text:
Ed Frauenheim is on assignment.
Your new boss is hands-on. The kind of boss who wants to leave an imprint on everything, from the contingent budget to internal communications to the brand of coffee in the break room. There's nothing the new boss isn't touching even though it's almost a year into the job.
Oh, and that new position you're ready to pull the trigger on filling? Your candidate is meeting the new boss later today. Like the coffee and the contingents, it's required that all potential hires meet the chief.
Still, it's a slam dunk. Your choice is a perfect fit. Then why is there this nagging feeling in the pit of your stomach that you'll be back to square one tomorrow morning?
Reuters recently posted a story updating the hiring policies that Marissa Mayer implemented at Yahoo last year. Like that new boss of yours, she signs off on all new hires.
Not surprisingly, some insiders at the company are grousing that, with her hands-on approach, perfectly good candidates are being tossed aside or they lose patience and walk because of interminable delays. From the story:
Another Google practice that Mayer has adopted at Yahoo is to personally review and sign off on every hire, which inevitably slows down recruiting.
Job applicants often go through the interview process, then "wait and wait," said one executive who recently left Yahoo. "One person we wanted waited eight weeks, then they inevitably got another offer."
Frustrating for sure, but who among us has gone through a series of interviews and then hired without meeting The Office El Jefe? My guess is not many. And delays? Whether it was a temporary hiring freeze, sudden budget constraints or a supervisor who kept putting off a decision, most of us have played that waiting game.
Before I was hired, I met with every publisher I ever worked for. The editors did the legwork, but then it was time to meet the boss. Some meetings were mere formalities; others were two hours of sheer torture. One publisher even asked me to lift up the lapel on my jacket to see if I was wearing a communist pin underneath. I think he was serious.
But that was his prerogative. To meet with me, I mean, not seek out my political affiliation.
Bosses should play a big role in hiring their next employee. It's their company. And don't tell me they're too busy. Abe Lincoln signed off on virtually every federal hire after his inauguration. OK, it was the days of patronage and he owed a lot of favors, but still … "Let's see, Georgia just seceded from the Union, Fort Sumter's under siege, relations with England and France are sketchy at best … oh yeah, time to meet the guy who wants to be the pension office clerk."
Mayer declared last year that she would be hands-on with her hiring. Despite the kvetching by some, it was no hollow promise. Not even a year into her tenure as Yahoo CEO, she's realigned the C-suite with several big-name shakeups, named HR outsider Jacqueline Reses as her vice president of people and development, and implemented a telecommuting ban. Maybe there's some merit to complaints about methodology but speed doesn't appear to be an issue with her assault on the company's personnel problems.
Mayer's goal to be recruiter-in-chief is one more phase in a high-profile battle to save Yahoo. It's one she appears determined to win.
Rick Bell is Workforce's managing editor. Comment below or email email@example.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.


text:
Detail Images
Available colors
Select a Size:Select options
Select a Color:Select options
2 Reviews
Reliable and easy trunk mount.
You don't have to spend big money on a fancy rack system when Yakima makes the SuperJoe Pro 3 Bike Mount for your trunk. It'll fit on the tail end of almost any vehicle, with the Quick Trigger Hub System making it easy to put on or take off. Yakima's Stable cradles secure each of the three bikes to the rack while a six-strap system delivers a stable ride for your precious cargo on the way to your destination trailhead or road.
- Quick Trigger Hub System
- Stable Cradles
- Item #YAK0298
Tech Specs
Tech Specs
- Reviews
What do you think about this product?
Have questions about this product?
good buy
Easy to set up and take down, the same settings work for my dads Toyota Camry, my GF's Toyota Carolla, and my VW Jetta, so switching to and from is quick and easy.
SuperPro Joe 3
This is an excellent bike rack! We have a 2002 vw golf and it is a great fit. It takes a matter of minutes to set the rack up on your car, however give yourself some extra time your first time to familiarize yourself with how the rack works.
We have used it on a 4 hour road trip both ways and the bikes didn't budge a bit. Our recommendation would be to consider the kind of bikes that you will be using on this rack. We got the 3 mount instead of the 2 and that saved us. I have a 29er mountain bike and my wife's mountain bike is a ladies frame. We have to use spots 1 and 3 for our bikes, the shape of our frames wont let us but the bikes right next to each other. I would assume that the easiest fits would be road bikes.
We decided not to get the top tube rack for the ladies frame bike and that worked for us. With strength of the straps and the way we positioned the bike it worked out just fine. Half of my back wheel stuck out from the side of the car which is understandable because of the big bike and little car.
This is a great rack we would highly recommend it, it is very sturdy and the saddle/strap system keeps the bikes from damaging your car.
Does this rack secure to the trunk so no...
Does this rack secure to the trunk so no one can take it off with your bike and the rack?
Hey Jared M.,
This rack will not be secure to the trunk and neither will the bike unless you buy an extra component. We do not have it on our site at the moment but I found it from Yakima.com.
Would this fit on a hyundai tucson 2013 ?...
Would this fit on a hyundai tucson 2013 ?
Hey Jose Arturo Esquivel Villalobos,
Thanks for your question.
After doing the fit guide from Yakima.com I see that this SuperJoe Pro 3 rack will not be compatible with your 2013 Hyundai Tucson. Instead I will point you towards the KingJoe Pro 3, QuickBack 3, and KingJoe 3 racks. I have provided links for you below.
Does anyone know if this will work on a...
Does anyone know if this will work on a 2014 Nissan Rogue select? Will normally be carrying 2 to 3 bikes. Thanks
Hey Chris,
Thanks for your question.
That did not come up as an option under Yakima's fit guide for your 2014 Nissan Rogue. I would suggest the Thule Passage 3 bike rack. I have included a link to it from our site and it is below. I hope this helps.
I have a 2006 Honda CRV with tire on back...
I have a 2006 Honda CRV with tire on back door and door swings out. It is not a hatchback. Will this work on my car? Thanks
Hi Patty,
For your CRV with the spare tire on the back, I would recommend using either the Yakima Sparetime (Item YAK0285) or the Thule Spare Me 2 (Item THU0395). Either of these two racks are designed specifically to work with a rear mounted spare tire. This Super Joe 3 Bike Mount would not work appropriately for your rack. If you have any additional questions feel free to let me know.
I have a 2012 Honda CR-V. Will this model...
I have a 2012 Honda CR-V. Will this model work for my car? If not, is there a better option?
I also have a 2007 Nissan Versa. Is there a model that will work for both?
Crees que se acopl� bien a un honda civic coupe 2006
I have a '98 Subaru Forester, and I am...
I have a '98 Subaru Forester, and I am partially disabled, so pulling my bicycle down from the roof isn't a good option for me... Will the Yakima SuperJoe Pro Bike mount fit this application. (obviously a hatchback).
You're on the right track with a rear-mounted rack, but unfortunately this one is built for the trunk of a sedan and won't fit a hatchback. Yakima has a configurator at their website here (http://www.yakima.com/fit/Information) where you can find exactly what you need, and Thule does the same thing in case you want to check out other brands.
Will the Yakima Super Joe 3 fit for Chevrolet...
Will the Yakima Super Joe 3 fit for Chevrolet Aveo Hatchback?
Secondly, can you please advise what is the measurement between the two arms?
It depends on what model year of Aveo. I know it works on most Aveos that I have looked at. For confirmation use the rack configurator found here:
As for the space between the arms, it is 12-3/4" outside to outside on the arms.
Will the Yakima / SuperJoe Pro 3 Bike Mount...
Will the Yakima / SuperJoe Pro 3 Bike Mount work for a 2012 Audi A4 or a 2010 Audi Q5? Thanks.
My car is a venza toyota 2010. I will like...
My car is a venza toyota 2010. I will like runk rack. Which one
I have a 2007 Jetta 4dr with a spoiler,...
I have a 2007 Jetta 4dr with a spoiler, will this 3 bike rack fit on my car?
Will this bike rack work for a Honda Accord...
Will this bike rack work for a Honda Accord (4-door sedan)?
Hey Sub,
Please use the Yakima configurator located just above the product picture on this page. Otherwise visit www.yakima.com for compatibility concerns.
What rack carries 3 bikes on a Mazda 5?
What rack carries 3 bikes on a Mazda 5?
will this work on a 2010 subaru outback?
will this work on a 2010 subaru outback?
The SuperJoe Pro 3 rack won't work with the 2010 Subaru Outback. This rack fits most standard car trunks, but generally not a hatchback/wagon. Take a look at the KingJoe Pro 3. This rack IS compatible with your vehicle. You can also always use the Yakima fit link at the top of the page to see which of the other racks will fit for sure.
Will this rack work on a 1999 Subaru...
Will this rack work on a 1999 Subaru Outback?
Yes, this will work on just about any car.
I have an F250 short bed with a UnderCover...
I have an F250 short bed with a UnderCover Bedcover. Would this rack work for this situation. Would the straps for securing the rack in place be long enough.
Not sure, but in my rack experience, hitch racks are usually the better choice for trucks. This is more geared toward trunks.
will this rack work well on a Prius? Does...
will this rack work well on a Prius? Does it fit onto the rear window?
The SuperJoe Pro 3 will not fit your Toyota Prius <- From the Yakima website

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hi, I had posted before under a different name but had to reset things, so here is my story again with a 1 month update in the following post. This is originally from 5/25/2011.
Baseline Posting & Pictures
Date: 05/25/2011
Topics: The Story, Past Treatments, Pictures, Treatment Plan, The Regimen.
The Story
Having recently turned 26 I'm finally ready to do something about my hair loss. I'm an otherwise healthy male with MPB on both sides of the family. I've always had thin, fine light brown hair, and probably noticed it was first going at about age 20 with the thinning of the crown and formation of a dime-sized bald spot that hair just seemed to part itself away from. I didn't let it get to me and have enjoyed the past five years with my head held high, all the while powering through the Norwood scale at lightning speed. Looking back, I was a solid NW3 at 22 years old, an NW4 by 24, and now sit at what I believe is a NW5 since sometime during 25.
Things really accelerated when I entered a PhD program at 21 and spent the next four years just trying to keep up. It meant intense stress, inadequate exercise, and - probably worst - a horrible sleep schedule, usually only 3-4 hours per night and at least one night a week when I "double dip" and don't sleep at all for a night, going from, say, waking up Tuesday morning then working through Tuesday night and Wednesday, then sleeping 10-12 hours Wednesday night to catch up. It seems like the lack of sleep (or some other feature of the lifestyle) has contributed to accelerated hair loss. On the second day of an overnight powersession I tended to notice tons of shedding onto my papers and keyboard, often having to blow dozens of hairs off every half hour or so. The shedding has actually mostly subsided, as there's not much left on top to shed anymore! Unfortunately I'm so committed to finishing strong in this program that the resultant hair loss has been a necessary evil to ensure I don't fall behind. I have been hopeful that most or some of the hairloss is simply tellogen effluvium from a mentally and physically stressful lifestyle that will resolve once I'm done with this academic program, although noting the family history of MPB and the NW-style progression, this may be a fanciful dream.
Since I'm tall enough (6') and only ever see myself from the front I probably haven't noticed how bad it has gotten. Friends and family close to me have started to make small jokes or comments in passing which I don't really mind, I tend to look at it as endearing, but it does make me aware that it is a visible issue and there are probably people not as close to me who think it but just don't say it. And as I'm still single and honestly haven't even hit the dating market much due to my overcommitment to my studies, I'm growing concerned that I'm going to finish school and be set up for lifelong success, yet bear the appearance of a broken man. Like many people have reported, I feel like I've wasted what could have been the best years of my life buried in the books in hopes of providing a better life down the road which I may not be able to fully enjoy due to hair loss.
Past Treatments
Ok, enough storytelling, on to the goods: I haven't really done much to treat it to date, I had a roughly two month long run-in with minoxidil (as Rogaine foam) two years ago, at age 24. I used it semi-regularly but not regularly enough; the day-long appearance of a wet spot on the back of my head from the foam prevented me from wanting to use it in the morning, and it was just far down on the list of priorities so, sadly, application just fell between the cracks some days. About a year ago I started with the Nioxin 5 part system: shampoo, conditioner, 'scalp activating treatment', 'follicle booster', and some glorified multi-vitamin. The shampoo and conditioner aren't bad, but even the full system hasn't done anything to noticeably improve the situation or even stop the shedding, so I'll choose not to renew this costly system for another go around. I've been taking 320mg Saw Palmetto for the past six months or so, half in the morning and half at night. I've recently cut back to just 160mg in the morning and will be completely done with my supply by next week. It wasn't good or bad, but I'm no longer throwing time and money at anecdotes, instead opting only for the proven stuff or strongly promising stuff, as I'll explain in the Treatment Plan below.
I looked into finasteride about a year ago but propeciahelp scared me away. I didn't really think of hair loss as a big issue until recently, and deep-down I knew that the worst thing that could happen is the hair loss affect my behavior, so to that extent there was some value in denial. I remember explicitly thinking that the more I thought about hair loss, the more I'd worry and more hair I'd lose, so I did a good job blocking it out for a few years. I wouldn't mind continuing on that path, but it has become unavoidable. I am happy to say though that it still doesn't inhibit me much...it's clear that it's only as big a deal to others as I make it out to be, so I don't let it stop me from going out, being loud, talking to girls, and I just act like I don't know any better.
Even so, it would be nice to actually have some hair up there, or to know I'm stuck with only the Rob Corddry-esque tuft for good at which point I'd probably consider shaving it all. Before getting to the treatment plan let's lay down the baseline photos:
The Pictures
Two overhead shots with flash:
And two without flash:
One from above-front:
Here is a series of five from above, from behind to just forward of 12:00:
You know, I'm not sure if it matters, but I'm taking these with a camera with a 25mm equivalent wide-angle lens. I'm not sure if that distorts the perspective in these pictures, especially up close, but I do have a pretty big head anyway.
Geez I didn't even realize it was that bad until taking these pictures, because I usually only see it from the front, like this:
And it's really a shame because I have awesomely thick hair in the back and on the sides, it's just been total destruction of the hairline, crown, and top of the head. The lack of parity is really becoming striking. I'm not sure if this is indicative of anything or useful information, maybe it would lend itself to a HT down the road, but that doesn't look like a road I'll be taking at this point. Here are two pics of the sides, they don't look as thick in the pictures due to a recent haircut, I'll get better ones sometime:
Finally, a few more candid shots in action, although it's dark and you can't see much. Obviously I can't take candid pictures of myself, and I think the friends who usually do take pics of me consciously try to avoid exposing the bad hair up top, so I don't really have any that highlight the hair:
Ok so that's where I'm starting from. Next:
Treatment Plan
As the first piece of practical advice I picked up here on HLT, I've been using Nizoral 2-4x per week for a month or two. Haven't really noticed anything but will continue to do so on the good advice of the people on this board.
I saw my GP last week for the first time in years, he took one look, confirmed AGA, and wrote a prescription for 5mg fin with the instructions to take 1/4 pill (1.25mg) for four days and skip the fifth day. I filled the 20-pill prescription (80 doses, ~3 months worth) for $19 at the University's pharmacy. He also ordered blood tests for some things I can't remember, and, as suggested on propeciahelp, I had him add LH, FSH, and free/total Testosterone. I also asked for estrogen, prolactin, and SHBG, but he started to balk, saying it's not necessary and would end up costing me a fortune out-of-pocket. I didn't push the issue. I'll be back in two weeks to discuss the results of those tests and will post them back here.
I dusted off my three remaining cans of Rogaine Foam from my stint two years ago, they just expired last month but, knowing that the expiration date is a minimum effective date, I feel comfortable using them up quickly over the next three months. I started taking the fin in the evening/nighttime and applying the Rogaine Foam twice a day, both on Tuesday, May 24, 2011. I have for a few years taken a daily Centrum multi-vitamin, half in the morning and half at night, each with a Fish Oil/Omega-3 supplement and 500mg Biotin, and plan to continue doing so with the new treatment plan.
I also ordered the S5 5% spironalactone cream from this site for its topical anti-androgenetic properties, and will integrate that into the regimen 2x/day about 10 minutes after applying minoxidil, as indicated by Dr. Lee. It won't arrive til June at best, but I'm not sure when I want to integrate this in. I'd like to see if the fin and minox have any impact first, but know that that could take a year or more. I'm still undecided on when to start using the spiro; my fear is that something works and I'll be locked into using them all permanently for lack of knowledge about what is actually doing what. I'm trading that off with the risk of less-than-effective treatment by leaving out some known solutions in the meantime. So the regimen is as follows:
The Regimen
Nizoral 1% Shampoo, 2-3x/week (began 4/01/2011)
Finasteride 1.25mg/day (began 5/25/2011)
Minoxidil 5% (Rogaine Foam) 2x/day (began 5/25/2011)
Spironolactone 5% with .025% Retin-A (S5) 1x/day (beginning 6/08/2011)
Daily Centrum multi, Omega-3s (600mg), Biotin (1mg)
Future Plans:
-Replace Spiro with RU or CB, pending results and availability.
-Integrate ASC-J9, pending results and availability.
-Integrate a Copper Peptide/SOD spray, once theres something better than Tricomin/Folligen (2.5% AHK-Cu, TEMPO/TEMPOL, and PBN).
-Include Aminexil treatment every 6 months starting in December.
-Replace Rogaine with Spectral DNC, if I get rich.
-Integrate more growth promoters:
Nizoral Off-days:
TESTING: L'Oreal Pro-Vive Thickening vs.
Aveda Pure Abundance Shampoo + Clay Conditioner
TESTING: different American Crew products, tend to favor Forming Cream.
Tresemme Hair Spray (sometimes)
Have a can of Toppik around I dont really use.
TESTING: Couvre vs Dermmatch
Nioxin 5 part system - Shampoo, Conditioner, Follicle Booster, Scalp Activator, Vitamins (1 year, replaced with Nizoral)
Saw Palmetto 320mg/day (6 months, replaced with Finasteride)
Blind Faith (through 5/24/2011)
Thanks for reading my story. I really appreciate any comments, feedback, advice, or criticism. I'll post back regularly with updated pictures. I'll also keep you posted with the results of the blood tests due back from the doctor in two weeks. Thanks again!
Here is also a timeline for reference that I'll update with each new development. You can see my currently updated regimen using the button below my signature.
Updated Timeline:
5/24/2011: Started Niz, Fin & Minox (had been using Niz for 2 months)
6/08/2011: +Spironolactone 5% with .025% Retin-A
7/02/2011: +MSM 3g daily


text:
Video: Small debts snowballing, leaving elderly homeless
WASHINGTON (WUSA9) -- Small debts are snow-balling into thousands of dollars, and leaving elderly people in the District without a home. It happens more than you might think.
Overlooked property taxes are leaving life-long DC residents out on the streets.
"It's upsetting, especially for the seniors. It's often their security, their life savings, their legacy to their children," said Joannie Savage with the Legal Counsel for the Elderly.
She's talking about a program that allows elderly to buy liens on homes whose owners owe property taxes. The District does this as a way to collect back-taxes. The idea is the purchaser would then own the debt to charge an interest rate of up to 18% to the homeowner.
"The debt may be as low as $1,000. Once the lien is sold, the attorneys' fees can really snowball to four, five times as much as," said Savage.
Then, many elderly people are forced out of their homes through foreclosures. Advocates say the elderly don't even know they owe money in taxes. The first time they hear about it is when they get that knock on the door asking them to leave.
"We feel a tremendous responsibility for the people who are affected by this. It's just atrocious situations," DC Mayor Vincent Gray said about the program.
A majority of the cases are in Wards 7 and 8. Now Savage and the Legal Counsel for the Elderly are calling on D.C. leaders to change legislation.
But the DC Office of Tax and Revenue has no plans on changing it.
"This is the only collection mechanism that is provided by statue, so we are in charge of administering it," said Stephen Cordi, Deputy CFO, Office of Tax and Revenue.


text:
From the beginning AMAZINGCOSMETICS® set themselves apart from the competition by focusing on one thing and being the best at it - Concealer. Creating beautiful, flawless skin is more than a one-product task. Whether it's a luminizing liquid concealer that blurs imperfections and adds radiance, a creamy solid stick concealer that hydrates and plumps, a portable chubby stick, perfect for spots, highlighting and contouring, or the Industry Standard, Amazing Concealer, AMAZINGCOSMETICS has your complete concealer wardrobe.
The best makeup looks start with beautiful skin; however, many of us don't wake up to a flawless complexion. That's why most makeup artists agree that foundation is by far the most important cosmetic for creating gorgeous effects. In 1999, a pair of friends founded the Amazing Cosmetics makeup collection and set their sights on offering base makeup products that were so effective that they would truly amaze. The success of their company and the incredible results possible with their products have made their brand the choice of many Hollywood makeup artists.
The Amazing Cosmetics line contains foundations in a variety of formulations and shades. Whether you prefer a mineral powder, a pressed compact or a liquid, you're sure to find the ideal solution in the range. To carefully hide away imperfections and blemishes, the range includes an array of concealers, and to finish the face, powder formulas are found in the lineup. The Amazing Cosmetics assortment also includes the tools that are necessary to obtain natural, professional quality results. Start exploring the range now and prepare to be amazed!
In 1999, Amazing Cosmetics launched a startup partnership between Sue Katz and Lisa Thurman. Katz, a stockbroker, mother, and makeup artist, and Thurman, an entrepreneur, focused their partnership on developing cosmetics products that create a flawless complexion. This strategy, combined with Sandy Incardona's passion and energy to expand the product's visibility in retail outlets across the country, has helped Amazing Cosmetics become a force in the cosmetics industry. Amazing Cosmetics is based in Libertyville, Illinois, where The Studio exists—the company's hub. The Studio allows consumers to take classes, enjoy personalized makeup applications, or even host a private party. Celebrities such as Drew Barrymore, Carrie Underwood, and Marissa Miller have enjoyed the benefits of Amazing Cosmetics, and now you can too, thanks to SkinStore's product line.
When you invest in Amazing Cosmetics, you're investing in your complexion. Even more, you're investing in a company that values giving back to the community. Amazing Cosmetics has partnered with dozens of nonprofits and charitable organizations, such as the American Cancer Society, Doctors Without Borders, and Chicago Children's Charities, to give back. Thus, purchasing Amazing Cosmetics allows you to support an organization that works to make a difference in the community. Whether you need a concealer to hide those bothersome blemishes, a foundation for all-over coverage, or a powder to set your look, Amazing Cosmetics has many products in its line. Explore what benefits these products have to offer, and choose one for you today.


text:
Fake mortgage-backed securities prompt AIG to sue Bank of America
Newscast Media NEW YORK, New York –Bank of America's problems continue to grow ever since the financial giant purchased Countrywide and its assets. On June 29, BofA settled an $8.5 billion lawsuit with investors for selling them mortgage-backed securities that were never mortgage-backed. The Attorneys General for all 50 states opened investigations with the bank, and inside sources speaking on condition of anonymity say a settlement in the neighborhood of $25billion by Bank of America will soon be reached, in exchange for immunity from prosecution by individual states.
Bank of America also faces several class action lawsuits, and now has to deal with the most recent lawsuit by insurer AIG seeking to recover more than $10billion in losses from Bank of America on $28 billion of investments, in what could be the largest mortgage-security-related action filed by a single investor, the report said. The AIG lawsuit is American International Group Inc et al v. Bank of America Corp et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County No. 652199/2011.
Here's how it works:
The homeowner expects to be a "Borrower" receiving a "Loan" from the bank. The bank then sells the loan to a Special Purpose Vehicle (a shell company) and gets paid in full without recourse, and also gets a commission as a finder's fee, but the bank never funded the loan. The homeowner was tricked into believing the bank funded the loan, when the bank was just paid for finding a homeowner willing to sell the debt obligation. The bank's commission was also for the bank to allow its name to be on the instrument, and often to act as Servicer to get monthly fees.
The homeowner was never told truth about who funded the transaction, because a Deed of Trust would not normally be allowed for a Financial Asset purchased by a Securitization Trust (a Security covered by security laws), or a Commercial Paper which is covered by the Uniform Commercial Code Division (UCC) 8, whereas Securitized Transactions with a Deed of Trust are covered under UCC 9.
The "Lender" named on the instrument did not fund the transaction, and therefore was not really the "Lender" at all. They acted only as a "Nominal Lender", named on the debt instrument only to facilitate the creation of a Deed of Trust or Mortgage to secure the debt obligation as an alleged "Loan", when it was not a "Loan", but rather the receptacle for an Asset-Backed Investment Security. The "Pretender Lender" was paid in full, plus a commission, and lost interest in the debt obligation.
Also, the Deed of Trust or Mortgage can't secure an Asset-Backed Investment Security, and homeowners were tricked into thinking they were "Borrowers" of "Loans",when they were actually SELLERS of a debt instrument to a Securitization Special Purpose Vehicle. An invalid Deed of Trust or Mortgage, was fraudulently procured under the guise of a "Loan", when it wasn't a Loan, but rather the "Purchase of a Note" into an Asset-Backed Investment Security.
The investor on the other hand, who put up the money was never told that the mortgage-backed security was never mortgage backed because the majority of them do not make it into the trust, as they are resold over and over again. The pretender-lender holds on to the Note and in most cases never delivers it into the
trust as admitted by Countrywide representative in Kemp v. Countrywide, Case No. 08-18700-JHW.
None of this is revealed to the homeowner or investors at closing, hence the fraud lawsuits that are being filed. Insurers like AIG were taken for a ride, because most of these mortgage-backed securities that they insured never became assets of the trusts. The trusts were either empty or had bad mortgages.
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the document that governs the trust Section 2.01(a) states:
(a)"Each Seller concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Depositor, without recourse, all its respective right, title and interest in and to the related Mortgage Loans…"
The Depositor then assigns the mortgage to the Trustee who deposits it into the trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders. If the mortgage is either a non-qualified mortgage delivered into a trust, or is simply not delivered into the trust, these defects can never be cured because when a mortgage is securitized the act is irreversible. You cannot unscramble the eggs.


text:
Video: Parking lot scam costs drivers more than $100
ATLANTA -- Drivers throughout the City of Atlanta should be on the lookout for a parking scam that seems to be gaining traction in the City.
Tracye Kamperman was approached by a fake parking attendant outside the AAA Garage on Marietta Street, Downtown. He told her she needed to pay six dollars up front.
She hesitated, but he was persistent. Finally she relented and paid. But when she went to leave the lot, an actual company employee told her their policy was pay as you exit.
In a similar situation, Tracy Kenyon pulled her car into the Parking Company of America lot on Peachtree Street across from The Vortex.
She was greeted by a well dressed man who told her it was $5 to park and gave her a ticket to display in her windshield. When she returned to the car, it was booted.
A booting company employee told Tracy she had been scammed and that the man who took her money had no affiliation with the lot.
Police advise drivers to read the signs carefully and not give anyone money unless you're sure they can prove they are affiliated with the lot.


text:
Doing The Right Thing
January 27, 2013
One of the most heart-warming things I've ever seen occurred many years ago during a high school football game I was covering from the sidelines....
There is no such thing as right & wrong. What is considered right today was wrong last year.Look at slavery; 1800-right today- no. Abortion- up to 1973- wrong-- today right. It's all who squeeks the loudest.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
There's no place for affirmative action in competitive sport. It's bad enough we have the result of it in the White House.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
one thing they won't do is save money by eliminating administrative positions that aren't needed.this is where all the bloat is in these school systems.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Showing 3 of 3 comments
Post a Comment
You must first login before you can comment.


text:
December 5, 2013 | 1 comment | 35655 views
Mangano needs to tackle 2014's challenges head-on
1 2 Next page >
Although Election Day has passed and Nassau County Executive Ed Mangano retained his position, defeating Tom Suozzi by 18 percentage points, he will face several challenges in 2014, and he must tackle them head-on.
1 2 Next page >
1 comment on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
For once I can agree with you Al.
Mangano needs to get concessions from all the unions.
That includes our beloved overpaid Police Force.
As to back pay I say No Way that will bankrupt the county even more.
Friday, December 6, 2013 | Report this


text:
KākāPHOTO: Sabine Bernert ©
Search the catalogue of our science publications.
Publications in our current and past science series.
Our stand-alone science books, posters and factsheets.
View our conservation publications. These are not publications produced by the Publishing team.
A list of our latest publications from each science series.
Keep up with our new science publications by subscribing to email updates.
How to view and order our science publications.
Get contact and copyright information and a guide for authors.
Find DOC's corporate publications including the Annual Report and Statement of Intent.
DOC's procedural documents are provided here so we can share our best practice.


text:
flexi® Neon Retractable Dog Leash
Flex your flexi North America Neon Cord Retractable Leash! The trendy leash
features reflective sheeting on both sides of the leash handle,
providing enhanced visibility and improved safety. The 16 ft neon
cord is retractable and considered a best buy by Consumers
- Includes a braking system that can be activated with your thumb
- Lightweight, yet durable
Directions for Use:
To operate: Hold the flexi leash by the handle, not the leash tape/belt. The leash tape/belt will run in and out freely without sagging.
To stop leash: Press the brake button down firmly with your thumb. The brake will stay locked as long as the button is pressed.
To lock brake: Press the brake button down firmly and with your thumb push the lock forward. The leash will remain at a fixed length. It is recommended to use the permanent lock only when you want the dog to walk to heel.
To release brake lock: Press the brake button with your thumb; next, using your thumb, draw back the lock; then slowly release the brake button.
Always use the enclosed safety collar in addition to your dog's collar.
Special Precautions & Warnings:
Who can use this leash
This leash should be used by responsible people who have read and can follow all of these precautions. Anyone who uses this leash must be able to control the dog and watch the dog closely at all times to keep it from running off or wrapping anyone in the tape/belt. Keep out of reach of small children. Never let anyone play with this leash.
Is this leash right for your dog?
Do not use this leash with a disobedient or uncontrollable dog, since they are more likely to wrap the tape/belt around people or to turn off at high speeds. Only use this leash with a dog that does not exceed the weight limit listed on the leash. Even small dogs can pull the leash hard enough to injure you, particularly because the length of the leash allows the dog to run and build up speed.
Consider where you will go
You can use the flexi retractable leash anywhere you would normally go with your dog. However, the leash is designed to give your dog more freedom while on the leash. For example, if you go to the vet, groomer, or any crowded place, you can give your dog the additional freedom. You need to have the leash fully retracted and brake locked.
Use leash only as intended
Follow the directions listed above.
Small dogs: up to 26 lbs (12 kg)
Medium dogs: up to 44 lbs (20 kg)
Large dogs: up to 110 lbs (50 kg)
$ 15.99 to $ 17.99
$ 531.99
$ 63.99
$ 3.99 to $ 5.99
$ 19.99
$ 199.99
$ 23.49
$ 21.99 to $ 27.99
$ 19.99 to $ 39.99
New$ 9.99 to $ 21.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99


text:
(More coming soon...ha! I had planned on a big blog reveal with lots of new features, but I'm not sold on the blog design...hoping to have it up sometime next week!)
Wire -- if you are using 4mm beads or smaller you will need to use 24 gauge wire.
Jump Rings {1 per heart for earrings, 6 per heart for necklaces}
Earring wires {if making earrings}
Ribbon and ribbon findings {if making necklaces}
Lobster Claw {if making necklaces}
Gorilla Glue or Super Glue {if making necklaces}
A few links of extra jewerly chain {optional - if making necklaces
Here's what you do:
- Make the Heart. Cut a 6 inch piece of wire. Fold it in half. Ten bend each wire in an arc to make the top of the heart.
- String the beads on each side of the heart. I put 4 beads on one side, then bent the wire down to make the top of each side of the heart. Then I added another 8 beads to each side = 12 beads on each side of the heart.
- Once each side have beads on it, then make a loop on both sides. Loop the tail around the base of the loop on one of the sides. Cut off excess with wire cutting pliers.
- Put the end of the tail through the loop you just created. Fit the loop of this circle inside the other loop. Then wrap the tail around that loop and cut off the excess. You can use your fingers to make the heart perfectly symmetrical by moving the wire around once the heart is created.
- If you are making earrings, put a jump ring through the side of one of the sides of the heart and also attach that jump ring to an earring wire. Close with your pliers. You are done now if you are making just earrings.
- If you are making a necklace, you can put one jump ring through so it hangs off center -- like above. Or two jump rings at both side of the heart so it hangs straight.
- Now measure your ribbon - cute the ribbon to any length you want. I made mine 16 inches long. Then cut the ribbon in half - so you have two halves.
- Take out four Fold Over Ribbon Clamps {you can get these in the jewerly section of your craft store}. Put a drop of Gorilla Glue inside the clamp and then put an end of the ribbon inside and fold the clamp over, securing with your pliers. Do this with all four edges of the ribbon. Let dry for an hour or so.
- Attach a jump ring through all four clamps. Attach the jump rings on two sides to the jump ring attached to the heart. Then attach the jump ring to another end of the ribbon to the lobster claw.
- And attach the last jump ring to a small section of chain. This will let your necklace be adjustable. Close with your pliers.
(Styles may vary...visit my shop for more fabric options.)
(Feel free to split the money among several amazing shops!)
Happy Hygiene
Sure Cuts a Lot
Little Fingerprints
Tatertots and Jello
Heather Myers
The Pleated Polkadot
Four Flights of Fancy
Angel Face Designs
Sew Chatty
Moxie Mandie
To enter:
You must be a follower of this blog via Google Friend Connect.
1. Leave me a comment letting me know that you already follow, or say hi if you're new!
2. Tweet/Facebook/Blog about this giveaway and post a comment with the direct link to your shout out.
3. Follow @SugarAndDots on Twitter and let me know that you do.
4. "Like" Sugar and Dots on Facebook and let me know that you do.
Here is a sample tweet to help get you started:
"I just entered the giveaway by @SugarAndDots! http://tinyurl.com/4g8zs3j"
Winner will be announced during What I Whipped Up Wednesday next week.
Good luck and THANK YOU so much...for everything.


text:
key x_item DV7069
Tickling The Mind - Mel Meller
Item Number: DV7069
Are you short of new ideas and presentational concepts for your magic? Well, they're finally here in this brand new must-have DVD for all magicians!
Welcome to the Mel Meller Project, a mammoth 2 DVD set that takes you into the world of one of Europe's leading corporate cabaret magicians.
With great magic and hilarious comedy, Mel presents 16 (yes, that's right - 16) routines complete with presentational ploys and gags that you will use! There is simply no filler on these DVDs.
Volume 1
Customer Reviews Write a review.
No reviews yet. Do you own this product? Write a review.


text:
key x_item DV9718
Complete Cups & Balls - Ammar
Item Number: DV9718
The Cups & Balls is universally acclaimed as the effect which every magicianshould study. There has never been a more complete or effective way to discover the fascinating secrets of this enduring classic.
Volume 1 - Fundamental Props, Fake Transfer, The Steal, Loading (Secret/Actual/ Fake), The Inertia Move, Basic Nesting, The Super Simple Routine, Methods of Holding Out, Finger Palm, Thumb Palm, Classic Palm, Beginning Sleights,The Fake Transfer, The French Drop, Classic Pass, The Simple Transfer, Misdirecting by the Wand, Secretly Loading a Ball Into a Cup, The Tip Over Load, Loading a Nested Cup, Stealing from a Tabled Cup, Two Finger Steal, Simply Holding Inside,Stealing from Nested Cup, Little Finger Retention/Steal, Nesting Rolling Steal, and lots more ...
Volume 2 - Advanced Wand Vanishes, Through the Fist, Striking Vanish, Opening the Routine, Opening Positions,One Ahead, Two Ahead, Three Ahead, Four Ahead, Ammar's Opening Production, Methods of Misdirection, Standing or Sitting, Sleeves, Coordinated Timing of Both Hands, Timing, The Loading Hand, Holding the Cup, Ending Sequences and much more ...
Customer Reviews Write a review.
No reviews yet. Do you own this product? Write a review.


text:
See the top 20 most helpful scuba gear reviews
Average Customer Review: based on 1 reviews.Rating: Wetsuit for water skiing and swimming
I am a five foot four inch 145 pound 65 year old male. I want to go ocean kayaking in Nova Scotia this July. The water temp should be around 50-60 degrees. I do not want a full wetsuit but perhaps a shorty. What size should I buy, how thick, and what type (ie. sleeveless, sleeved)? Thanks
The most important measurements any time you purchase a wetsuit or drysuit using the manufacturer's sizing charts will always be your waist and chest/bust measurements. The suit needs to fit your torso correctly in order to do its job properly. Keep in mind there is no such thing as a comfortable wetsuit on the surface. You want it to be snug, but not cut off circulation to your extremities. The more snug it is, the thinner the layer of water your body is heating. If its too loose you will remain warm for awhile, but eventually your body won't be able to keep up with the greater amount of water flowing through the suit and you'll wind up getting cold faster. After that your height is a secondary measurement. The manufacturers realize that generally speaking your boots and gloves can overlap slightly short arms and legs, or the diver can push or roll up longer sleeves and/or arms if need be. Weight is a measurement the diver can usually ignore. It really has little to no bearing what so ever on the sizing and fit of your suit. The manufacturers do not take into account muscle being more dense than fat, so based simply on fitness levels 2 people can be the exact same size but quite different in weight. This measurement should only be used if the person is literally on the fence between 2 sizes in all categories.
Hi Im 5 10" and 175 lbs. Ill be snorkeling, kayak fishing in bay and inshore waters in NJ. water temps 65-75 degree range. What size would i be right for and would the BG 2/1 Short John WS be a good option for me? Thanks, TD


text:
Testimony :: Randolph Bell
Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues - Department of State
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission:
I want to thank you for this opportunity to address this Commission on the important issue of property restitution, one in which the Department of State has been involved for many years. I am pleased to play a part in the work of this esteemed Commission and I want to thank Congressman Smith in particular for his long-term commitment to the issue of property restitution and for hosting us on Capitol Hill.
It is a great honor and privilege to represent the United States of America as the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues. I would like to open my participation in this hearing by stressing my dedication to continuing the work of my predecessors. The mission of the Office of Holocaust Issues remains to bring justice, however belated, to Holocaust survivors and other victims of World War II, and to ensure that the rights of all victims of Communism and Fascism are respected.
In order to achieve progress on the complicated issues of property restitution, we need cooperation – cooperation between Congress and the Department of State, between our government and the governments of the former eastern bloc countries, and between European institutions and aspirant nations. The Helsinki Commission and Congressional actions have been powerful assets as we work together to further the process of the restitution of property wrongfully seized by fascist and communist regimes. I hope to see this cooperation grow stronger in the coming years.
At this exciting time in history, a time when former communist nations are yearning to belong more fully to the West, a time when they are open to ideas of reconciliation with their pasts and fuller cooperation with democratic nations - at this pivotal time in history, we have an opportunity to help these countries achieve their full potential. As states in Central and Eastern Europe undertake the reforms they must complete in order to qualify for NATO and EU membership, they are examining the issue of property restitution and are looking to the United States for guidance. The United States Government has continually and specifically stressed to them that uniform, fair and complete restitution is a prerequisite both to adequate establishment of the rule of law and to the safeguarding of religious and minority rights and freedoms. We have stressed that, in joining the Euro-Atlantic mainstream and applying for membership in multilateral organizations, these countries are seeking to join a community of values. Membership involves continued and pervasive scrutiny of laws and practices for all of us. Consequently, we stress that the process a country creates for achieving restitution will be expected to continue and to achieve results. For countries invited to join the Alliance, this will be true after their accession to NATO as much as it has been in advance of their joining.
Mr. Chairman, property restitution in these countries arises as an issue because of actions taken by Nazi occupation regimes and the actions of the communist governments that acceded to power under the aegis of the then Soviet Union. In the countries they occupied, the Nazis relentlessly seized property that had any connection to Jews – communal property owned by the various Jewish communities, and private property owned by individual Jews, Roma and other victims. Valuable movable property such as artworks soon found its way into the hands of Nazi leaders or was converted into cash to fund the Nazi war effort; occupation regime officials took up residence in confiscated homes, and other properties, including synagogues, were used for commercial or other purposes.
When the war ended, there was some effort in several countries to return properties to their original owners, but the newly established communist governments soon reversed that process, preferring to use the confiscated property for their own purposes. For victims, the change in leadership did not alter the availability of their property -- they still did not enjoy its use or have access to it. With minor exceptions, the essentials of this situation remained unchanged for the ensuing four decades.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and of its satellites presented an opportunity to reverse confiscations and to return property, real and movable, to rightful owners. We have supported that process for the past decade. There has been considerable progress in some areas, less in others. But the trend has been in the right direction.
In this connection, I want to pay special tribute to the efforts of Stuart Eizenstat, who started work on this matter while serving as the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union from 1994 to 1996 and continued his work on this subject while holding sub-cabinet positions at Commerce, State and Treasury. He sensitized the leaderships of the newly established democratic governments to the need to correct the injustices of the past as a pre-requisite to becoming participants in the free market world trading system and the community of democracies. His presentation to the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust Era assets established a framework for dealing with this issue.
The Bush Administration has continued to pursue restitution vigorously, engaging the countries of central and Eastern Europe, and particularly NATO aspirants. The Department takes this issue very seriously and is committed to monitoring and reporting on property restitution in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Our embassies report regularly and actively on this subject.
In this effort we are working cooperatively with NGOs, including the American Jewish Committee, the American Joint Distribution Committee, the Polish American Congress, the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany and other NGOs. I am in frequent contact with ranking NGO representatives.
Property restitution is complicated and controversial. Changing the ownership and use of buildings and land from one party or purpose to another can cause major disruptions that already economically challenged countries can ill afford. In encouraging restitution, we try to keep in mind the following considerations:
· Restitution laws should govern both communal property owned by religious and community organizations, and private property owned by individuals and corporate entities.
· To document claims, access to archival records, frequently requiring government facilitation, is necessary. Reasonable alternative evidence must be permitted if archives have been destroyed.
· Uniform enforcement of laws is necessary throughout a country.
· The restitution process must be non-discriminatory. There should be no residence or citizenship requirement.
· Legal procedures should be clear and simple.
· Privatization programs should include protections for claimants.
· Governments need to make provisions for current occupants of restituted property.
· When restitution of property is not possible, adequate compensation should be paid.
· Restitution should result in clear title to the property, not merely the right to use the property.
· Communal property should be eligible for restitution or compensation without regard to whether it had a religious or secular use. Some limits on large forest or agricultural holdings may be needed.
· Foundations managed jointly by local communities and international groups may be appropriate to aid in the preparation of claims and to administer restituted property.
· Cemeteries and other religious sites should be protected from desecration or misuse before and during the restitution process.
Since I assumed the duties of Special Envoy on May 1, I have visited Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania to talk specifically about property restitution issues. I have also participated in Washington reviews of the reform process with visiting delegations from other NATO aspirant states and closely reviewed the actual state of restitution in all these countries. I hope to visit several other countries as the summer and autumn progress. Ranking colleagues in the State and Defense Departments and at the National Security Council also have traveled to NATO-aspirant capitals and engaged delegations and Embassies here in Washington. They, too, have stressed the urgency of uniform and effective restitution procedures.
There are of course limitations on what the United States can properly do. Under accepted international law and practice, we can formally espouse individual claims – that is present a claim to a government – only under very specific circumstances. We therefore concentrate our efforts on urging countries to put in place fair, transparent, nondiscriminatory restitution processes that will cover broad categories of cases.
While we have neither the authority nor the resources to advocate individual claims, our Embassies and consulates abroad are able to help American citizen claimants understand what the legal requirements are in a specific country and to provide a list of attorneys who can assist in the preparation of an individual claim. One good example of this kind of assistance is the material on the website of our embassy in Bucharest. The site includes a description of the Romanian law and the process through which a claimant must go in order to qualify. It also provides a list of attorneys.
As I noted above, we divide property restitution into two broad categories, communal and private. Communal property is that which belonged to religious communities and included places of worship, schools and health facilities, community halls. Such properties provided the physical facilities used by the Jewish communities in the shtetels of pre-War central and eastern Europe. Christian organizations of most denominations also possessed properties, some of which was nationalized or otherwise confiscated by the communist regimes or earlier by the Nazis. These communal properties represent significant assets. The United States Government strongly supports the restitution of both private and communal property. Private claims directly affect U.S. citizens. Communal claims provide the economic wherewithal for small and struggling religious communities.
As indicated in the appended country-by-country summary, most countries have made substantial progress in the restitution of communal property. I would note that, of the NATO aspirants, Romania is the only country that does not have a law governing communal property restitution. During my visit to Bucharest in late June I was assured that a law was close to enactment. On June 25, the Romanian Parliament passed a bill providing for the restitution of communal property, excluding "places of worship", to the country's various religious groups. This bill is currently awaiting the President's signature. We have not yet obtained a text of this law.
I know that the Commission has had a particular interest in the fate of the property that the Romanian Government took from the Greek Catholic or Uniate Church in the late 1940's and which is now held by the Romanian Orthodox Church. During my visit, Romanian officials assured me that the communal property law now under consideration would treat this property fairly. The Department and our Embassy will monitor this issue carefully.
Poland's work in the communal property area is also worth special mention. In the 1990's Poland passed and successfully implemented separate laws dealing with property restitution for the major religious communities represented in that country. The Government of Poland has publicly stated that it intends to introduce new legislation providing all religious communities additional time to apply for properties. This generous offer will be of considerable benefit to Poland's religious communities.
Private property presents a more diversified picture. Poland does not yet have a law governing private property restitution, although in some cases claimants have been able to regain property through court action. Poland has attempted to enact private property restitution legislation on several occasions, most recently in early 2001, but the subject is complex and politically controversial. The government has publicly announced that it intends to introduce such legislation in early 2003. We have been assured that the legislation will not contain citizenship or residence requirements.
Romania enacted private property legislation in February 2001. At our suggestion, the original application deadline of August 2001 was extended to February of this year. The adjudication process is now well under way. We have urged Romania to implement this law in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner.
The country-by-country summary that we are submitting to you today includes a great deal more detail about the property restitution situation in eastern and central Europe. The situation varies considerably from country to country and I do not believe that trying to deal with the detail here would be particularly enlightening. I know that many of you have been engaged in this issue for many years and no doubt have specific questions to pose. I will be pleased to answer them as best I can or will endeavor to obtain answers for you.
Summary of Property Restitution in
Central and Eastern Europe
July 16, 2002
· Numerous properties have been returned.
· Important communal properties remain under litigation.
Bulgaria was one of the first Eastern European countries to pass property restitution legislation. The current law stipulates that both Bulgarian citizens and non-Bulgarian citizens are eligible to receive property confiscated during the fascist and communist periods. A successful non-citizen of Bulgaria must, however, sell the property. Only Bulgarian citizens can receive restituted forest and farmland.
NGO's and certain denominations claimed that a number of properties confiscated under the communist government were not returned. For example, the Muslim community claims prior ownership of at least 17 properties around the country. The Catholic Church claims three monasteries, six buildings in Sofia, three in Plovdiv and several buildings in other towns. In addition, the Government reportedly retains properties of several Protestant groups.
Most property that belonged to the Bulgarian Jewish Community has been restituted, although two cases remain unresolved: the Rila Hotel and the property at 9 Suborna Street in Sofia. In the pre-war period, the Suborna Street property and approximately half of the land on which the Rila Hotel was later built belonged to the Jewish Consistory. A recent court decision held that the Bulgarian Jewish organization "Shalom" is the successor to the Jewish Consistory. An additional complication arose when the Bulgarian government, which owned the other half of the Rila Hotel, privatized its share of the company that operates the hotel. Since the privatization there has been little movement on either property, although government officials and Jewish community leaders have stated that they hope to settle these issues soon.
A central problem facing all claimants is the need to demonstrate that the organization seeking restitution is the organization, or legitimate successor, that owned the property prior to September 9, 1944. This is difficult because communist hostility to religion led some groups to hide assets or ownership, and because documents have been destroyed or lost over the years.
· Coalition parties agree to eliminate citizenship requirement.
· Several communal properties remain unrestituted.
Due to Croatia's turbulent past, there is a large amount of disputed property throughout the country. In an attempt to resolve property title disputes and to restitute property seized during the communist period, Croatia passed its first property restitution law in 1993. Since the passage of the law, the restitution process has proceeded very slowly.
The 1993 restitution law mandated the return of property seized during the communist-era. Although the Croatian government has insisted that this law covers property restituted after the war but then again seized soon afterward by the communists, others have agitated for a new law specifically covering the pre-communist years.
The current restitution law prohibits non-Croatian citizens from making claims. Legislation to permit non-citizen claims is currently before the parliament. A number of persons of Croatian descent, who were not U.S. citizens when their claims against Croatia arose but have become American citizens, currently have outstanding property claims. United States citizens also have claims arising from the early 1990s war following the break-up of Yugoslavia.
There are two complicating factors in Croatia's current restitution program. The first is the practice of local governments issuing permits for construction on land with disputed titles. This practice was especially prevalent in the years immediately following the collapse of communism. Another factor is heirless property, which under the current law devolves to the state, instead of being transferred to an organization representing the community to which the former owner of the property belonged.
In 1998, the Government signed a concordat with the Vatican that provided for the return of all Catholic Church property confiscated by the Communist regime after 1945. This agreement stipulates that the Government would return seized properties or compensate the Church where return is impossible. Some progress has been made with some returnable properties being restituted, but there has been no compensation to date for non-returnable properties.
The Orthodox community filed several requests for the return of seized properties, and some cases have been resolved successfully, particularly cases involving buildings in urban centers. However, several buildings in downtown Zagreb have not been returned, nor have properties that belonged to monasteries, such as arable land and forest.
Jewish groups in Croatia have received some of their claimed property in Zagreb, but no properties have been returned to the Jewish Community since March 2000. An estimated 20 additional Jewish property claims are still pending throughout the country. The Jewish Community identifies property return as one of its top priorities.
In 1999, the Constitutional Court struck down six clauses of the Law on Compensation for Property Taken During Yugoslav Communist Rule deemed to be discriminatory against foreigners. The Croatian Government failed to meet the March 31, 2001 deadline to amend the unconstitutional legislation and obtained an extension until July 15, 2001.
On July 5, 2002, parliament adopted a revised Law on the Return of Property Confiscated during Communist Rule that grants foreign nationals the right to compensation for confiscated property, in accordance with existing bilateral agreements. The amended law does not cover property confiscated between 1941 and 1945.
Czech Republic
· Rychetsky Commission resolved several issues including transfer of some 200 Jewish properties, return of 7,500 art works, and creation of a $7.5 million Holocaust Fund.
· Catholic property claims remain outstanding.
The Czech Republic passed and implemented property restitution laws shortly after the fall of the communist government. The first laws covered confiscations during the period 1948-1989 and were primarily concerned with private property, farmland, artworks and property of religious orders and sports associations. A 1994 amendment provided for the restitution of property taken by the Nazis from Holocaust victims between 1938 and 1945. The amended law still required that private property claimants be Czech citizens.
Beginning in November 1998, a national commission headed by Deputy Prime Minister Rychetsky reviewed property restitution claims arising from the Holocaust. Following the commission's recommendations, in June 2000, parliament enacted legislation that authorized the government to transfer approximately 200 additional properties to the Jewish Community and allowed individual claims for formerly Jewish agricultural property. The law also restituted 70 works of art housed in the National Gallery to the Jewish Community and provided for the return of an estimated 7,500 works of art in Czech government museums and galleries to Holocaust victims and their heirs. Unlike previous Czech restitution laws, the claimants of looted art held by state institutions are not subject to a citizenship requirement. The Czech Government has created an internet site with information and photographs of the works. In 2002, Parliament extended the deadline for filing artwork from the end of 2002 to the end of 2006.
In 2001, the Rychetsky Commission also helped to establish a Holocaust fund with approximately $7.5 million in state money. A third of the fund will be dedicated to providing compensation to non-citizens and others previously unable to regain real property seized by the Nazis. The rest of the fund will be dedicated to the restoration of Jewish sacred sites and to Jewish Community life in the Czech Republic.
Progress in resolving outstanding communal property restitution claims by churches remains slow. In addition, verifying the title of hundreds of claimed properties further complicates the process. Since 1998, the Social Democratic government created two national commissions to address church-state related issues and to develop legislation on the return of income-generating property claimed by the Catholic Church and other property claimed by Protestant churches. The Catholic Church seeks around 700 buildings and 175,000 hectares of land, most of which are held by local authorities. These claims are currently unresolved.
The Czech Republic's decentralized property restitution system does not require municipalities to return communal property in accordance with national policies. Thus the Jewish Community has received most of the communal property once held by the Czech national government and the city of Prague, but properties held by local authorities remain unrestituted.
· Communal property returned.
· Private property claims resolved.
The restitution of property in Estonia has been exemplary and there are no pending property claims or disputes. Estonia has returned communal property to religious communities. Private property owners who filed their claims before the appropriate deadline have also been able to reclaim their property, irrespective of present citizenship. Title to heirless property passes to the local municipal administration of the area in which the property is located. The administration is free to sell the property or retain it for its own use.
· Private and communal property laws being implemented.
· No law governing heirless property.
Hungary was an early leader in private and communal property restitution. The restitution process began in 1991 with the enactment of a law enabling religious organizations to apply for compensation for real estate nationalized after January 1, 1946. Since 1991, twelve major religious groups have submitted 8026 property restitution claims. Out of the total claims submitted: 1383 claims received property, 2670 were denied, 1731 received cash payments (totaling $ 271.3 million or Huf 67.843 billion) and 968 cases were settled without government intervention. As of December 31, 2001, there were 1274 claims, valued at $ 187 million (Huf 46.770 billion), awaiting adjudication. The final adjudication deadline is in 2011.
The 1991 law also allowed for partial compensation for private property. Successful claimants could receive a voucher for up to $21,000 as compensation for their confiscated property. The vouchers, which were issued in lieu of cash payments, could be used to buy shares in privatized companies or to buy land at state land auctions.
In 1997, the Hungarian property restitution law was amended to allow churches to apply for a government-funded annuity as compensation for unrestituted properties. Between 1997 and 1998, the Hungarian government signed compensation agreements with several religious organizations (Catholic, Jewish, Protestant and Orthodox) in order to fully implement the 1991 law and the 1997 amendment. The compensation agreements determined the monetary amount of unrestituted properties and specified the amount of the government-funded annuity to be given to each organization. The specific amounts are in the chart below.
Organization Amount of Annuity Properties Waived Amount of Waived Properties
US$ Hungarian HUF US $ Hungarian HUF
Catholic Church 9.2 million 2.3 billion 1150 168 million 42 billion
Jewish Community 2.4 million 608 million 152 54 million 13.5 billion
Calvinist Church 5.2 million 1.3 billion 392 26.6 million 6.65 billion
Lutheran Church 2.8 million 700 million 74 17 million 4.27 billion
Budai Serb Orthodox Church 179,000 44.9 million 2 3.4 million 848 million
Hungarian Baptist Church 80,000 20 million 2 484,000 121 million
A major problem for Hungary's restitution program is the lack of a law covering the property of Holocaust victims without heirs. Under the current law, heirless properties devolve to the state. Another problem plaguing Hungary's restitution efforts is the legally mandated strict data protection and limited archival access. These laws effectively block access to Holocaust-related records and documents, making further national and international claims difficult.
· Both private and communal property restitution nearing completion.
· Restitution of communal property unresolved pending agreement among Jewish representatives.
Latvian law provides for the restitution of confiscated property, both private and communal, to former owners or heirs. The law does not discriminate on the basis of citizenship or residency. In most cases, municipal authorities make the final decision on property restitution; if they deem a property non-returnable, they may offer alternative property or compensation in the form of vouchers. Claimants, however, may be reluctant to
accept alternative property because of the difficulty in establishing comparative values.
Claims for private property occupied by economically productive facilities have been particularly difficult to resolve. A World Bank program is assisting Latvia in the development of a comprehensive land title registration and verification system to support the development of a real estate market based on improved market valuation.
The current property restitution arrangement provides for the return of communal religious properties to the observant Jewish community, but does not cover the return of communal property to the significantly larger non-observant community. Thus religious property in Riga, Daugavpils, Liepaja and other cities has been restituted to the observant Jewish community, but approximately 200 communal properties remain to be restituted to the non-observant community. The government of Latvia is prepared to proceed with the remaining restitutions pending an agreement between the Jewish observant and non-observant communities, which we expect to be concluded soon.
With this notable exception, most Jewish and Christian property cases have been resolved and the restitution process is nearing completion. Since the beginning of the restitution process, the Latvian observant Jewish Community has received 16 properties and compensation for two others.
· Government developing communal property law.
· Lack of alternative property delays private property restitution.
The government has restituted to private claimants most of the property that can be returned. Resolution of the remaining private property claims will require the identification of alternative property or the payment of compensation, estimated at approximately $500 million. No official timetable for settling private property restitution claims has been established, except for paying out compensation by 2009 for land, forest, and bodies of water, and by 2011 for dwelling houses and flats.
Under the current program the Lithuanian Finance Ministry may pay compensation only to Lithuanian citizens, but citizens qualify regardless of their place of domicile. The deadline to submit applications for property restitution passed in December 2001; the deadline to prove kinship to the original owner is December 31, 2002.
From 1991 to 1996, the observant and non-observant Jewish communities claimed and received 28 buildings, mostly synagogues (three in Vilnius, five in Kaunas and the balance in small towns.) A 1995 law permits only the observant part of a religious group (as opposed to the non-observant) to apply for the restitution of communal property. The practical effect of this has been that only the orthodox Jewish community, comprising five percent of Lithuania's current Jewish population of approximately 4,000, is able to apply for property owned and used by Lithuania's pre-war Jewish population of over 200,000. The non-observant community has not been able to obtain additional property, whereas the observant community has received a number of properties.
In June 2002, a government commission, comprised of cabinet ministers, commenced a review of Jewish communal property issues. The commission is expected to study a list of approximately 1100 unrestituted Jewish communal properties prepared by a committee made up of representatives of the American Jewish Committee, the World Jewish Restitution Organization, B'nai B'rith and the Lithuanian Jewish Community. These organizations plan to form a foundation to assist in pursuing claims and managing restituted property. The Government has proposed to amend the existing property restitution legislation to open the way for restitution of communal property to the new foundation. The Parliament is expected to vote on the amendment in the autumn.
· Almost all property used for religious purposes has been restituted.
· Communal religious property faces legislative hurdles.
The Macedonian government, preoccupied with the Kosovo crisis and the 2001 insurgency, has not had the political will or finances to implement fully its property restitution program. The government passed property restitution legislation in 1998, but implementation of the program has been slow and many property claims by religious communities have yet to be resolved under ongoing negotiations. Macedonia's property restitution program focuses on communal property, as there is no private property restitution law.
After the 1998 property de-nationalization law was passed, the government failed to enact implementation legislation. The law was challenged before the Macedonian Supreme Court in 1999, which ruled that a number of the law's provisions must be altered.
The Jewish community has regained some communal and religious property. In late 1997, the Jewish community proposed a settlement under which the community would receive facilities in Skopje as compensation for unrestituted communal property. In late 2001, the Macedonian government accepted the proposal in principle but it has not yet been implemented.
In May 2000, the Macedonian Parliament passed a law mandating that heirless property of Jewish Holocaust victims be given to a special-purpose fund for the construction of a Holocaust memorial museum. The government established a four-person steering committee, comprised of two government and two Jewish community representatives, for the project. The steering committee recently began its work, identifying some heirless properties eligible for this program.
A major success of Macedonia's restitution program is that virtually all churches and mosques have been returned to the appropriate religious community. Most non-religious properties have yet to be adjudicated. Claims for unrestituted properties are complicated by the fact that the seized properties have changed hands many times and have been developed since the time of their seizure. Due to limited government resources, it is unlikely that the religious communities will regain most of these additional claimed properties.
· Communal property restitution well-advanced and religious groups will have new opportunity to file additional claims.
· Government drafting private property legislation.
During the 1990's, Poland passed legislation to provide for the restitution of property held before the war by Poland's major religious organizations. The legislation established five separate commissions, comprised of representatives of the government and the affected communities, to process the restitution claims. The Catholic Church acquired approximately 2000 properties, the Lutheran Church 210 and the Orthodox Church eight. In some instances, the churches received compensation instead of the actual property.
Thousands of Jewish communal properties served Poland's 3.5 million Jews before the Holocaust. The law governing the restitution of Jewish communal property went into effect in May 1997 and provided a May 2002 deadline for restitution applications. Because of the large number of properties and the small size of the current Polish Jewish community, the Community sought the assistance of the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO). A joint foundation between the Polish Jewish Community and the WJRO was established in late 2001. The joint foundation, known as the Foundation for the Preservation of Jewish Heritage in Poland (FPJHP), was registered in early 2002. The founding agreement provided that the Polish Jewish Community would file claims in certain geographic areas, and the FPJHP would do so in areas not reserved for the Polish Community. The Polish Community filed nearly 2000 applications by the deadline, and the FPJHP filed nearly 3,500 claims.
The Government of Poland has indicated that it is drafting and will soon introduce legislation to enable all religious communities to file additional applications. This would enable the Polish Jewish Community to claim remaining properties identified as having been held by the Jewish Community before the Nazi invasion not already claimed prior to the May, 2002 deadline.
Many of the properties to be restituted are "heritage properties," primarily cemeteries. The maintenance of these properties represents a potential cost of considerable magnitude. The Foundation and the Community may sell properties not needed by the Community in order to meet these expenses.
There is no legislation governing the restitution of private property. Parliament has made several attempts to enact such legislation and did pass a law in early 2001, but President Kwasniewski vetoed it because of its budgetary implications. The legislation imposed a citizenship requirement that would have prevented most American citizens from filing a claim. The government has said that it is preparing new draft legislation for submission to the Parliament in 2003, presumably without citizenship restrictions. Some claimants for the restitution of private properties have successfully acquired their property in Polish courts.
In June 2002, a federal district court judge ruled that the Government of Poland could not be sued in the U.S. to recover property seized by the communist Polish government following World War II. The suit alleged that the Polish Government had profited by refusing to return property. Plaintiffs are considering an appeal.
· Communal property law completed.
· Implementation of Law 10 continues. Greek Catholic Church claims largely unresolved.
Romania was the last of the former communist countries to pass formal property restitution legislation. For the first decade following the fall of the Ceausescu regime, a series of court decisions, laws and decrees governed the return of property seized during the war and under communist rule. These decisions, laws and decrees were frequently contradictory and led to considerable confusion.
In February 2001, Romania enacted Law 10 to govern private property restitution. While this law provides a systematic approach to private property restitution, it is complex and places a considerable burden on claimants. Initially, the law provided an application period of just six months. There was no notification program outside of Romania so that potential claimants had no way of learning about the possibility of filing applications. At the suggestion of the United States, the Romanian Government extended the deadline, first to November 2001 and then to February 2002. But the overseas notification program was not implemented until late 2001, making it difficult for claimants to meet the deadline. Law 10 does not cover agricultural or communal property.
Law 10 required that applicants submit claims to municipal authorities through a court having jurisdiction over the property in question. This made it difficult for applicants who left Romania at an early age or for heirs to know where to submit applications. Despite these difficulties, several thousand claimants filed applications. How long it will take to adjudicate claims, and how transparent that process will be, is not clear.
In late June, Parliament approved legislation governing the restitution of non-religious communal property. The law covers schools and hospitals but not houses of worship. The law will replace the ordinances under which communal property has been returned to religious organizations. A June 1999 ordinance restored 36 buildings to ethnic communities (12 to the Jewish community, 15 to the Hungarian, four to the German, two to the Greek, one to the Slovak and one each to the Ukrainian and Serbian communities.) An earlier ordinance returned six properties to the Jewish community.
Romanian officials have also discussed a prospective additional law on ethnic community properties under which not only Hungarian, German and Slovak communities might benefit but also the Jewish community.
Jewish property claims include approximately 800 hospitals, schools, retirement homes and other properties confiscated by the communist government. A foundation established by the Federation of Jewish communities in Romania and the World Jewish Restitution Organization has received approximately 40 of these properties. Documenting ownership has been difficult for the foundation because of the lack of access to archives. Finding new premises for current occupants has slowed the restitution of both private and communal property in Romania.
In a development that may have far reaching consequences for Romanian property restitution, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in May 2002, on three Romanian property restitution cases (Vasiliu v. Romania; Hodos and others v. Romania; and Surpaceanu v. Romania). The cases considered the right of the state (under law 92/1950) to confiscate civil servants' property, the confiscation of émigrés' property and jurisdictional issues. In two of the cases the Court ordered Romania to pay substantial damages to the petitioners unless the property was returned within three months. In the third case, the court also restituted the property, but the monetary award was for a smaller sum. The Court noted that two of the applicants were deprived of their property for 50 years and that, even if the deprivation served a public interest, the balance between community interest and fundamental individual rights had been upset.
· 4000 communal property buildings returned.
Despite considerable progress made in this area since 1991, a number of religious communities remain concerned about unrestituted religious property confiscated during the Soviet era. According to the Presidential Administration, the Russian Government's Restitution Commission returned approximately 4,000 buildings between the time the decree on communal property restitution went into effect in 1993 and March 15, 2001 when Prime Minister Kasyanov ordered the commission to cease its activities.
Approximately 3,500 of the restituted buildings were returned to the Russian Orthodox Church. Smaller numbers of buildings and houses of worship were returned to non-Orthodox Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities. One example of the latter is the synagogue in Omsk, the largest in Siberia, which was rededicated in May 1996. Even with this modest success, the Jewish Community faces the same obstacles as other religious communities in restituting properties seized during the Communist regime. Some Jewish communities assert that they have recovered only a small portion of the total properties confiscated under Soviet rule, and are seeking additional restitution.
The Russian Government has returned approximately 15,000 religious articles, including icons, torahs and other items, to religious groups. For example, in May 2000, the government turned over 61 Torah scrolls to the Jewish community. However, many other religious artifacts remain in state museum collections.
· Majority of religious property returned.
· High-level Commission making recommendations on heirless and communal Jewish property.
Slovakia, as a part of Czechoslovakia, was an early leader in property restitution, passing laws in 1990 and 1991 for the restitution of Jewish and non-Jewish properties confiscated by the communist regime. A 1993 law covered communal religious property, so that both private and communal property became eligible for restitution. The implementation of these laws led to the restitution of a majority of eligible property throughout Slovakia, with a few important exceptions.
The Orthodox Church received 6 of its 7 claimed properties. The Catholic Church received about 60% of its claimed properties, the remaining claims were denied since the properties were undeveloped at the time of their confiscation but have since been developed. The major obstacles facing Slovakia's outstanding restitution claims are the government's lack of financial resources to pay compensation, current tenants living in restituted property and bureaucratic resistance to specific claims.
One unresolved problem in Slovakia's program is the property of heirless Jewish Holocaust victims. In April 2000, the government and the Slovak Jewish Community established a Joint Commission to discuss heirless property, among other restitution issues. The commission convened in December 2001. It consists of Slovak government representatives and ten Jewish representatives: seven from the Slovak Jewish Community, including the Union of Jewish Religious Communities in the Slovak Republic (UZZNO), and three representing the American Jewish Committee(AJC), B'nai B'rith International, the World Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Restitution Organization.
Following an agreement reached in the December 2001 inaugural meeting, experts reported that heirless Jewish moveable property and real estate, excluding agricultural lands, was valued at approximately 8.5 billion Slovak Crowns ($185 million). The Slovak Jewish Community agreed to accept ten percent of this amount, equal to 850 Slovak crowns ($18.5 million), as payment for the unrestituted property. The representatives of international Jewish groups have not accepted this figure as a fair settlement. Negotiations continue on completion of an acceptable outcome even as Slovakia moves towards parliamentary elections in September 2002.
A previously outstanding restitution issue, which has now been resolved, was the reimbursement to the Slovak Jewish Community of the Slovak Jewish deposit, the forced deposit of Slovak Jewish money and gold into the national bank in 1940. In 1998, UZZNO won a ruling for the reimbursement of the deposit ($600,000). The money is being used for a retirement home in Bratislava and a day care center in Kosice, both of which serve Holocaust survivors.
A remaining matter of concern is the lawsuit filed by the Slovak Jewish Community in Germany in relation to the money paid by the Slovak government for each Slovak Jew deported during the war. During the wartime occupation, the Slovak government was forced to pay 500 Reichsmarks to the Nazis for the deportation of each Jew in 1942. The Slovak government paid this amount through the looted assets of the Jewish Community. The lawsuit calls for a payment to the Slovak Jewish Community of an amount equal to the total money paid for the deportations. The German courts dismissed the case in March 2001, and a ruling on the February 2002 appeal hearing has not yet been released.
· Bulk of communal property returned.
· Heirless property remains an issue.
Slovenia passed and began implementing a law on the restitution of property (the Denationalization Act) in 1991, soon after independence. As of June 2002, 66 percent of the 35,858 property restitution claims filed had been resolved (approximately one-fourth of the resolutions were for only partial restitution or were completely denied). Unresolved cases include both those in which no final decision has been reached and those in which court decisions are being appealed. Over the past decade, settlement of claims has been slowed by such factors as court backlogs, insufficient numbers of trained judicial and administrative personnel, amendments to the Denationalization Act, and inadequate records of land ownership. There have been complaints from some claimants of a general lack of transparency and administrative compliance with the law. Heirless property currently devolves to the state, although no group has registered any grievance with this law.
Almost all Jewish private property claims are resolved and Jewish communal property claims are complete. Other claims which remain to be adjudicated include claims by private Slovene citizens, claims by non-citizens, and substantial claims by the Catholic Church. The Government of Slovenia has stated that it is working to accelerate the restitution process. The goal of finalizing restitution cases has been extended from the end of 2002 to the end of 2004.
The unresolved communal property claims of the Catholic Church are currently being litigated in the Slovenian courts. Under current regulations, Church claims are treated the same as individual claims, with the same rights to appeal and compensation. In July 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture returned over 8,000 hectares of land in the Triglav forest to the Catholic Church. The Ljubljana Administrative Court annulled this decree in May 2002, ruling that roads built on the land were public goods and therefore cannot be restituted. Following the annulment, the Minister of Agriculture stated that he still expects to return to the Church all but about one percent of the land in question.
In addition to the Catholic Church claims, other outstanding claims involve the property of private individuals and property without a clear title sold after the breakup of the former SFR Yugoslavia. Out of the 469 property restitution claims filed by American citizens (all of whom were Yugoslav citizens at the time their property was seized and who naturalized subsequently), around 220 cases remain unresolved.
The Jewish community in Slovenia has never been very numerous and remains small today, numbering around 150. The limited population led to only a small number of Jewish private and communal property restitution claims. Restitution of Jewish communal property in Slovenia has been completed. Neither the Slovene government nor the Jewish Community has defined any approach to dealing with heirless property of Holocaust victims, which could provide a source of income for the Jewish Community.
· The majority of places of worship have been restituted.
· No legislation governing the restitution of private property.
Ukraine has no state religion, although the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church predominate in the east and the west, respectively. These churches can exert significant political influence at both the local and regional levels and many smaller religious groups allege governmental discrimination in favor of these churches with regard to restitution issues.
A 1992 decree commenced Ukraine's restitution program for religious buildings. Registered religious organizations are the only entities permitted to seek restitution of property confiscated by the Soviet regime, and these organizations are limited to receiving only those buildings and objects necessary for religious worship.
The State Committee for Religious Affairs has stated that the transfer of the majority of places of worship to their original owners is nearing completion. As of July 2002, 8,589 buildings and over 10,000 religious objects have been returned to Ukraine's religious communities. Although the program has made progress, restitution is not complete, and all of the major religions have outstanding claims. An estimated 268 former houses of worship which are currently being used for non-religious purposes have not been returned; however, 215 of these are not claimed by any religious group. Many other outstanding claims are for properties identified as historical landmarks or for occupied buildings, with the relocation of current residents of claimed property being prohibitively expensive.
Ukraine has no laws or decrees governing the restitution of private property, nor has the government made any proposals in this regard. The government has attempted other proposals, for example, in May 2001, three amendments were offered to the current "Law of Religion and Freedoms of Conscience", but failed to pass the Rada (Parliament). Following the failure, the Cabinet of Ministers revised and resubmitted the amendments, although voting has been delayed due to the March 2002 parliamentary elections. The amendments would change the registration procedures, codify presidential decrees on property restitution and expand the types of religious property eligible for restitution to include religious schools and administrative buildings.
On March 21, 2002, Ukrainian President Kuchma signed a decree calling for the creation of an inter-departmental commission, organized by the State Committee for Religious Affairs, to resolve outstanding restitution issues. The decree called for the commission's plan to be in place by September 1, 2002. Although most religious groups support the decree, others warn that there should be measures to guard against corruption and procedures to determine ownership of property claimed by multiple groups.
Throughout the country and across religious groups, there have been claims of discrimination and of deliberate delays in the restitution process at the local level. For example, the Kiev Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church and the Greek Catholic Church have complained of harassment by local authorities in the predominantly Russian-speaking eastern region, while the Moscow Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church complained that local governments ignored the appropriation of its churches by Greek Catholics in the western region. In addition to the disagreement among the Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church has unrealized restitution claims in various cities including Kiev and has claimed that local authorities have blocked a land claim in Chernihiv. According to Jewish community representatives, some progress has been made, although restitution goes slowly and there are occasionally competing claims by different Jewish groups over who is entitled to receive the property.
The US Embassy in Kiev actively monitors restitution of religious property, and regularly meets with representatives of Ukraine's religious communities in Kiev. These representatives also frequently visit Washington for discussion.


text:
Soft Giant Pretzels RecipeRead Reviews Be the first to add a review
5 19 21
"My husband, friends and family love these soft, chewy pretzels," reports Sherry Peterson of Fort Collins, Colorado. "Let your machine mix the dough, then all you have to do is shape and bake these fun snacks."
- 1 cup plus 2 tablespoons water (70° to 80°)
- 3 cups all-purpose flour
- 3 tablespoons brown sugar
- 1-1/2 teaspoons active dry yeast
- 2 quarts water
- 1/2 cup baking soda
- Coarse salt
- In bread machine pan, place the first four ingredients in order suggested by manufacturer. Select dough setting (check dough after 5 minutes of mixing; add 1 to 2 tablespoons water or flour if needed).
- When cycle is completed, turn dough onto a lightly floured surface. Divide dough into eight balls. Roll each into a 20-in. rope; form into pretzel shape.
- Preheat oven to 425°. In a large saucepan, bring water and baking soda to a boil. Drop pretzels into boiling water, two at a time; boil for 10-15 seconds. Remove with a slotted spoon; drain on paper towels.
- Place pretzels on greased baking sheets. Bake until golden brown, 8-10 minutes. Spritz or lightly brush with water. Sprinkle with salt. Yield: 8 pretzels.
Originally published as Soft Giant Pretzels in Taste of Home August/September 2001, p18
Reviews for Soft Giant Pretzels
Please Log In or Join to add a rating and review.
Click stars to rate
Any changes to your rating or review will appear where you originally posted your review
Reviewed Dec. 7, 2014
"So I don't have a bread maker. No big deal. Mix first four ingredients, knead for 5 minutes and let rise in covered bowl for an hour. It is SO WORTH IT!"
Reviewed Jul. 17, 2014
"Perfect! Delicious and easy to get the hang of. Better than having to drive all the way to a mall for a pretzel."
Reviewed Jul. 1, 2014
Reviewed Feb. 18, 2014
"I don't use a bread machine to make the dough, just my Kitchen-Aid mixer, and these turn out great!"
Reviewed Jul. 3, 2013
"I tried this recipe for the first time two days ago and my family has already asked me to make it again."