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Like the Appellate and Bankruptcy rule changings, no oral proceeding

arose for the Civil Rule 81(c) concerning whether and when to consider

a jury demand (if at all) after removal from the state courts to federal

courts, in particular, should be in by the Rule 38 deadline. From the

testimonies attended by Judge Kotulski,2 the participants had a robust

consideration of Rules 7.1, 41 and 45 concerning business organizations

and remote testimonies, while Rule 26 on claims based as opposed to

actions-based dismissals were merely touched upon. The Committees

for Evidence and Criminal Rules also gave the public the opportunity to

be heard in oral testimonies. The Criminal Rule proceedings centered

on Rule 17 subpoena authority with an analysis of the materiality

standard, application to proceedings other than trial, codification of a

standard of likely admissible, requisites for motions and orders, and

issues pertaining to ex parte, production, disclosures, and clarification of

proceedings. There were two proposed Evidence Rules, including one

considered herein about machine-generated evidence admissibility in

Rule 707 as well as Rule 609 concerning when and how to question the

validity of criminal defendants. Some themes relevant in the rules are

1. reliance on reference to other rules as the manner for which to

incorporate the change (Appellate 15, Bankruptcy 2002, Civil 81, Civil

41, Civil 45, Civil 26), 2. Responses to technological impacts of

procedure (Civil 26, 45, Evidence 707), and 3. Subpoena mechanisms

(Civil 45, Criminal 17).

The committees for each are comprised of legal professionals from

government agencies and courts, law firms of varying sizes from sole

practitioner to large practices, private corporations, think tanks, and

non-profit organizations. The testimonies, on the whole, came from

individuals that have a range experience in the U.S. Courts, but almost

all had some experience with those systems.

2 This may change to all testimonies if transcripts are published before comment is made.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

-2-

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

By the time testimony was provided for Civil, Criminal (2), and

Evidence (20), Civil comments were the most prolific at 150.3 Evidence

had two days of testimony on January 15 and 29, 2026, Criminal and

Civil had one day each on January 22 and 27, respectively.4 Judge

Kotulski sought and was permitted to give testimony with International

Encouragements, the outline for which she transmitted on January 13,

2026.5 Her Civil Rules testimony reflected the comments herein

concerning the judicial conference in their getting claims with a caution

about line-item vetoes, getting technology with cyber marshals and

deputies, and getting business organizations. The preponderance of

Judge Kotulski’s testimony, entitled International Encouragements,

centered on the shift to “business organizations” from “corporations” in

Rule 7.1 by contextualizing them with three principal judgments and

corresponding opinions and comments at the International Court of

Justice (ICJ)6 and her ongoing cautions concerning the International

Law Commission (ILC) without an American7 on that body. She lauded

the Committee for seeing the importance of making that lexicographical

shift and for being amongst the U.S. institutions that are showing

compliance with the Certain Assets opinion.

3 Appellate 2 and Bankruptcy 5.

4 The others, Appellate and Bankruptcy, were canceled due to a pending government shutdown.

5 Judge Kotulski had originally sought to give testimony on all five bodies of rules, then there was a

proposed government shut down so she parsed it down to two—for which she provided outlines. In

the end, she gave testimony at the Civil proceedings and canceled her Evidence testimony on

January 29, 2026.

6 Certain Iranian Assets, Judgment of March 30, 2023; Certain Iranian Assets, Judgement of March

30, 2024, Separate Opinion of Judge ad Hoc Barkett (USA); Application of the International

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. UAE), Judgement of

February 4, 2021; Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of July 23,

2025; Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Written Statement of the Organization of

the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), March 19, 2024.

7 Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and Nicaragua are the nations from the current nations from the

Americas. The U.S. has not had a member on the body, as stated in Judge Kotulski’s testimony,

“almost unprecedented” since the only other time of the International Law Commission’s history was

from 2007-2011. The other four permanent members France had one gap in 2017-2020, Russia had

theirs from 1987-1991 & 2012-2014

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

-3-

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

During those proceedings, Judge Kotulski was influenced by a number

of the testimonials,8 even commenting during hers on the astuteness of

Tobi Millrood’s excellent description of the distinguishability between

procedural and substantive location of remote witnesses and the judges

who hear the cases,9 and taking the opportunity to show Exxon Mobil

through Mr. Levy some of her observations about the well-rounded

written statement at the ICJ by the Organization for Petroleum

Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the context of the Climate Change

Opinion.10

Four of the five rules were considered during the Civil Rules testimony.

The Rule 7.1 comments centered on instructions for judge recusal

(Levy), informal and formal conduct of business (Levy), third party

litigation (Allman), conflicts of interest (Allman, Levy, Redgrave),

direct/indirect clarification (Allman, Levy, Redgrave), and publiclytraded issues (Redgrave). Rule 41 was considered for its context with

multiparty civil rights cases (Hendler) and statute of limitations

(Hendler). Finally, the themes of Rule 45 centered on the benefits of

live testimony, even when remote (Barnes, Dahl, Damour, Levy,

Millrood). There need to be “safeguards to ensure the integrity of trial”

(Millrood), a Rules Enabling Act issue (Levy), and Subpoena and

Process Service Power Issues (Levy, Varlack).

8 Judge Kotulski attended the testimonies of Thomas Allen (retired General Counsel of BASF) and

Jonathan Redgrave (Redgrave LLP) discussed Rule 7.1 and 45, Scott Hendler (Hendler Flores Law)

and Tobi Millrood (Kline & Specter) considered Rules 41, with the latter also looking into Rule 45

along with Lauren Barnes (Public Justice), Xiomara Damour (Mayer Brown), Alex Dahl (Lawyers for

Civil Justice), Robert Levy (Exxon Mobil), Tiega Varlack (Varlack Legal Services) and Rachel

Downey (Hagens Berman). Due to other obligations that day, Judge Kotulski was unable to attend

Navan Ward of Beasley Allen, Steven Fleischman of Horvitz & Levy, Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt,

Matthew Moeller of the Moeller Firm, Mary Novacheck of Nelson Mullins, John Southerland of Huie,

Fernambucq & Stewart (she heard the end of his testimony), and Rachel Downey (she heard the

beginning of her testimony).

9 Attorney Millrood noted that procedurally witnesses are likely considered in their place of

testimony, while substantively the testimony takes place in the place of the judge. He was giving

testimony for the American Association for Justice.

Judge Kotulski offered to receive questions through February 10, 2026, at which time she planned to upload her

comments.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

-4-

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

From the Committee,11 chaired by Judge Sarah Vance, many of the

questions came from Andrew Bradt, Judge Lauck Rick Marcus, Judge

Vance, and David Wright. Some of Mr. Bradt’s questions centered on

formal and informal business conduct (Levy), the problematics of Rule

43 (Levy), and dismissing a party from litigation without dismissing

claims against the party (Hendler). Mr. Marcus was concerned with

matters like the cost of Rule 43 compliance (Levy), ambiguity of party

dismissal in Rule 41 (Levy), place of testimony (Millrood), prior order

requirement (Allman), and the implications of the Kirkland decision in

rule 45 proceedings (Redgrave). Judge Lauck was posed questions

about remote live testimony qualitative differences (Redgrave), and

Judge Vance touched upon questions of ambiguity (Redgrave),

acquisition of subpoenas without approval (Millrood), and codes of

conduct (Levy).12

11 The Chairs influencing these Rules were the Honorable Robin Lee Rosenberg (U.S. District Court,

Southern District of Florida) and the Honorable Sarah S. Vance (U.S. District Court, E.D.

Louisiana). The 2025-2026 Reporter and Associate Reporter were Richard L. Marcus (University of

California, College of Law, San Francisco, California) and Andrew Bradt (UCAL Berkeley, Berkeley,

California), and the members were Honorable Cathy Bissoon (U.S. District Court, Pittsburg, PA,

W.D. of Pa.), Honorable Jane Bland (Supreme Court of Texas, Austin, Texas), David J. Burman, Esq.

(Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle WA), Honorable Annie Christoff (U.S. District Court, W.D. Tenn.),

Professor Zackary Clopton (Northwestern U., Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, IL), Honorable David

C. Godbey, U.S. District Court, N.D. TX), W. Mark Lanier, Esq. (The Lanier Law Firm, Houston,

TX), Jocelyn D. Larkin, Esq. (Impact Fund, Berkeley, California), Honorable M. Hannah Lauck (U.S.

Dist., E.D. Virg.), Honorable R. David Proctor (U.S. Dist., N.D. of Alab.), Honorable A. Marvin

Quattlebaum, Jr. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit), Honorable Manish S. Shah (U.S.

Dist., N.D. Il), Brett A. Shumate, Esq., AAG (ex officio) (U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,

D.C.), David C. Wright, III (Robinson, Bradshaw, Hinson, P.A., Charlotte, NC). Joseph M. Sellers,

Esq. (Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll) was no longer on the committee. Liaisons to the Committee

were the Honorable D. Brooks Smith (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) and Honorable

Catherine P. McEwen (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Fla.), and the consultant and clerk of court

representative were, respectively, Professor Edward H. Cooper (Michigan Law, Ann Arbor, MI) and

Thomas G. Bruton (U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. N.D.).

12 Mr. Wright asked questions as well, the substance for which are not clear in Judge Kotulski’s

notes.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

-5-

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

It is in this context that Judge Kotulski and International Attestations

is getting principal encouragements to the Rules Committees for Civil

and Evidence. First, there are considerations of what—if any—

applicability the jurisprudence of line-item vetoes may have on

finalizing the development of the Claims- versus Actions-based

dismissals (Civil Rule 41). Next, the comments delve into

commendations and cautions for perfecting legal terms of arts like

Business Organizations (Civil Rule 7.1). The final thing to get to is

technology, whether and how to account for new technology in remote

testimonies (Civil Rule 26 and 45) as well as machine-based evidence

(Evidence Rule 707).

II.

PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGEMENTS BY INTERNATIONAL

ATTESTATIONS

The principal comments by International Attestations centers on

encouraging the Judicial Conference for getting claims, getting business

organizations, and getting technology by reviewing and revising certain

civil and evidence rules.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

-6-

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

A.)Getting Business: Commendations & Cautions for Better

Perfecting Legal Terms of Art through the Use of “Business

Organizations” (Civil Rule 7.1)

Organizational and corporate discourse buttresses the analyses of the

Constitution. The Government is considered in the context of its

organization, Federalist 23, and the Union of the nation has an

organization that is intimate and wiser than the ancient Greeks.

Federalist 18. Indeed, all branches of government and the many States

have a prance with the organization in the words of the Federalist

drafters pursuant to the conception of “the organization of the national

government” Federalist 59 (Concerning the Power of Congress to

Regulate the Election of Members). The Founders speak of the “distinct

and independent organization of the Supreme Court” Federalist 81 (The

Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority) as

well as its “organization of the judicial power” corresponding in the

States. Federalist 45 (The Alleged Danger from the Powers of the

Union to the State Governments Considered). In one instance, the mass

of the judiciary was even compared to taxation powers! Federalist 36.

“Corporate bodies” are described in the Real Character of the Executive.

Federalist 69. The military’s organization (and discipline) is considered

in the context of its beneficial effects on the science of war. Federalist

29. And, of course, Congress is considered an organization as well.

Federalist 22.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

-7-

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

“The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential

parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to

the operation or organization of the former.” Federalist 45 (The Alleged

Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments

Considered). Organization in Number 47 as well, but Number 42 says

that heads of the substates are a distinct class. State and governments

in their corporate in opposition to their collective capacities. Federalist

15. State’s interior organizations with heightened military laws shows

a “vice of the constitution” and the “deformities of a political monster”

when ill-organized. Federalist 19. The “assemblage of societies” in a

confederate republic must protect the separate organization of the

members—lest abolition arise! Federalist 9. And even at the microsub-state level…Officers of corporations are listed as amongst officers of

counties and towns. Number 45.

This is not exclusive to the United States of America. There even

appears to be a warning to other nations forming constitutions—the

U.S. having the eldest in all the lands of the world and standing as the

inspiration for scores of all other nations. Federal constitutions—even

risk over-organization—as it should be easy to give them liberty.

Federalist 17. And there is a lesson when giving them…Mr.

Hamilton…death, perhaps? Heck, he wasn't the only one writing on

corporations and organizations. Madison had 8 to his 14 mentions.

Concerning Business Organizations in Rule 7.1, International

Attestations presents commendations and cautions to the Civil Rules

Committee. First, the progression of Rule 7.1 indicates compliance with

international law, mores and standards concerning corporates qua

“business organizations.”

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

-8-

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Many International Court of Justice cases have considered

organizational and corporate measures. At testimony, Judge Kotulski

discussed two contentious—Certain Assets (Iran v. USA) and Racial

Discrimination (Qatar v. UAE)—and one advisory opinion—Climate

Change Obligations. 13 There are indeed several others to consider in

the context of the distinguishability and overlapping definitions of the

two terms of art in the international realm.14 But there’s many other

cases. Of the 46 cases considering corporations in some fashion,

corporate comes through in a variety of ways. “Corporation” is used

when “incorporating” treaties and national or subnational bodies, and

even when considering what’s happening “behind the corporate veil.”

Whereas organization clearly denotes beyond government. Making sure

to understand that corporations may well be important to keep in the

mix as of now international organizations in the international legal

regime are intergovernmental organizations as opposed to private

organizations.

The U.S. did not fare well in the minds of the international legal

community in Certain Iranian Assets. Our nation was found to fail to

meet obligations in a treaty of amity with Iran, and we have been

ordered to compensate Iran through an agreement. And any questions

of such compensation might be brought back to the Court. Of the four

former Presidents of the Court giving separate opinions, Judge Tomka

(Serbia)—the longest currently serving member—made note that Iran

does not explain why corporate form should be inviolable or

unpierceable. Judge Barkett (USA) responded to one of the seeming

violations of the nation by stating that “Corporate status should be

recognized [to] assure [the] right [of] foreign corporate entities…[to] free

access [to] courts [to] collect debts, protect patent rights, enforce

contracts, etc.”

13 Certain Iranian Assets, Judgment of March 30, 2023; Certain Iranian Assets, Judgement of March

30, 2024, Separate Opinion of Judge ad Hoc Barkett (USA); Application of the International

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. UAE), Judgement of

February 4, 2021; Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of July 23,

2025; Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Written Statement of the Organization of

the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), March 19, 2024.

Of the 46 cases considering coropr,

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

-9-

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Qatar v. United Arab Emirates did not get to the merits, in part,

because of the media corporations indicating that they were not being

racially discriminant against Qataris in the UAE. Although they have

proceeded to race on the merits in other cases, the ICJ did not consider

that the UAE was culpable. Our nations Courts and Corporations may

well have been lured to let the United States of America Government of

2016-2023. Some of those corporations are now backing the current

presidential regime, which may not bode well for the Jerusalem case.

That said, the Nobel Prize for Peace may well go to a Democratic leader

if they can sway corporations to protect him even though the

Republican discord may well have been associated with the loss at the

ICJ for the U.S.A. That written, International Attestations strongly

believes that Judge Kotulski—with her particular set of professional

and personal experiences and expertise—would have helped the U.S.

win the case, and hopes she can get to prove that with future endeavors.

These two contentious cases have led up to Climate Change Opinion, in

which nearly 100 nations of the United Nations and several

international organizations participated. The opinion of the Court

considered the environmental concern in the context of obligations and

consequences of States, even providing a pathway for some business

entity participation in the discourse. Obligations were formed under

the treaty, protocol and agreement frameworks, international law,

environmental treaties, law of the sea and sea level, and human rights

law. Consequences concerning climate change context (attribution,

causation, underlying obligations) and wrongful acts (performance,

cessation and guarantees of non-repetition, reparation), and reparation

duties (restitution, compensation, and satisfaction). So it’s not

surprising that so many nations wished to participate in the discourse.15

Most notably, the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries

(OPEC) showed a good-faith concern not just about corporate

responsibility but a duty to humanity.

Another example of an opinion with extensive involvement of the United Nations community members arose

during the Unilateral Declaration of Independence for Kosovo. Perhaps indicating a precursor for Ukraine, though

they may have preempted it by filing both in the International Criminal Court (ICC) and ICJ at the commencement

of hostilities in 2022.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

- 10 -

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

“Organizations” has almost from the start been a pressing topic at the

International Law Commission (ILC), which is responsible for the

development and codification of international law. Right now, the

“international organization” topics of note concern the Settlement of

international disputes to which international organizations are parties,

which has August Reinisch (Austria) as the special rapporteur

responsible for managing the continued research progress of the matter

in the ILC.16 Since Giorgio Gaja’s “Responsibility of International

Organizations,” responsibility has been the international topic du jour.

And it seems that with Certain Iranian Assets, that topic is heading

towards States.

This development of “organizations” at the international level, that may

be instructive through analogy, arose under the direction of Paul Reuter

with “Treaties concluded between States and international

organizations or between two or more international organizations.” This

treaty is so narrow that perhaps it barely has consequence or affect. It

comes through in part with its non-retroactivity provision. This may be

instructive for “business organizations.” And while we do not have a

member at the ILC, we now have a relatively new Judge on the ICJ. So

we need to be on our best behavior…

16 Treaties concluded between States and international organizations or between two or more

international organizations (1970-1982: Paul Reuter, France). Others have been (Chronologically):

Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal

Character (1959-1971: Abdullah El-Erian of Egypt); Status privileges and immunities of

international organizations, their officials, experts, etc. (1976-1992: Leonardo Días-González of

Venezuela; Abdullah El-Erian of Egypt); Responsibility of international organizations (2002-2011:

Giorgio Gaja, Italy). Of late, the last is oft-quoted, particularly since the special rapporteur became a

member of the ICJ from 2012-2021.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

- 11 -

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

B.)Getting Claims: The Line-Item Veto May Be Good Law to Look to

in Claims Versus Actions Based in Civil Rule 41

In the ICJ context, what we would have once called “line-item vetoes”

arise with each individual claim being decided upon. This makes for a

clear pathway to getting to the merits most of the time when cases are

brought to the ICJ.

The jurisprudence dedicated to the line-item veto may well encourage

the Judicial Conference of the U.S. as well as Congress to provide for

better-improved claims-based methods for proceeding with cases in the

U.S. Courts systems given proposed changes to Civil Rule 41.

Although initially dismissed for lack of standing reasons in a U.S.

substate consideration of the line-item veto, whereby members of

Congresses did not have sufficient personal stake for concrete injury to

arise to Article III standing, Chief Justice Rehnquist discusses the

concept in dicta in the context of all other types of vetoes such as

Tenure of Office Act, one-House, pocket, and others done by Presidents

Wilson, Grant, Cleveland, Coolidge, and others. Raines v. Byrd, 521

U.S. 811, (1997). This need to switch to a more specified dismissal of

matters could be foreseen in Justice Stevens as well as Justice Breyer

decisions. Perhaps Justice Thomas recalled that standing discourse

whence providing his opinion about the Appropriations Clause in

relationship to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This

discourse even has some appearance with the third decided opinion for

the 2025 term, with regard to consideration of candidates as direct

objects. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, Slip Op. 24-568

(January 14, 2026) (Jackson, J., dissenting), Oral Argument with Kagan

Question. Perhaps the principal case that seems to be well-settled is

Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) (Stevens, J.) (overruled by the

Line-Item Veto Act).

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

- 12 -

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

In sum, I encourage, make all due haste for such claims-based

attention. It’s time to better train those negotiating the U.S. Courts—

advocates, parties, judges, and staff—to be prepared for the

international implications of their decisions – procedural, substantive,

or otherwise.

C.) Getting Technology: Whether and How to Account for New

Technology (Civil Rule 26 & 45; Evidence 707)

Three of the rules considered by International Attestations respond to

technological advances: Civil Rule 26 (Express Statement on Remote or

In Person Testimony), Civil Rule 45 (Place for Remote Testimony (Rule

45), & Evidence Rule 707 (Machine-Based Evidence Admissibility).

Judge Kotulski is no stranger to policy, procedural, and scholastic

approaches to the cyber world. Judge Kotulski has focused and

enhanced her expertise on cyber matters since attending a

closed/cleared meeting at Georgetown’s School of Diplomacy in 2011,

helping to shape and take a class at Iowa Law in 2013 and 2014,

influencing Cyber Endeavors and military engagements17 at the Naval

Postgraduate School (2014) and MITRE (2015), and continuing her 2014

argument for a cyber treaty with scholarship conducted privately, Doc.

3.5 (Wither the Cyber?).18 In fact, I posited whether or not separate

matters pertaining to cyber may be called for before the most recent UN

Convention against Cybercrime (2024) came out. A gap still remains for

much of the cyber realm in the civil worlds, and, perhaps, an

opportunity passed to make a more all-inclusive treaty dedicated to

cyber matters.

17 Making note of this during her testimony.

18 This publication came out around the same time as the Cyber Crime Treaty, which exclusively

addresses Criminal Matters.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

- 13 -

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

As Judge Kotulski stated in her testimony, there are more things that

still need to get done concerning remote testimony. She encouraged the

committees to begin thinking about “cyber marshalls” and “cyber

deputies” that have the jurisdiction to wrangle in all the moving parts.

These moving parts must be wrangled when the wrangling is ready in

order to get appropriate judicial oversight on the matter.

Case in point, Evidence Rule 707 seeking machine-generated evidence

admissibility is not ripe for implementation. Unless the Court wishes

to secure scores more extraneous litigation based on potentially

inefficient rules, the Judicial Conference might be best-suited to

consider further the implications of such technologically-generated

evidence. Because Rule 707 is so referential to Rule 702, perhaps the

latter may become that which is commented upon and all revisions be

rolled into the application of that rule. The way it stands at present, it

seems like no rule at all. No matter what the Civil Rules Committee

puts out there, the subject of the rule is ripe to generate litigation,

confusion, and controversy. As such, the goal may be to limit the

volume of litigation, confusion and controversy by bringing the rule to

market when it is ready, not by bringing it to market to vet what that

litigation, confusion and controversy yields.

Indeed, three years is a goodly amount of time to review a rule ahead of

publication, but one more year may yield a more thorough

understanding of how to attend to this particular type of evidence.

Or maybe you have determined from your review that Rule 702

sufficiently addresses such evidential standards for admissibility. In

which case, it’s better not to single it out and it’s better to stick to the

old mainstays and their litigation, confusions and controversies

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

- 14 -

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

III.

CONCLUSION

The Rules Committees of 2026 are showing a strong proclivity of

“getting it.” They are getting it right, getting it done, and getting to

the heart of the matter in getting claims, getting business

organizations, and getting technology. There are some matters that

need adjustment—but now it seems the Court is getting it.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

- 15 -

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

DOCUMENTS LIST

Document 1.

Honor Use Licensing

Document 2.1

Original Outline

Document 2.2

Notes for January 27, 2026:

Civil rules 7.1, 26, 41, & 45

Document 3

Document 3.1

Document 3.2

Document 3.3

Document 3.4

Document 3.5

Document 3.6

Document 3.7

Document 3.8

Document 3.9

Relevant IA Articles (Most Recent First)

by the Hon. Melissa A. Kotulski

UNSC ’26: Naturally Casting Latvia’s

Wooden

Breadbasket & Aid Kit (January 12, 2026)

International Narcotics & Law

Enforcement Bureau & ICJ 2022 Redux

(November 14, 2025)

Outside Testimony Submission Dates

are Here! (May 5, 2025)

Analysis of the UN Security Council’s

Class of 2024 (January 30, 2024)

U.S. Supreme Court: Wither the Cyber?

(July 25, 2023)

United Nations & Global CounterTerrorism Strategy (June 13, 2023)

Obligations in Advisory Opinions at the

ICJ (April 25, 2023) & Consequences in

ICJ Advisory Opinions: Questions &

Holdings (May 16, 2023)

Comment on Supreme Court Rules

(February 7, 2023)

Nationality & Hoops at Court

(May 17, 2022)

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

D12

D17

D23

D26

D34

D37

D43

D57

D64

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Document 4

Notes to support comments

(Internal Document)

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

D95

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Document 1. International Attestations & Honor Use Licensing

International Attestations (IAUSA) is for-hire for research, testimony,

and a variety of other projects. Further, readers and viewers are

welcome to provide an honor use payment for what they may have

learned along the way for use of any item on the IAUSA website by QR

Codes (see below) or by paying via Navy Federal’s Zelle

at melissa@internationalattestations.com.

For Honor System Use Licenses, Judge Melissa A. Kotulski encourages

the purchaser to give as much and as often as they deem it is fair,

equitable and appropriate for such work that comes with Judge

Kotulski’s decades of experience, knowledge and abilities. More can be

found at the following link:

https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/licenses-for-copyright. For

those who—in good faith—have very little or limits on allotments of

funding, Judge Kotulski understands and appreciates when and what

they can pay.

Payees may indicate which item they are purchasing in the

notes. Credit card payments may be processed available upon request.

Baseline for negotiation of license for use of the following:

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Document 2. Testimony (Civil Rules 7.1, 26, 41, 45; Evidence

707) Outline, Notes on IA Testimony, Notes on Other

Testimonies

Document 2.1

Original Outline

Document 2.2

Notes for January 27, 2026:

Civil rules 7.1, 26, 41, & 45

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Document 2.1 Original Outline

INTERNATIONAL ENCOURAGEMENTS (CIVIL)

(January 27, 2026)

International Encouragements for Proposed Changes to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure

BIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT

RULES TO CONSIDER IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

• Nongovernmental business organizations (Rule 7.1)

• Narrowing Voluntary Dismissal to Claims Rather than Entire

Action (Rule 41)

• Remote Testimony/Technological

1. Express Statement on Remote or In Person Testimony (Rule

26)

2. Place for Remote Testimony (Rule 45)

ENCOURAGEMENTS (EVIDENCE)

International Encouragements for Proposed Changes to the Federal

Rules of Evidence

Machine-Generated Evidence Admissibility (Rule 707) Outline: No

Rule At All?

a. Biographical Statement (Self, International

Attestations, cyber/tech law expertise)

b. Litigation, confusion, controversy

c. No Rule at All? Comment

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Document 2.2 January 27, 2026: Civil Rules 7.1, 26, 41, & 45

Original Outline

(Submitted January 13, 2026)

INTERNATIONAL ENCOURAGEMENTS (CIVIL)

(January 27, 2026)

International Encouragements for Proposed Changes to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure

BIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT

RULES TO CONSIDER IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

• Nongovernmental business organizations (Rule 7.1)

• Narrowing Voluntary Dismissal to Claims Rather than Entire

Action (Rule 41)

• Remote Testimony/Technological

1. Express Statement on Remote or In Person Testimony (Rule

26)

2. Place for Remote Testimony (Rule 45)

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Notes from Hon. Kotulski’s Testimony About Civil Rules 7.1, 26,

41, 45

ENCOURAGEMENTS (CIVIL)

(January 27, 2026)

International Encouragements for Proposed Changes to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure

A. Gratitude to Organizations: Rules Committee Staff,

Administrative Office of the Courts, and Civil Procedure Team

B. Introduction to her: 20 years of diplomacy; Expert in

International Court of Justice, ILC, CAS, UNSC; U.S. Supreme

Court; codification and development of international law as

presented by the ILC and other organizations. Commend

Committee for their compliance with international law for places

going against USA.

C. Substantive Remarks

1. Claims Dismissal Rather than Action as a Whole – line

item veto days may come back to haunt folks with this rule.

Narrowing Voluntary Dismissal to Claims Rather than

Entire Action (Rule 41)

2. Remote Testimony/Technological (Rules 26 & 45). Express

Statement on Remote or In Person Testimony (Rule 26).

Place for Remote Testimony (Rule 45). The concept of a

cyber marshal and deputy for each of the remote

geographic locations in a remote court to be linked for

keeping such testimonies legitimate, authenticated, and

included.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

3. Nongovernmental Business Organization (Rule 7.1)

a. Three principal ICJ cases: Certain Assets – I see this

rule change as one of the methods of compliance with

the Iranian case against the US (one of two currently

at the ICJ). Read out Barkett quote: Corporation

status comes up in III, para. 1 with instructions

indicating “Corporate status should be recognized [to]

assure [the] right [of] foreign corporate entities…[to]

free access [to] courts [to] collect debts, protect patent

rights, enforce contracts, etc.”

b. Qatar v. United Arab Emirates issues of media

organizations.

c. Climate Change Advisory Opinion. Allowed for some

business entity participation in the conversation. Most

notably, the Petroleum Exporting Countries, showing a

concern not just concerning corporate responsibility but

a duty to humanity, and, to the extent that it is a

business, International Union for the Conservation of

Nature

4. Questions here or by February 10, 2026 over the phone or in

writing. My contact information is at Tab 5.

Notes from the Testimonies of Others (18) on January 27, 202619

Rule 7.1 Nongovernmental Business Organization (4)

A. (3) Thomas Allman a Retired General Counsel of BASF Corp.

(Rule 7.1 & 45)

B. (4) Jonathan Redgrave of Redgrave LLP (Rule 7.1 & 45)

C. (5) Melissa Kotulski of International Attestations (Rules 7.1, 26, 41

& 45)

D. (14) Robert Levy of Exxon Mobil (Rules 7.1, 26 & 45)

19 Number in the front of the names in parenthesis is place in the lineup for testimonies for the day.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Rule 26 Express Statement on Remote or In Person Testimony (2)

A. (5) Melissa Kotulski of International Attestations (Rules 7.1, 26, 41

& 45)

B. (14) Robert Levy of Exxon Mobil (Rules 7.1, 26 & 45)

Rule 41 Narrowing Voluntary Dismissal to Claims Rather than Entire

Action (3)

A. (1) Scott Hendler of Hendler Flores Law (Rule 41)

B. (2) Tobi Millrood of Kline & Specter (Rule 41 & 45)

C. (5) Melissa Kotulski of International Attestations (Rules 7.1, 26, 41

& 45)

Rule 45 Place for Remote Testimony (17)

A. (2) Tobi Millrood of Kline & Specter (Rule 41 & 45)

B. (3) Thomas Allman a Retired General Counsel of BASF Corp.

(Rule 7.1 & 45)

C. (4) Jonathan Redgrave of Redgrave LLP (Rule 7.1 & 45)

D. (5) Melissa Kotulski of International Attestations (Rules 7.1, 26, 41

& 45)

E. (6) Lauren Barnes of Public Justice (Rule 45)

F. (7) Mary D’Agostino of Hancock Estabrook (Rule 45)

G. (8) Xiomara Damour of Mayer Brown (Rule 45)

H. (9) Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice (Rule 45)

I. (10) Navan Ward of Beasley Allen / American Association of Justice

(Rule 45)

J. (11) Steven Fleischman of Horvitz & Levy (Rule 45)

K. (12) Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School (Rule 45)

L. (13) / Max Heerman of Medtronic (45) Not present

M. (14) Robert Levy of Exxon Mobil (Rules 7.1, 26 & 45)

N. (15) Matthew Moeller of The Moeller Firm (Rule 45)

O. (16) Mary Novacheck of Nelson Mullins (Rule 45)

P. (17) John Southerland of Huie, Fernambucq, & Stewart (Rule 45)

Q. (18) Tiega Varlack of Varlack Legal Services (Rule 45)

R. (19) Rachel Downey of Hagens Berman (Rule 45)

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Document 3. Relevant IAUSA Articles (Most Recent First) by

the Hon. Melissa A. Kotulski

Document 3.1

Document 3.2

Document 3.3

Document 3.4

Document 3.5

Document 3.6

Document 3.7

Document 3.8

Document 3.9

UNSC ’26: Naturally Casting Latvia’s

Wooden

Breadbasket & Aid Kit (January 12, 2026)

International Narcotics & Law

Enforcement Bureau & ICJ 2022 Redux

(November 14, 2025)

Outside Testimony Submission Dates

are Here! (May 5, 2025)

Analysis of the UN Security Council’s

Class of 2024 (January 30, 2024)

U.S. Supreme Court: Wither the Cyber?

(July 25, 2023)

United Nations & Global CounterTerrorism Strategy (June 13, 2023)

Obligations in Advisory Opinions at the

ICJ (April 25, 2023) & Consequences in

ICJ Advisory Opinions: Questions &

Holdings (May 16, 2023)

Comment on Supreme Court Rules

(February 7, 2023)

Nationality & Hoops at Court

(May 17, 2022)

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

D12

D17

D23

D26

D34

D37

D43

D57

D64

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Document 3.1 UNSC ’26: Naturally Casting Latvia’s Wooden

Breadbasket & Aid Kit (January 12, 2026)

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), per usual, has five new

members in 2026-2027. Joining last year's rising class (Denmark,

Greece, Pakistan, Panama, and Somalia) and the permanent members

(China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of

America), Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,

Latvia, and Liberia officially began their two-year tenure on January 1,

2026. Latvia is the freshman in this batch, which leaves it ripe to

highlight preparatory measures for the Presidency--a change that

happens on a monthly-rotational basis based on placement in the

English-language alphabet. It remains to be seen who will be elected to

replace this last batch of five at the end of 2026 to determine their final

year on the UNSC, by then Latvia will be well-trained in how to

coordinate international security.

It will have also likely have served what will be its first and to that time

only term as the President of the UNSC.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Latvia in the Context of the ICJ, UNGA, and the UN Security

Council

With current top exports of natural gas, packaged medicine, wheat,

wood, broadcasting equipment, Latvia is slated to serve as the UN

Security Council's (UNSC) President in November. This will be the

first time the nation has led any of the major parts of the United

Nations--never having a case or judge at the International Court of

Justice (ICJ) and never serving as the President of the General

Assembly (UNGA) or Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The

UNSC is a member of the UN System and it's beneficial to be prepared

for what Latvia's diplomats and other service members may put on

their presidential docket by looking both within the annals of that

principal organ in the context of at least two other Charter-based

bodies: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the General

Assembly (UNGA)--which is the body that most often has fed the ICJ

with requests for advisory opinions on matters of international law. UN

Charter Article 96(1). Still, Latvia may well serve under one of the rare

presidencies when the UNSC calls forth its charter-fueled prerogative

to request advice on "any legal question."

Like Latvia, other nations amongst the UN Class of 2026 colleagues

have only had one other term at the UNSC. Somalia had its freshman

term from 1971 to 1972, while Bahrain's was 1998-1999 and Liberia

only had one year (1961, without a presidency) for its previous and only

other tenure as a non-permanent member of the UNSC. In fact,

Bahrain is a great nation for Latvia to look upon as they sought out

pacific settlement of dispute help from Guyana, another place closelysituated to your nation's populace. Mohamed Shahabuddeen (Guyana)

was Bahrain's selection to serve for the nation as a judge ad hoc for its

ICJ case on Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions defended

against Qatar. Judge Shahabuddeen also served as a permanent

member of the Court. Still, despite having four cases, Bahrain has

never selected a judge ad hoc from its own populace (though they did

have a member at the ILC from 1987-2006 with Husain M. AlBaharna). This is dissimilar to Pakistan, which has had four (4) such

judges from its nation and which has even declined to use its ICJ Rulesbased Article 35 prerogative to select a judge to sit on the court.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

So perhaps Greece, Somalia, Pakistan, & Panama are great nations

that Latvia may also observe. Why? Amongst the other non-permanent

members of this UNSC class, they each have had one judge serve as

permanent members of the ICJ--though Panama has never had a case

before the ICJ, perhaps in part because of its six terms at the UNSC

(1958-1959, 1972-1973, 1976-1977, 1981-1982, 2007-2008, 20252026). Somalia's first case arose recently at the ICJ pacifically-settled

against Kenya concerning Maritime Delimitation during the tenure of

that nation's Judge Yusuf, whose term ended abruptly last year. With

Latvia's first International Law Commission member this year, it bodes

well for broadening that nation's ICJ horizons (judge candidacies) by

being an advocate for developing and codifying international law with

"Compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts"

assigned to Mārtinš Paparinskis as the Special Rapporteur.

Latvians may be preparing to lead the world's security council with

some of their own agendas in mind for the tenure of the presidency as

well as what they will do after the nation has completed its term.

A Natural Gas Treaty Convention Held in Riga?

The world may be ripe for an international natural gas treaty and an

obvious headquarters for the hypothetical treaty-body could be in

Latvia's Riga. Such a treaty and treaty mechanism may be managed

much in the vein of the Food and Agricultural Organization's (FAO)

Headquarters in Rome, Italy--a culinary Mecca--and like the treaties of

other commodities such as olive oil and table olives, coffee, sugar,

coconuts pepper, cocoa, rice, tin, tea, rubber, jute and jute products,

nickel, copper, grains and--perhaps most relevant to Latvia--tropical

timber (4) and wheat (2). As a "producer member" as well as a

"consumer member" of the Tropical Timber Treaty, Latvians stand

uniquely situated to provide advice on the development of treaty

provisions related to Natural gas. Tropical Timber Treaty, Art. 2(4) &

(5). China, France, and the UK--other principal natural gas importers-may help with this treaty effort as well. An effort that will--if sparked-go beyond Latvia's tenure at the Security Council, which could light a

grand legacy for posterity or leave smoldering ashes for which the

nation will need to repair. Or both.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Ukraine as Europe's Breadbasket No Longer?

Ukraine, once Europe's Breadbasket, will be an interesting nation for

Latvia to bring to the table. Latvians may benefit from not touching

Ukraine at all during their November presidency--sending the message

on their stance with their recent non-abstention, affirmative votes on

Ukraine in the General Assembly.

Such silence could allow to stand what Latvia has stood with Ukraine.

Anything more may seem problematic with both Ukraine and Latvia

competing for Wheat exports and with the former's war still raging

on. Let Latvia's breadbasket open at the behest of other security

powers, unless a major flareup happens leading up to or during Latvia's

tenure as UNSC President. Beyond the region, this may also hold true

to a lesser extent for Syria, another wheat importer with a somewhat

heavy status on the Security Council docket. So perhaps all of the

Security Council members can help the Freshman Latvia plan the year

by making sure that the breadbasket of UN business in November may

be dedicated more so to general resolutions like terrorism and

maintenance of international peace or even other business pertaining to

Sudan or Yemen.

In sum, Latvia is the world's next freshman whose first ever term as

President will offer a great opportunity to enhance and embolden the

nation. The best packaged medicine for ensuring peace for a region like

Eastern Europe, indeed. Perhaps the marks of success for Latvia would

be to broaden Europe's breadbaskets and work towards placement of a

treaty headquarters in Riga dedicated to natural gas.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Supplement 1. The List of the Current UNSC Class by

Presidency

This year’s class, in order of presidency with the end of the nation's

term in parenthesis:

January: Somalia

February: United Kingdom

March: United States of America

April: Bahrain (2027)

May: China

June: Colombia (2027)

July: Democratic Republic of the Congo (2027)

August: Denmark (2026)

September: France

October: Greece (2026)

November: Latvia (2027)

December: Liberia (2027)

No presidencies this year: Russia, Pakistan (2026), Panama (2026)

***

January 13, 2026 at 12:45 p.m. EST, updated with Supplement on

January 26, 2026 at 1:40 p.m. PST.

President, Founder, & Owner, International Attestations, LLC®

***

If you feel that my works are worth investing in and that you have been

influenced by them or even were inspired by them to counter arguments

(sparing partners get paid, you know...), please feel free to provide a

Zelle Payment for an honor use license payment (HULP) as a means to

inspire good faith use licensing. Maybe there are things for which you

just want to give because of something you know comes from me and

you want to show good faith for that which I have provided: have at it.

I'm happy to accept good faith HULPs for that which I provide.

https://internationalattestations.com/licensing-%26-sales

(This appeal for funding is similar to almost all other posts)

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Document 3.2 International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Bureau

& ICJ 2022 Redux (November 14, 2025)

I intend to revise my Summer 2022 series on the International

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau (INL) of the U.S. State

Department in the near future. I even put the previous entries in the 7part regionally-nexused series up on SSRN, which is a nice academic

marketplace of ideas where I place some of my older papers like my

work on International Organizations and my note on Presidential

Sites. I also have publication on Ireland in the International Review of

Constitutional Reform.

Though I have had qualifications to do so, I have never worked for

agencies like the National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In fact, I even

declined an offer at a Presidential Library because the site's work was

too focused a topic from which I had graduated and such a position did

not provide substantial responsibilities reflective beyond such single

vision of biography. Biography that I had mastered under the tutelage

of a Pulitzer Prize winning biographer in the early 2000s when working

for a historic site dedicated to a single woman and her family (across

the street from Mark Twain's place in Hartford, Connecticut). You see,

by the time of that lovely NARA employee's offer, I had analyzed

multiple continents for their national systems since I worked for the

International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Bureau (INL) of the U.S.

State Department (State) in 2013-2014.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

My State teams barely touched upon the "goods" associated with the

first part of that bureau's title. In fact, my foci were on analyzing the

nation-based compliance with international legal standards for justice

systems--including the judicial, prosecutorial, custodial, and law

enforcement prongs of such systems. That meant that I had already

assessed how national court systems were acting for treaty compliance-becoming an expert by 2014. So when that inspirational Director asked

me to be a marginal part of her local NARA site (all she could at the

time), I politely declined because I was ready for international judging

across state-lines which is beyond the scope of a single Presidential

Library. We left on as amiable terms as the person for whom she ably

protected his presidential heritage (a gentleman from the midwest who

knew controversy, indeed), and she became a reference to the United

Nations for me. She is currently in well-earned retirement.

And since that time, I have researched or visited NARA sites where I

have admired many an employee--archivist, director, security guard and

more. The same holds true for national court systems, though I have

more intimate knowledge as I have done things like encourage crossnational dialogue on the topics of foreign affairs in their national courts

since I was with my INL Bureau teams in 2013/14 and continued

independently in 2022 with my 7-part series. In fact,

such doing continues with my hope (that still holds true) for a Summit

between the leaders of the constitutional courts of the Ukraine, Russia,

and the USA--if the former two could keep their lead judges in place

long enough to plan one, I guess. Things have been volatile for the

judiciaries of both nations since Lebedev's passing and Kniaziev

untimely resignation, perhaps the Russians and Ukrainians and all

those in-between would be best served to recall the impressive U.S.

District Court judge Margaret McKeown's American Bar Association

Rule of Law caution in 2023 about protecting judges from

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

reprisals. Maybe the ICJ universe might benefit from review of her

presentation.

This Ukraine-Russian discourse refers to another sub-series in my

Academic Journal Posts.

https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/ukraines-chief-justiceshows-the-travails-of-a-wartime-judiciary (Ukrainian Chief Justice &

His Wartime National Judiciary)

https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/russia-ukraine-a-usmoderated-dialogue-on-commonalities (Tear Down These Walls

encouraging a dialogue on foreign affairs in the national courts of

Ukraine, Russia, and the USA).

https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/russia-the-usa-a-diplomatictriumph-at-the-icj (An accolade given to the Russian & America judges

that concurrently served as Vice-President and President of the ICJ)

As for the EPA, while I hear it's a swanky place to work (voted #1 of

all U.S. government agencies), I have encountered it through Water

Law, Air Quality Law, Brown Fields Lands, meteorological analyses,

local and state interactions with Federal regional systems reporting to

the EPA (particularly in Florida, Hawaii, New York, & Vermont,

amongst others). And I have applied how environmental law works in

the international realm since around the same time as the INL position

when I worked at looking at Water Law in a California city in the

context of regional, federal, and international law.

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Since that time, a very cool summer (in so many ways) on the California

coastline considering Pacific appropriative rights and desalination

processes--in part--I have mastered the International Court of Justice's

(ICJ) climate change and international matters concerning boundary

measures across water lines. Just to say that upon doing such research,

the law of equidistance may be a starting point, but less frequently the

endpoint than the seeming golden rule of national water boundaries

provides in ICJ jurisprudence. Just look to the Great Lakes

Controversy in Africa, of which now-Judge Okowa (Kenya) helped the

world see more in a recent recorded lecture that she gave at the United

Nations. I, too, have some writings on the matter, which I hope helped

the Office of Legal Affairs of the U.S. State Department and the United

Nations in preparing for their work on the Advisory Opinion concerning

Climate Change--and maybe even the Kenyan contingent had a glance

at some of my writings. Judge Okowa did a fine job bringing her

international brands to the marketplace, indeed, and I wish her the

best in that position.

My analyses were published soon after the announcement of the opinion

in 2023, the published ICJ Advisory Opinion emblazons the obligations

more than the consequences...Perhaps the private industries presenting

to the Court on the matter helped sway them away from such bottomline crushers that oftentimes hold up good international industrial and

commercial activity.

https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/icj-advisory-opinionsquestions-presented

https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/consequences-and-advisoryopinions-at-the-icj

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

I have also considered the regional and state level environmental

matters with the USMCA and the state-level courts of the U.S.A. (see

below).

https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/the-usmca-the-ecagovernment-involvement-public-participation

https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/environmental-courts-atthe-state-level

Still, in order to stay current for my INL overlap with ICJ matters, I

have compiled that seven-part series b as a reprint below to prepare for

the updated version. The series focuses on the regional side of

collaboration with the U.S. on federal law enforcement matters whilst

also considering which nations in that cadre had activity at the ICJ.

Stay tuned for my forthcoming INL & ICJ analyses Redux...

*****

November 14, 2025 at 1:13 a.m., tidied up on January 19, 2026 at 11:00

a.m.

President, Founder, & Owner, International Attestations, LLC®

Reprinted below INL Homecoming Pt. 1- Pt. 6b: Tuesday, July 12, 2022,

9:00 a.m.; Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 9 a.m.; July 26, 2022, 9:00 a.m.;

August 2, 2022, 9:00 a.m.; August 9, 2022, 9:00 a.m.; August 16, 2022,

9:00 a.m.; August 23, 2022, 9:00 a.m.

*****

If you feel that my works are worth investing in and that you have been

influenced by them or even were inspired by them to counter arguments

(sparing partners get paid, you know...), please feel free to provide a

Zelle Payment for an honor use license payment (HULP) as a means to

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

inspire good faith use licensing. Maybe there are things for which you

just want to give because of something you know comes from me and

you want to show good faith for that which I have provided: have at it.

I'm happy to accept good faith HULPs for that which I provide.

https://internationalattestations.com/licensing-%26-sales

*****

INL Homecoming Pt. 1 -- Sub-Saharan Africa

INL Homecoming Pt. 2: East Asia & the Pacific

INL Homecoming Pt. 3 -- Europe & Eurasia

INL Homecoming Pt. 4 -- Middle East & North Africa

INL Homecoming Pt. 5 -- South & Central Asia

INL Homecoming Pt. 6a & 6b -- Western Hemisphere

*****

(1) Sub-Saharan Africa: https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/aninl-homecoming

(2) East Asia & Pacific: https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/inlhomecoming-pt-2-east-asia-the-pacific

(3) Europe & Eurasia: https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/inlhomecoming-pt-3—europe-eurasia

(4) Middle East & North

Africa: https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/inl-homecoming-pt4--middle-east-north-africa

(5) South & Central

Asia: https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/inl-homecoming-pt-5-south-central-asia

(6a) Western

Hemisphere: https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/inlhomecoming-pt-6--western-hemispher

(6b) Western

Hemisphere: https://internationalattestations.com/blog/f/inlhomecoming-conclusion

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Document 3.3 Outside Testimony Submission Dates are Here! (May

5, 2025)

Hey all, please find the list of outside testimony submission dates for

the House & Senate Appropriations Subcommittees. There is also a list

of the emails and to whom you should address such testimony requests.

I would be honored to hear how you do, and...if you'd like, I can help you

collaborate on your testimony requests. Please find my rules

publication as well as my census comment from last year.

Hit me up!

Rules for US-AOC 2025 (Appellate, Bankruptcy, &

Evidence): https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USC-RULES-AP2024-0001-0369

Census Boundary Comments

2024: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USBC-2024-0012-0004

***

DUE DATES 2025

Senate Subcommittee Due Dates 2025 for FY 2026

•

May 9, 2025: Senate Legislative Branch; House Commerce,

Justice, Science & Related Agencies; House Homeland Security

May 22, 2025: Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, Food &

Drug Administration, & Related Agencies

May 23, 2025: House Agriculture, Rural Development, Food &

Drug Administration, & Related Agencies; House Energy & Water

Development

May 30, 2025: Senate Energy & Water Development; Senate

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, & Related Agencies

June 13, 2025: Senate Commerce, Justice, Science & Related

Agencies; Senate Labor, Health & Human Services

June 15, 2025: Senate Homeland Security; Senate Interior,

Environment & Related Agencies

June 24, 2025: Senate Defense

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

•

June 27, 2025: Senate State, Foreign Operations & Related

Programs

July 1, 2025: Senate Financial Services & General Government

7 days after the respective Departmental budget hearing of

interest: Transportation, Housing & Urban Development.

Likely no longer available this year:

1. House Defense

2. House Financial Services & General Government

3. House Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, & Related

Agencies

4. House Interior, Environment, & Related Agencies (4 April 2025)

5. House Labor, Health & Human Services, Education & Related

Agencies (9 April 2025)

6. Legislative Branch (9 April 2025)

7. National Security, Department of State, & Related Agencies (21

March 2025)

8. Transportation, Housing & Urban Development

EMAIL LIST 2025

Senate Emails (Veterans not available at time of publication)

•

agri@appro.senate.gov (Agriculture, Rural Development, Food &

Drug Administration, & Related Agencies)

cjs@appro.senate.gov (Commerce, Justice, Science & Related

Agencies)

def@appro.senate.gov (Defense)

ew@appro.senate.gov (Energy & Water Development)

finsec@appro.senate.gov (Financial Services & General

Government)

homelandsec@appro.senate.gov (Homeland Security)

lhhs@appro.senate.gov (Labor, Health & Human Services,

Education, & Related Agencies)

int@appro.senate.gov (Interior, Environment, & Related Agencies)

legislativebranch@appro.senate.gov (Legislative Branch)

thud@appro.senate.gov (Transportation, Housing & Urban

Development, & Related Agencies)

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

•

SFOPS@appro.senate.gov (State, Foreign Operations, & Related

Programs)

House emails

•

ag.approp@mail.house.gov (Agriculture, Rural Development, Food

& Drug Administration, & Related Agencies)

cj.approp@mail.house.gov (Commerce, Justice, Science & Related

Agencies)

in.approp@mail.house.gov (Interior, Environment, & Related

Agencies)

ew.approp@mail.house.gov (Energy & Water Development &

Related Agencies)

hs.approp@mail.house.gov (Homeland Security)

***

May 5, 2025, 7:05 p.m.

President, Founder, & Owner, International Attestations, LLC®

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

Document 3.4 Analysis of the UN Security Council’s Class of 2024

(January 30, 2024)

New England is well-known historically for having thrived during the

Whaling industry's heyday. Though. the local and state curricula may

vie in a different direction now, growing up this industry was drilled

into our consciousness through things like use of blubber to fuel lamps

and analysis of a haggard Captain's hunt of one of the beasts. That

heyday was ultimately replaced by the FIRE industries--leading to the

rise of the State's insurance industry as the topmost in the nation. And

nowadays, some of the central pulls relate to history of the town as a

place where a prison was situated and a couple of presidents visited .

This industry may be very important in the international context in the

coming days. At least the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) analysis

of it in 2014 with the case of Australia v. Japan, New Zealand

Intervening. After the Court had established its jurisdiction, it held

that Japan’s permitting regime was not within those acceptable by the

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Even

though the ICJ found that Japan had complied with its obligations in

some instances, Japan was told to revoke authorizations, permits and

licenses in the instances where it was not in conformity with its

obligations. Australia was protecting the seas from a commercial

activity that harmed its interests.

With the first resolution of the year, protecting commercial activity

began the conversation for the 2024 Class of the Security Council of the

United States (See Supplement 1 for More Details About the Class of

2024 & Its Presidents; and check out my previous post in January 2023

for background on my analysis about UNSC Class of 2023).

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

UNSC CLASS OF 2024 & THE ICJ

First, contextualizing the current class in relationship to the

International Court of Justice (ICJ) emboldens the concerns about

activities in the oceans, including illicit activities in the seas.

Even though this year's class consists of a group of nations with sparing

interaction with the ICJ...

While Ecuador, Malta, Mozambique & Switzerland (2023-2024) as well

as Korea and Slovenia (2024-2025) have never had a judge on that

Court, Japan, Algeria, Guyana and Sierra Leone have had

seven. Algeria, Guyana, and Sierra Leone (2024-2025) have seen three

great judges from their nations serve a total of thirty-six years on the

Court, with an overlap between 1994-1997 when they all

served. Algeria's Bedjaoui (1982-2001) was the only one among them to

have sat at the helm of the Court. Though the other two judges,

Shahabuddeen (1988-1997) and Koroma (1994-2012), enjoyed some time

on the Court during Bedjaoui's tenure, neither was there during his

Vice President (1994-1994).

Switzerland, ever the distinguishable nation throughout the world, as it

has taken its first tenure at the UNSC, has only had three cases before

the Court—none of which have been concerned directly with

environmental matters—and they were discontinued, dismissed, or

removed against the one-time neutral nation: Dominica (diplomatic

envoy status in host states); United States (banking and property

considerations); and Belgium (commercial airlines issues with

international compliance with banking and debt-related matters).

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

The other three non-permanent nations in the UNSC Class of

2024 have one case at that Court and they all have a nexus to

protecting, accessing, and lawfully utilizing natural resources (Ecuador,

Japan, and Malta). This could get interesting should the General

Assembly receive a response to its advisory opinion this year—not

likely, but a possibility...

Ecuador’s aerial herbicide spraying case against Colombia, although

discontinued 17 September 2013, was initiated with a three-fold

purpose of (1) acknowledgment for violation of international when

allegedly causing human health, property and environmental damage;

(2) indemnification of loss and damage arising from death or injury,

property harm, human rights and livelihood violations, natural resource

depletion, and costs from monitoring public health, human rights and

environment; (3) order that Colombia respect sovereign & territorial

integrity of Ecuador as well as prevent future harm through prevention

of use and dispersal of herbicides.

The last two environmental cases of the nations from the current UNSC

Class directly relate to the sea in some fashion.

First, Malta’s continental shelf case against the Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya provided two judgments—one which asserted Italy’s

inability to intervene in the case and the other determining equitable

principles for drawing the continental shelf a equidistant from the lowwater mark on the shores of both nations as across the Mediterranean

Sea.

Finally, as discussed above, Japan's Whaling case provided a moment

in ICJ jurisprudence to scoff at the spectrum of lawfulness concerning

seafaring activities of commercial vessels (as opposed, in part, to

scientific ones).

The Honorable Melissa A. Kotulski (USA)

https://internationalattestations.com

Getting Businesses, Claims & Technology

Preliminary & Proposed Rules 2026

IAUSA® Comments / U.S. Judicial Conference Rules 2026

Getting International Matters in U.S. Rule Changes

WHALING AS A NEXUS BETWEEN UNSC CLASS OF 2023 &

UNSC CLASS OF 2024

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.