text:
God, admission of my personal sinfulness and desire to set myself free from it.
The outer aspect of prayer is as necessary as the inner one. Both serve to express a person’s spiritual experience. Christian prayer is traditionally accompanied by visible signs of reverence: bowing one’s head, raising one’s hands to heaven, and kneeling. Movement and gesture add to and deepen the words and assist in inner concentration.
The most important physical expression of prayer is the sign of the cross, which usually accompanies prayer and is a preface to a bow from the waist or a prostration. For Christians, the fullness of the spiritual world is the cross-centered love of Christ for man, of God for the world; therefore, the visible sign of this love, Christ’s cross, is the weapon which is the redemption and union of man with God, the mystery of salvation, completed by Christ the Lord. The sign of the cross is ontological. It bears witness to a different reality, to the existence in this world of another life. It seems that especially this ancient Christian sign, inseparably connected with all that Tolstoy had rejected, should have been totally excluded from his inner experience. But it is here that begins one of the “unsolved mysteries” of his soul, his unresolvable contradictions which elude rational interpretation.
For those familiar with Tolstoy’s life and the tragedy of his estrangement from the Orthodox Church, one would assume that this ancient Christian gesture, linked with everything Tolstoy had renounced, should have been utterly rejected by him.
A man of common sense, in his opinion, cannot accept the deliberate deceit and nonsense which compel him to light candles, to raise his hands in prayer, to kiss pieces of wood, etc., but not once did Tolstoy express the opinion that making the sign of the cross was merely a senseless “waving of hands” during prayer.
The symbols of worship and ritual, in his opinion, hindered true faith, leaving no room for the understanding of actual Christianity, which dwells within. If there are some actions which please God and redeem a person from evil, and they must be expressed by the bowing and raising of hands, asks Tolstoy, then why not use legs or feet? Isn’t a pilgrimage performed by the faithful considered a prayer performed with feet? And if a person works all day for a poor widow, couldn’t this be considered a form of prayer? Tolstoy answers these questions in the affirmative.
In this way, following Tolstoy’s logic, a mature person, especially by the age of “noble gray hair,” should have moved beyond all assumptions and superstitions.
But within Tolstoy himself, despite his theory, totally different changes occurred. In the last years of his life, his attitude to the rites of the Church softened noticeably. As Alexandra Lvovna, Tolstoy’s daughter, remembered, “he became more and more tolerant.” In 1906, during a difficult time for Tolstoy’s wife, Sofia Andreyevna, when she was close to death and had already called for a priest, Tolstoy did not object. He was sincerely glad about her wish and “enthusiastically assisted in fulfilling” it.
His steadfast conviction that true faith does not need “external forms,” in the face of the possible death of the person closest too him and he admitted that, within the religious form, is a spiritual foundation. This brings to mind the literary character in Anna Karenina of Konstantin Levin, the author’s brother-in-spirit, who, during an hour critical for his beloved Kitty, grabbed his own head, repeating, “Lord, have mercy!” All of Levin’s reasonable, doubting consciousness was instantly “flung from his soul like ashes” and his unbelieving mind prayed for the help of the One, in Whose hands he “sensed himself and his own soul.” As the saying goes: “The deeper the sorrow, the closer God is.” And He who is above life and death, Who is Himself merciful Love, responds to the prayer of the supplicant.
Perhaps Tolstoy understood that all human accomplishment, all of the creative beauty of religion, is not an accident, that it all emerges from an earthly passion for Heaven, from a surrender to God, from spiritual completeness, from a pure and loving heart. Love is a synonym for God; there cannot be anything unclean in it. Even the least perfect and poorly expressed manifestation of love draws to itself what is higher and more creative. “As we become accustomed to crossing ourselves, saying the words of prayer,” wrote Tolstoy, “so we should and must become accustomed to love....” Love widens the senses, transforms them into words, into song, into the beauty of flowing prayer.
The return of Tolstoy to Orthodox prayers (in his last years he regularly said the prayers “Lord, and Master of my life” and “O Heavenly King, O Comforter”) is the return of the artist to beauty. The crystals of spiritual beauty which had been polished for centuries could not but attract the sensitive artist. This was a return to form as well, to that “outward form” which he might find rude, but which he could not avoid sensing in his favorite poems, the work of Tyuchev and Fet, and in the simple, laconic peasants’ speech, in the prayers of praise read before the decorated icons.
Sukhotin was shocked: the author of Resurrection crosses himself and reads Orthodox prayers! What is this? The habits kept from childhood, or a new spiritual revolution? But there had been no radical change in his views; every year, something emerged from his pen which was new, bright and unique. Outwardly, Tolstoy remained the same: proud, angry, and rebellious. But what seemed mysterious to his “dark,” ideology-driven followers was quite understandable to his domestic circle.
On December 8, 1908, Sofia Andreyevna made an interesting entry in her diary: “I would like to write down that which I have accidentally overheard. Chertkov [leader of the ‘Tolstoyan’ movement], who visits us every day, came into Lev Nikolayevich’s room last night and spoke with him concerning the sign of the cross. Involuntarily, from the hallway I overheard their conversation. L.N. said that he sometimes by habit does the sign of the cross, that is, if his soul is not praying in that minute, then his body is making a visible sign of prayer. Chertkov answered: it might happen that, while dying or suffering intensely, Lev Nikolayevich will cross himself and those surrounding will think that he has converted or would like to return to Orthodoxy; but to prevent this, Chertkov would write down in his notebook every word Lev Nikolayevich would say from now on.
Chertkov, of course, understood what the conversation was really about. Both in his diaries and in his letters Tolstoy did not hide that he had preserved in himself Orthodox “superstition,” and in his most intimate minutes of communication with God he turned to that “primitive expression” of his closeness with Him. Sofya Andreyevna, with her female intuition and inner experience, was able to perfectly comprehend the spiritual suffering of her husband and also to regard Chertkov’s thought processes as overly simplistic. “What for the mind is covered with darkness, for the heart is visible from afar,” a poet has said correctly. Would it really be possible for the words in a notebook to be an adequate expression of a human being’s world – a world, full of aspirations and efforts, full of life and rich in a variety of opinions and attitudes? Could a higher source, which the heart in its fulness recognizes, with its sensory and extra-sensory perceptions, be comprehended by cold rationality? The reformer from Yasnaya Polyana could not entirely free himself from “naive superstitions” and purge his former faith from his heart, just as he could not radically change the Christian way of thinking instilled in his soul by God-loving aunties with their patriarchal mode of existence.
“It may be that while I am dying, my hand will make the sign of the cross.... Even now, I sometimes cross myself. Often, when I sit down to work, with this gesture I invoke within myself a tender religious mood which is connected with the gesture since childhood,” Tolstoy wrote to one of his correspondents three years prior to his death. That far-from-unconscious childish gesture forced him to return to that “happy, irretrievable time” when the young Nikolenka secretly watched the prayer of “the great peasant Grisha.” Grisha was a holy fool who sometimes wandered about Tolstoy’s parent’s estate and even entered the mansion itself and “gave little icons to those he took a fancy to.” He recalled his first confession, when his young soul was filled with a feeling of blessed awe, and the times when, facing ancient icons, his childish lips murmured the words of prayer repeating them after his dear papa.
He grieved for the lost “paradise of childhood,” for that golden time, when everything was perceived as a miracle, when with naive directness, his soul responded to the call of God and glimpsed the eternity of God, which set him aflame.

lowercased:
god, admission of my personal sinfulness and desire to set myself free from it.
the outer aspect of prayer is as necessary as the inner one. both serve to express a person’s spiritual experience. christian prayer is traditionally accompanied by visible signs of reverence: bowing one’s head, raising one’s hands to heaven, and kneeling. movement and gesture add to and deepen the words and assist in inner concentration.
the most important physical expression of prayer is the sign of the cross, which usually accompanies prayer and is a preface to a bow from the waist or a prostration. for christians, the fullness of the spiritual world is the cross-centered love of christ for man, of god for the world; therefore, the visible sign of this love, christ’s cross, is the weapon which is the redemption and union of man with god, the mystery of salvation, completed by christ the lord. the sign of the cross is ontological. it bears witness to a different reality, to the existence in this world of another life. it seems that especially this ancient christian sign, inseparably connected with all that tolstoy had rejected, should have been totally excluded from his inner experience. but it is here that begins one of the “unsolved mysteries” of his soul, his unresolvable contradictions which elude rational interpretation.
for those familiar with tolstoy’s life and the tragedy of his estrangement from the orthodox church, one would assume that this ancient christian gesture, linked with everything tolstoy had renounced, should have been utterly rejected by him.
a man of common sense, in his opinion, cannot accept the deliberate deceit and nonsense which compel him to light candles, to raise his hands in prayer, to kiss pieces of wood, etc., but not once did tolstoy express the opinion that making the sign of the cross was merely a senseless “waving of hands” during prayer.
the symbols of worship and ritual, in his opinion, hindered true faith, leaving no room for the understanding of actual christianity, which dwells within. if there are some actions which please god and redeem a person from evil, and they must be expressed by the bowing and raising of hands, asks tolstoy, then why not use legs or feet? isn’t a pilgrimage performed by the faithful considered a prayer performed with feet? and if a person works all day for a poor widow, couldn’t this be considered a form of prayer? tolstoy answers these questions in the affirmative.
in this way, following tolstoy’s logic, a mature person, especially by the age of “noble gray hair,” should have moved beyond all assumptions and superstitions.
but within tolstoy himself, despite his theory, totally different changes occurred. in the last years of his life, his attitude to the rites of the church softened noticeably. as alexandra lvovna, tolstoy’s daughter, remembered, “he became more and more tolerant.” in 1906, during a difficult time for tolstoy’s wife, sofia andreyevna, when she was close to death and had already called for a priest, tolstoy did not object. he was sincerely glad about her wish and “enthusiastically assisted in fulfilling” it.
his steadfast conviction that true faith does not need “external forms,” in the face of the possible death of the person closest too him and he admitted that, within the religious form, is a spiritual foundation. this brings to mind the literary character in anna karenina of konstantin levin, the author’s brother-in-spirit, who, during an hour critical for his beloved kitty, grabbed his own head, repeating, “lord, have mercy!” all of levin’s reasonable, doubting consciousness was instantly “flung from his soul like ashes” and his unbelieving mind prayed for the help of the one, in whose hands he “sensed himself and his own soul.” as the saying goes: “the deeper the sorrow, the closer god is.” and he who is above life and death, who is himself merciful love, responds to the prayer of the supplicant.
perhaps tolstoy understood that all human accomplishment, all of the creative beauty of religion, is not an accident, that it all emerges from an earthly passion for heaven, from a surrender to god, from spiritual completeness, from a pure and loving heart. love is a synonym for god; there cannot be anything unclean in it. even the least perfect and poorly expressed manifestation of love draws to itself what is higher and more creative. “as we become accustomed to crossing ourselves, saying the words of prayer,” wrote tolstoy, “so we should and must become accustomed to love....” love widens the senses, transforms them into words, into song, into the beauty of flowing prayer.
the return of tolstoy to orthodox prayers (in his last years he regularly said the prayers “lord, and master of my life” and “o heavenly king, o comforter”) is the return of the artist to beauty. the crystals of spiritual beauty which had been polished for centuries could not but attract the sensitive artist. this was a return to form as well, to that “outward form” which he might find rude, but which he could not avoid sensing in his favorite poems, the work of tyuchev and fet, and in the simple, laconic peasants’ speech, in the prayers of praise read before the decorated icons.
sukhotin was shocked: the author of resurrection crosses himself and reads orthodox prayers! what is this? the habits kept from childhood, or a new spiritual revolution? but there had been no radical change in his views; every year, something emerged from his pen which was new, bright and unique. outwardly, tolstoy remained the same: proud, angry, and rebellious. but what seemed mysterious to his “dark,” ideology-driven followers was quite understandable to his domestic circle.
on december 8, 1908, sofia andreyevna made an interesting entry in her diary: “i would like to write down that which i have accidentally overheard. chertkov [leader of the ‘tolstoyan’ movement], who visits us every day, came into lev nikolayevich’s room last night and spoke with him concerning the sign of the cross. involuntarily, from the hallway i overheard their conversation. l.n. said that he sometimes by habit does the sign of the cross, that is, if his soul is not praying in that minute, then his body is making a visible sign of prayer. chertkov answered: it might happen that, while dying or suffering intensely, lev nikolayevich will cross himself and those surrounding will think that he has converted or would like to return to orthodoxy; but to prevent this, chertkov would write down in his notebook every word lev nikolayevich would say from now on.
chertkov, of course, understood what the conversation was really about. both in his diaries and in his letters tolstoy did not hide that he had preserved in himself orthodox “superstition,” and in his most intimate minutes of communication with god he turned to that “primitive expression” of his closeness with him. sofya andreyevna, with her female intuition and inner experience, was able to perfectly comprehend the spiritual suffering of her husband and also to regard chertkov’s thought processes as overly simplistic. “what for the mind is covered with darkness, for the heart is visible from afar,” a poet has said correctly. would it really be possible for the words in a notebook to be an adequate expression of a human being’s world – a world, full of aspirations and efforts, full of life and rich in a variety of opinions and attitudes? could a higher source, which the heart in its fulness recognizes, with its sensory and extra-sensory perceptions, be comprehended by cold rationality? the reformer from yasnaya polyana could not entirely free himself from “naive superstitions” and purge his former faith from his heart, just as he could not radically change the christian way of thinking instilled in his soul by god-loving aunties with their patriarchal mode of existence.
“it may be that while i am dying, my hand will make the sign of the cross.... even now, i sometimes cross myself. often, when i sit down to work, with this gesture i invoke within myself a tender religious mood which is connected with the gesture since childhood,” tolstoy wrote to one of his correspondents three years prior to his death. that far-from-unconscious childish gesture forced him to return to that “happy, irretrievable time” when the young nikolenka secretly watched the prayer of “the great peasant grisha.” grisha was a holy fool who sometimes wandered about tolstoy’s parent’s estate and even entered the mansion itself and “gave little icons to those he took a fancy to.” he recalled his first confession, when his young soul was filled with a feeling of blessed awe, and the times when, facing ancient icons, his childish lips murmured the words of prayer repeating them after his dear papa.
he grieved for the lost “paradise of childhood,” for that golden time, when everything was perceived as a miracle, when with naive directness, his soul responded to the call of god and glimpsed the eternity of god, which set him aflame.


text:
Own your own Vacation Rentals with this one of a kind family compound in Hunt. Situated at the entrance of Canyon Springs Ranch this UNRESTRICTED 2.25+ acres consists of THREE buildings. The main building is 4BR/2BA w/2500+ sq. ft. Part of this building was the original Schumacher farm house. The efficiency apartment is 410+ sq. ft. AND the third building houses the Kickback Cottage which is 1400+ sq. ft. with roomy 2BR/1.5 baths. The property has beautiful VIEWS of the surrounding hills and is about 100 yards from the Guadalupe River at Schumacher Crossing where you can gain access for fishing, swimming and kayaking. Sits on a hill with great breezes. Owner is LREB.
Bedroom 2 Dimensions: 11' x 14'8"
Bedroom 4 Dimensions: 11' x 10'5"
Dining Room Dimensions: 11' x 12'5"
Living Room Dimensions: 20' x 14'5"
Master Bedroom Dimensions: 20'5" x 15'8"

lowercased:
own your own vacation rentals with this one of a kind family compound in hunt. situated at the entrance of canyon springs ranch this unrestricted 2.25+ acres consists of three buildings. the main building is 4br/2ba w/2500+ sq. ft. part of this building was the original schumacher farm house. the efficiency apartment is 410+ sq. ft. and the third building houses the kickback cottage which is 1400+ sq. ft. with roomy 2br/1.5 baths. the property has beautiful views of the surrounding hills and is about 100 yards from the guadalupe river at schumacher crossing where you can gain access for fishing, swimming and kayaking. sits on a hill with great breezes. owner is lreb.
bedroom 2 dimensions: 11' x 14'8"
bedroom 4 dimensions: 11' x 10'5"
dining room dimensions: 11' x 12'5"
living room dimensions: 20' x 14'5"
master bedroom dimensions: 20'5" x 15'8"


text: It was so wonderful to photograph this Farm Thanksgiving for Cottage Hill Magazine last fall. I loved working with such a dream team of friends/vendors! Check out both of the Cottage Hill blog posts: the full post & the delicious Harvest Cake Recipe, which would be a perfect addition to your Thanksgiving table this week!

lowercased: it was so wonderful to photograph this farm thanksgiving for cottage hill magazine last fall. i loved working with such a dream team of friends/vendors! check out both of the cottage hill blog posts: the full post & the delicious harvest cake recipe, which would be a perfect addition to your thanksgiving table this week!


text:
Against the odds, Auburn Smith, 16, has become a nationally ranked wheelchair tennis player. She will participate in the USTA-ITF Junior Wheelchair Tennis Camp.
PORT ORANGE — Auburn Smith was born into sports.
Her first name largely derives from her father's love of Auburn University, where he has attended football games since childhood.
“She loves it when we go to the football games and they're chanting her name,” said Jimmy Smith, her father.
She was also born with spina bifida, the most common permanently disabling birth defect in the United States, according to the Spina Bifida Association. Literally meaning “split spine” in Latin, spina bifida occurs when a baby is in the womb and the spinal column does not close all the way.
Across the United States, roughly eight babies are born with spina bifida or a similar defect of the brain and spine every day.
Against the odds, Smith, 16, has become a nationally ranked wheelchair tennis player. She will participate in the USTA-ITF Junior Wheelchair Tennis Camp in Mission Viejo, Calif. from July 28-Aug. 2.
32 athletes from ages 12-18 from across the globe, spanning 10 states and six countries, will attend the camp to improve their skills and receive instruction from some of the top coaches in the world.
This will be the Smith family's fifth straight summer trip to Southern California.
Smith primarily enjoys getting to see the friends she has made over the last five years. The campers spend virtually the entire six-day period together, including an annual trip to a theme park.
Dan James, the USTA's national head coach and national manager of wheelchair tennis, will be one of the primary instructors at the camp. Even though he has coached in four Paralympic games, he says the camp is his favorite week of the year.
The soon-to-be junior at Spruce Creek began playing tennis at the age of 7. Since then, she has worked with Nancy Olson, who runs the "Tennis Everyone!" program for Easter Seals of Volusia Flagler Counties.
Olson helped Smith gain exposure across the country since, in her opinion, Florida is not recognized as a wheelchair tennis hotbed.
“I wanted her to have the example of how good she could be and to see really good tennis,” said Olson, a two-time Paralympic silver medalist in wheelchair tennis.
Smith was named a National Youth Representative for Easter Seals on Oct. 25, 2012, becoming the first national representative from the Easter Seals affiliate in Volusia and Flagler counties.
Not only has Smith had a positive influence on others with disabilities but also with her own family. Jimmy gave up a job in business management to become a registered nurse in honor of Auburn.

lowercased:
against the odds, auburn smith, 16, has become a nationally ranked wheelchair tennis player. she will participate in the usta-itf junior wheelchair tennis camp.
port orange — auburn smith was born into sports.
her first name largely derives from her father's love of auburn university, where he has attended football games since childhood.
“she loves it when we go to the football games and they're chanting her name,” said jimmy smith, her father.
she was also born with spina bifida, the most common permanently disabling birth defect in the united states, according to the spina bifida association. literally meaning “split spine” in latin, spina bifida occurs when a baby is in the womb and the spinal column does not close all the way.
across the united states, roughly eight babies are born with spina bifida or a similar defect of the brain and spine every day.
against the odds, smith, 16, has become a nationally ranked wheelchair tennis player. she will participate in the usta-itf junior wheelchair tennis camp in mission viejo, calif. from july 28-aug. 2.
32 athletes from ages 12-18 from across the globe, spanning 10 states and six countries, will attend the camp to improve their skills and receive instruction from some of the top coaches in the world.
this will be the smith family's fifth straight summer trip to southern california.
smith primarily enjoys getting to see the friends she has made over the last five years. the campers spend virtually the entire six-day period together, including an annual trip to a theme park.
dan james, the usta's national head coach and national manager of wheelchair tennis, will be one of the primary instructors at the camp. even though he has coached in four paralympic games, he says the camp is his favorite week of the year.
the soon-to-be junior at spruce creek began playing tennis at the age of 7. since then, she has worked with nancy olson, who runs the "tennis everyone!" program for easter seals of volusia flagler counties.
olson helped smith gain exposure across the country since, in her opinion, florida is not recognized as a wheelchair tennis hotbed.
“i wanted her to have the example of how good she could be and to see really good tennis,” said olson, a two-time paralympic silver medalist in wheelchair tennis.
smith was named a national youth representative for easter seals on oct. 25, 2012, becoming the first national representative from the easter seals affiliate in volusia and flagler counties.
not only has smith had a positive influence on others with disabilities but also with her own family. jimmy gave up a job in business management to become a registered nurse in honor of auburn.


text:
Lien Claimants attempted to collect on valid judgments they hold against Iran for their injuries arising out of terrorism sponsored by Iran. Lien Claimants seek to attach a $2.8 million judgment that the Ministry obtained in an underlying arbitration with an American company, Cubic. The district court granted Lien Claimants’ motion to attach the Cubic Judgment. The court held that the United States does not violate its obligations under the Algiers Accords by permitting Lien Claimants to attach the Cubic Judgment. The court also held that the Cubic Judgment is a blocked asset pursuant to President Obama’s 2012 Executive Order No. 13359 subject to attachment and execution under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), 28 U.S.C. 1610 note. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Attachment of Judgments. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of lien claimants’ motion to attach a judgment that the Ministry of Defense of Iran obtained in an underlying arbitration with an American company. The lien claimants moved to attach the judgment, known as the “Cubic Judgment,” in order to collect on judgments they hold against the Islamic Republic of Iran for their injuries arising out of terrorism sponsored by Iran. The panel held that the Algiers Accords, by which the United States and Iran resolved the Iranian Hostage Crisis, did not prevent the lien claimants from attaching the Cubic Judgment. The panel also held that the Cubic Judgment was a blocked asset pursuant to President Obama’s 2012 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM 3 Executive Order No. 13359, subject to attachment and execution under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SUPPORT FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, as Successor in Interest to the Ministry of War of the Government of Iran, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 13-57182 D.C. No. 3:98-CV-01165B-DHB OPINION RENAY FRYM; STUART E. HERSH; ABRAHAM MENDELSON; DANIEL J. MILLER; FRANCE MOKHATEB RAFII; ELENA ROZENMAN; NOAM ROZENMAN; TZVI ROZENMAN; DEBORAH RUBIN; JENNY RUBIN, Claimants-Appellees, and CUBIC DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC., as Successor in Interest to Cubic International Sales Corporation, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief District Judge, Presiding 2 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM Argued and Submitted February 2, 2016—Pasadena, California Filed February 26, 2016 Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Consuelo M. Callahan, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge D.W. Nelson SUMMARY* Attachment of Judgments The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of lien claimants’ motion to attach a judgment that the Ministry of Defense of Iran obtained in an underlying arbitration with an American company. The lien claimants moved to attach the judgment, known as the “Cubic Judgment,” in order to collect on judgments they hold against the Islamic Republic of Iran for their injuries arising out of terrorism sponsored by Iran. The panel held that the Algiers Accords, by which the United States and Iran resolved the Iranian Hostage Crisis, did not prevent the lien claimants from attaching the Cubic Judgment. The panel also held that the Cubic Judgment was a blocked asset pursuant to President Obama’s 2012 * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM 3 Executive Order No. 13359, subject to attachment and execution under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. COUNSEL Steven W. Kerekes (argued), Pasadena, California, for Petitioner-Appellant. Jonathan R. Mook (argued), DimuroGinsberg, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia; Philip J. Hirschkop, Hirschkop & Associates, Lorton, Virginia, for Claimant-Appellee France M. Rafii. David J. Strachman (argued), McIntyre Tate LLP, Providence, Rhode Island, for Claimants-Appellees Jenny Rubin, Deborah Rubin, Daniel Miller, Abraham Mendelson, Stuart E. Hersh, Renay Frym, Noam Rozenman, Elena Rozenman, and Tzvi Rozenman. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Laura E. Duffy, United States Attorney; Sharon Swingle and Benjamin M. Schultz (argued), Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Lisa. J. Grosh, Assistant Legal Advisor, Department of State; Bradley T. Smith, Chief Counsel, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington D.C, for Amicus Curiae United States. 4 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM OPINION D.W. NELSON, Senior Circuit Judge: This case involves an attempt by ten American citizens (hereinafter Lien Claimants) to collect on valid judgments they hold against the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) for their injuries arising out of terrorism sponsored by Iran. The Lien Claimants seek to attach a $2.8 million judgment1 that the Ministry of Defense of Iran (the Ministry) obtained in an underlying arbitration with an American company, Cubic Defense Systems, Inc (Cubic). The district court granted Lien Claimants’ motion to attach the Cubic Judgment. The Ministry timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.2 1 With accrued interest and the addition of attorneys’ fees, over $9.4 million is available. We refer to the underlying judgment as the “Cubic Judgment.” 2 The district court stayed disbursement of funds to Lien Claimants pending the outcome of the Ministry’s appeal. At oral argument, the Ministry requested that this Court maintain the stay of disbursement pending the Ministry’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. We decline the Ministry’s request. The Ministry has not shown “both a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury,” or “that serious legal questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.” Cf. Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM 5 I. Background Like all foreign states, Iran is protected by sovereign immunity. See Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355 (1993) (“A foreign state is presumptively immune from suit in United States’ courts.”). Absent an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602–1611, a foreign state cannot be sued nor can its assets be attached to satisfy a judgment.3 Saudi Arabia, 507 U.S. at 355. One such exception is for claims arising out of state-sponsored terrorism. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. The Lien Claimants hold judgments against Iran based on terrorist activity that Iran sponsored. Claimant France M. Rafii’s father, Dr. Shapoir Bakhtiar, was a former prime minister of Iran. In 1991, Iranian agents murdered Dr. Bakhtiar in his home in Paris, France, because of his political opposition to the Islamic regime. In 2001, Rafii sued Iran under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the FSIA. Iran did not appear. The district court conducted a two-day bench trial and entered default judgment against Iran for $5 million in compensatory damages (after making the necessary factual, jurisdictional, and statutory findings). The Ministry does not dispute the validity of the judgment. 3 The Ministry of Defense is an inseparable part of the Republic of Iran, and it therefore qualifies as a “foreign state” within the meaning of the FSIA. Ministry of Def. & Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Def. Sys., Inc., 495 F.3d 1024, 1034–36 (9th Cir. 2007), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Ministry of Def. & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi, 556 U.S. 366 (2009). 6 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM In 1997, Hamas detonated a suicide bomb at a pedestrian mall in Jerusalem, injuring many American citizens. The Rubin Claimants are a group of nine individuals who either were themselves injured in the bombing, or whose relatives were injured. In 2001, the Rubin Claimants sued Iran for its part in the bombing under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the FSIA. Iran did not appear. The district court conducted a four-day evidentiary hearing and concluded that Iran provided terrorist training and other material assistance to the bombers. After evaluating all of the Rubin Claimants’ compensatory damages, based on each plaintiff’s injuries, the district court entered default judgment against Iran and ordered Iran to pay the damages ranging from $2.5 million to $15 million. The Ministry does not dispute the validity of the judgment. Despite these valid judgments against Iran, Lien Claimants initially lacked any means to collect because the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the FSIA created an anomaly. While the exception abrogated a foreign sovereign’s immunity from judgment, it left in place the foreign sovereign’s immunity from attachment of its assets. In 2002, Congress addressed this problem, enacting the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), Pub. L. No. 107–297, § 201, 116 Stat. 2322, 2337 (codified in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. § 1610 note). As originally enacted, section 201(a) provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . , in every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism, or for which a terrorist party is not immune MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM 7 under [28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) (2000)], the blocked assets of that terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent any compensatory damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged liable. “Blocked” assets include assets “seized or frozen by the United States” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1706. See TRIA § 201(d)(2). The TRIA therefore permits attachment when it might have otherwise been barred by the FSIA.4 In 1977, Cubic agreed to sell the Ministry an air combat maneuvering range system (ACMR) for $17 million. Additionally, under a separate service contract, Cubic agreed to maintain the ACMR for Iran. By October 1978, Iran had paid over $12 million of the purchase price and modest sums on the service contract. By February 1979, Cubic obtained export permits and was poised to transfer the equipment to Iran. 4 Congress amended the FSIA as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–181, 122 Stat. 3 (2008). Specifically, Congress replaced the terrorism exception to sovereign immunity that had been codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) with a new terrorism exception codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. The new exception provides an explicit private right of action for U.S. citizens injured by state sponsors of terrorism. In addition, Congress created a special attachment provision for plaintiffs holding a Section 1605A judgment against a foreign state. See 28 U.S.C. §1610(g). 8 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM But, by November 1979, the Iranian revolution had disrupted relations between Iran and the United States. The revolution permanently prevented full performance of the sales and maintenance contracts. Iran and Cubic eventually entered into a modified agreement, under which Cubic would attempt to sell the ACMR to another country. Depending on the result of Cubic’s attempt to resell the ACMR, either Iran would be entitled to partial reimbursement for payments it made to Cubic, or Cubic would be entitled to additional payment from Iran. In the Fall of 1982, Cubic sold the equipment to Canada but ignored Iran’s requests for an accounting. In 1991, pursuant to its contracts with Cubic, Iran initiated arbitration proceedings with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). In 1997, the ICC found that Iran and Cubic agreed to discontinue the acquisition and maintenance contracts in light of the revolution, and that they had reached a modified agreement permitting Cubic to sell the equipment to another country. The ICC held that Cubic owed Iran $2.8 million plus interest and costs. In 1998, the Ministry filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California confirmed the award. It entered the Cubic Judgment in August 1999. After the final resolution of this dispute, Cubic deposited funds covering the Cubic Judgment with the Southern District of California. The Lien Claimants moved to attach the Cubic Judgment. The Ministry opposed Lien Claimants’ attempts, arguing: (1) that the Algiers Accords, by which the United States and Iran resolved the Iranian Hostage Crisis, required the United MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM 9 States to protect the Cubic Judgment from attachment; and (2) that the Cubic Judgment was in any event not attachable under the TRIA or any other statute. The district court granted Lien Claimants’ motion to attach. It held that allowing attachment would not violate the United States’ obligations under the Algiers Accords because the United States committed only to restore Iran to its preNovember 1979 position. As of 1979, the district court explained, Iran did not have an interest in the confirmed arbitration award. The district court further held that the Cubic Judgment was a “blocked asset” within the meaning of the TRIA. The court reasoned that the Cubic Judgment was blocked pursuant to President Obama’s 2012 Executive Order No. 13359, as well as pursuant to President Bush’s 2005 Executive Order No. 13382. It therefore found that the Cubic Judgment was subject to attachment under the TRIA. In the alternative, the district court held that the Rubin Claimants could attach the Cubic Judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g), the special attachment provision of the FSIA for creditors holding a Section 1605A terrorism-related judgment against a foreign state. II. Standard of Review We review the district court’s interpretation of treaties, statutes, regulations, and executive orders de novo. See Motorola, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 308 F.3d 995, 999, n.5 (9th Cir. 2002) (treaties); City of Los Angeles v. United States Dep’t of Commerce, 307 F.3d 859, 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (statutes); United States v. Willfong, 274 F.3d 1297, 1300 (9th 10 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM Cir. 2001) (regulations); United States v. Washington, 969 F.2d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1992) (executive orders). III. Discussion We hold that the United States does not violate its obligations under the Algiers Accords by permitting Lien Claimants to attach the Cubic Judgment. We also hold that the Cubic Judgment is a blocked asset pursuant to President Obama’s 2012 Executive Order No. 13359 subject to attachment and execution under the TRIA. Because it is not necessary to our decision, we do not address whether the Cubic Judgment is also a blocked asset pursuant to President Bush’s 2005 Executive Order No. 13382. Similarly, we decline to address the district court’s alternative holding that the Rubin Claimants can attach the Cubic Judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g). 1. Permitting Lien Claimants to attach the Cubic Judgment does not violate the United States’ obligations under the Algiers Accords. The Algiers Accords do not prevent Lien Claimants from attaching the Cubic Judgment because the Ministry’s interest in the Cubic Judgment did not arise until after November 14, 1979. As the Supreme Court specifically held in Ministry of Defense & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi, the appropriate property interest to consider is Iran’s interest in the Cubic Judgment, which did not arise until 1998. 556 U.S. 366, 376–77 (2009). In November 1979, Iran took hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran. Invoking the International Emergency MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM 11 Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), President Carter responded by issuing Executive Order 12170, which “blocked all property and interests in property of the Government of Iran.” Exec. Order 12170, 44 Fed. Reg. 65729 (Nov. 14, 1979).5 The Department of Treasury promulgated the Iranian Assets Control Regulations to execute President Carter’s Executive Order. 31 C.F.R. pt. 535, 44 Fed. Reg. 65279–01 (Nov. 15, 1979). The Regulations provide that “[n]o property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or which is in the possession or control of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in which on or after the effective date Iran has any interest of any nature whatsoever may be transferred, paid, exported, or withdrawn or otherwise dealt in except as authorized.” 31 C.F.R. § 535.201 (2013). The freeze took effect on November 14, 1979. On January 19, 1981, the United States and Iran settled the hostage crisis and entered into the Algiers Accords. The United States agreed to “restore the financial position of Iran, in so far as possible, to that which existed prior to November 14, 1979.” The purpose of the Algiers Accords was to return Iran to the position it was in before President Carter froze Iran’s assets in response to the taking of hostages at the American Embassy. In essence, the Ministry argues that based on a number of factors—most importantly, $12 million in payments Iran made to Cubic on the $17 million sales contract—Iran had a 5 Under the IEEPA, the President can impose economic sanctions to respond to “unusual and extraordinary” international threats. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1702(a). These sanctions are administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). 12 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM property interest in the ACMR before November 14, 1979. Therefore, according to the Ministry, for the United States to honor its commitments under the Algiers Accords, it must protect the Cubic Judgment from attachment. But, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Elahi, when Iran gained a property interest in the ACMR is irrelevant to our inquiry. Elahi involved an attempt by a different lien claimant to attach the Cubic Judgment under the TRIA.6 The Supreme Court rejected this Court’s determination that the ACMR was the relevant asset at issue. In so holding, the Court explained that the lien claimants in that case did not seek to attach the ACMR, but instead tried to attach the “judgment enforcing [the] arbitration award based upon Cubic’s failure to account to Iran for Iran’s share of the proceeds of that system’s sale.” Elahi, 556 U.S. at 376. The Court explained that Iran’s interest in the Cubic Judgment did not arise until 1998, when the district court confirmed the arbitration award. Id. Further, the Supreme Court explained, even Iran’s property interest underlying the Cubic Judgment—the proceeds from the sale to Canada—did not arise until October 1982 at the earliest. Only after Cubic sold the equipment could it “reasonably, comprehensively, and precisely account” for the result of its resale attempts. Id. at 376–77 (internal quotations omitted). 6 We note that, before the Supreme Court in Elahi, the Ministry made a contrary argument to the one it makes here. There, the Ministry asserted that Iran’s interest in the Cubic Judgment could not be “backdated” to 1981. MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM 13 Under Elahi, Iran did not have an interest in the Cubic Judgment or in the property underlying the judgment until well after the Algiers Accords were consummated. Permitting Lien Claimants to attach the Cubic Judgment would therefore not cause the United States to run afoul of its obligations under the Algiers Accords.7 2. The Cubic Judgment is a blocked asset subject to attachment and execution under the TRIA. The Cubic Judgment is a “blocked asset” pursuant to President Obama’s 2012 Executive Order No. 13539. It is therefore subject to attachment and execution pursuant to the TRIA. In 2012, President Obama invoked the IEEPA to block “[a]ll property and interests in property of the Government of Iran . . . that are in the United States.”8 Exec. Order No. 13359, 77 Fed. Reg. 6659, 6659 (Feb. 5, 2012). However, 7 The United States agrees with this conclusion. In its amicus brief, the United States contends that its “longstanding position . . . is that the [Algiers Accords] simply required the United States to return, as directed by Iran, specified Iranian properties that were in existence and subject to jurisdiction as of January 19, 1981 (the date of the Accords). The United States has no transfer obligation with respect to property that Iran acquired after the date of the Accords.” Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae at 18–19. The government’s interpretation of its own agreement is entitled to “great weight.” Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 184–85 & n.10 (1982). 8 This Court has already found that the Ministry is “an inherent part of the state of Iran.” Ministry of Defense, 495 F.3d at 1036, rev’d on other grounds by Elahi, 556 U.S. 366 (2009). Therefore, the Ministry’s ownership of the Cubic Judgment—rather than Iran’s—does not foreclose the application of President Obama’s blocking order. 14 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM President Obama’s blocking order exempted Iranian property and interests in property that had been blocked in 1979, and that were then unblocked in 1981. 77 Fed. Reg. at 6660. The Ministry argues that Iran held a property interest in the ACMR that was blocked in 1979 then unblocked in 1981. The Ministry therefore contends that the Cubic Judgment falls within the exemption to President Obama’s 2012 Executive Order. We reject this argument, which just like the Ministry’s argument that the Algiers Accords prevent attachment, relies on misidentifying the asset actually at issue in this case. Under Elahi, the key asset is the one the Lien Claimants seek to attach: the Cubic Judgment, not the ACMR as the Ministry now argues. And the Cubic Judgment does not fall within the exemption to President Obama’s blocking order. Iran did not gain a property interest in the Cubic Judgment until 1998, when the district court confirmed the underlying arbitration award. Elahi, 556 U.S. at 376. Accordingly, Iran’s property interest in the Cubic Judgment existed neither in 1979, when Iran’s assets were blocked, nor in 1981 when those assets were unblocked. Whether and when Iran gained MINISTRY OF DEFENSE V. FRYM 15 a property interest in the ACMR is simply not relevant to this case.9 AFFIRMED. 9 The Ministry’s contention that 31 C.F.R. § 535.540(f) governed the proceeds of Cubic’s sale to Canada is irrelevant for the same reason. The relevant asset is not the proceeds of the sale, but rather the judgment confirming the arbitral award. Elahi, 556 U.S. at 376. Even if it were relevant, the district court correctly found that Section 535.540(f) would not apply. The regulation only requires sale proceeds to be transferred to Iran when the sale of otherwise blocked property is made pursuant to a specific type of OFAC license. The ACMR was not blocked after January 1981, and there is no evidence that Cubic’s sale of the ACMR involved any such license.

lowercased:
lien claimants attempted to collect on valid judgments they hold against iran for their injuries arising out of terrorism sponsored by iran. lien claimants seek to attach a $2.8 million judgment that the ministry obtained in an underlying arbitration with an american company, cubic. the district court granted lien claimants’ motion to attach the cubic judgment. the court held that the united states does not violate its obligations under the algiers accords by permitting lien claimants to attach the cubic judgment. the court also held that the cubic judgment is a blocked asset pursuant to president obama’s 2012 executive order no. 13359 subject to attachment and execution under the terrorism risk insurance act (tria), 28 u.s.c. 1610 note. accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
court description: attachment of judgments. the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of lien claimants’ motion to attach a judgment that the ministry of defense of iran obtained in an underlying arbitration with an american company. the lien claimants moved to attach the judgment, known as the “cubic judgment,” in order to collect on judgments they hold against the islamic republic of iran for their injuries arising out of terrorism sponsored by iran. the panel held that the algiers accords, by which the united states and iran resolved the iranian hostage crisis, did not prevent the lien claimants from attaching the cubic judgment. the panel also held that the cubic judgment was a blocked asset pursuant to president obama’s 2012 ministry of defense v. frym 3 executive order no. 13359, subject to attachment and execution under the terrorism risk insurance act.
for publication united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit the ministry of defense and support for the armed forces of the islamic republic of iran, as successor in interest to the ministry of war of the government of iran, petitioner-appellant, v. no. 13-57182 d.c. no. 3:98-cv-01165b-dhb opinion renay frym; stuart e. hersh; abraham mendelson; daniel j. miller; france mokhateb rafii; elena rozenman; noam rozenman; tzvi rozenman; deborah rubin; jenny rubin, claimants-appellees, and cubic defense systems, inc., as successor in interest to cubic international sales corporation, respondent. appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of california barry ted moskowitz, chief district judge, presiding 2 ministry of defense v. frym argued and submitted february 2, 2016—pasadena, california filed february 26, 2016 before: dorothy w. nelson, consuelo m. callahan, and n. randy smith, circuit judges. opinion by judge d.w. nelson summary* attachment of judgments the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of lien claimants’ motion to attach a judgment that the ministry of defense of iran obtained in an underlying arbitration with an american company. the lien claimants moved to attach the judgment, known as the “cubic judgment,” in order to collect on judgments they hold against the islamic republic of iran for their injuries arising out of terrorism sponsored by iran. the panel held that the algiers accords, by which the united states and iran resolved the iranian hostage crisis, did not prevent the lien claimants from attaching the cubic judgment. the panel also held that the cubic judgment was a blocked asset pursuant to president obama’s 2012 * this summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. it has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ministry of defense v. frym 3 executive order no. 13359, subject to attachment and execution under the terrorism risk insurance act. counsel steven w. kerekes (argued), pasadena, california, for petitioner-appellant. jonathan r. mook (argued), dimuroginsberg, p.c., alexandria, virginia; philip j. hirschkop, hirschkop & associates, lorton, virginia, for claimant-appellee france m. rafii. david j. strachman (argued), mcintyre tate llp, providence, rhode island, for claimants-appellees jenny rubin, deborah rubin, daniel miller, abraham mendelson, stuart e. hersh, renay frym, noam rozenman, elena rozenman, and tzvi rozenman. stuart f. delery, assistant attorney general; laura e. duffy, united states attorney; sharon swingle and benjamin m. schultz (argued), attorneys, appellate staff civil division, united states department of justice; lisa. j. grosh, assistant legal advisor, department of state; bradley t. smith, chief counsel, office of foreign assets control, department of the treasury, washington d.c, for amicus curiae united states. 4 ministry of defense v. frym opinion d.w. nelson, senior circuit judge: this case involves an attempt by ten american citizens (hereinafter lien claimants) to collect on valid judgments they hold against the islamic republic of iran (iran) for their injuries arising out of terrorism sponsored by iran. the lien claimants seek to attach a $2.8 million judgment1 that the ministry of defense of iran (the ministry) obtained in an underlying arbitration with an american company, cubic defense systems, inc (cubic). the district court granted lien claimants’ motion to attach the cubic judgment. the ministry timely appealed. we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1291 and we affirm.2 1 with accrued interest and the addition of attorneys’ fees, over $9.4 million is available. we refer to the underlying judgment as the “cubic judgment.” 2 the district court stayed disbursement of funds to lien claimants pending the outcome of the ministry’s appeal. at oral argument, the ministry requested that this court maintain the stay of disbursement pending the ministry’s petition for certiorari to the supreme court. we decline the ministry’s request. the ministry has not shown “both a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury,” or “that serious legal questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.” cf. lopez v. heckler, 713 f.2d 1432, 1435 (9th cir. 1983). ministry of defense v. frym 5 i. background like all foreign states, iran is protected by sovereign immunity. see saudi arabia v. nelson, 507 u.s. 349, 355 (1993) (“a foreign state is presumptively immune from suit in united states’ courts.”). absent an exception to the foreign sovereign immunities act (fsia), 28 u.s.c. §§ 1602–1611, a foreign state cannot be sued nor can its assets be attached to satisfy a judgment.3 saudi arabia, 507 u.s. at 355. one such exception is for claims arising out of state-sponsored terrorism. 28 u.s.c. § 1605a. the lien claimants hold judgments against iran based on terrorist activity that iran sponsored. claimant france m. rafii’s father, dr. shapoir bakhtiar, was a former prime minister of iran. in 1991, iranian agents murdered dr. bakhtiar in his home in paris, france, because of his political opposition to the islamic regime. in 2001, rafii sued iran under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the fsia. iran did not appear. the district court conducted a two-day bench trial and entered default judgment against iran for $5 million in compensatory damages (after making the necessary factual, jurisdictional, and statutory findings). the ministry does not dispute the validity of the judgment. 3 the ministry of defense is an inseparable part of the republic of iran, and it therefore qualifies as a “foreign state” within the meaning of the fsia. ministry of def. & support for armed forces of islamic republic of iran v. cubic def. sys., inc., 495 f.3d 1024, 1034–36 (9th cir. 2007), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. ministry of def. & support for the armed forces of the islamic republic of iran v. elahi, 556 u.s. 366 (2009). 6 ministry of defense v. frym in 1997, hamas detonated a suicide bomb at a pedestrian mall in jerusalem, injuring many american citizens. the rubin claimants are a group of nine individuals who either were themselves injured in the bombing, or whose relatives were injured. in 2001, the rubin claimants sued iran for its part in the bombing under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the fsia. iran did not appear. the district court conducted a four-day evidentiary hearing and concluded that iran provided terrorist training and other material assistance to the bombers. after evaluating all of the rubin claimants’ compensatory damages, based on each plaintiff’s injuries, the district court entered default judgment against iran and ordered iran to pay the damages ranging from $2.5 million to $15 million. the ministry does not dispute the validity of the judgment. despite these valid judgments against iran, lien claimants initially lacked any means to collect because the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the fsia created an anomaly. while the exception abrogated a foreign sovereign’s immunity from judgment, it left in place the foreign sovereign’s immunity from attachment of its assets. in 2002, congress addressed this problem, enacting the terrorism risk insurance act (tria), pub. l. no. 107–297, § 201, 116 stat. 2322, 2337 (codified in relevant part at 28 u.s.c. § 1610 note). as originally enacted, section 201(a) provides: notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . , in every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism, or for which a terrorist party is not immune ministry of defense v. frym 7 under [28 u.s.c. § 1605(a)(7) (2000)], the blocked assets of that terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent any compensatory damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged liable. “blocked” assets include assets “seized or frozen by the united states” under the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa), 50 u.s.c. §§ 1701–1706. see tria § 201(d)(2). the tria therefore permits attachment when it might have otherwise been barred by the fsia.4 in 1977, cubic agreed to sell the ministry an air combat maneuvering range system (acmr) for $17 million. additionally, under a separate service contract, cubic agreed to maintain the acmr for iran. by october 1978, iran had paid over $12 million of the purchase price and modest sums on the service contract. by february 1979, cubic obtained export permits and was poised to transfer the equipment to iran. 4 congress amended the fsia as part of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2008, pub. l. no. 110–181, 122 stat. 3 (2008). specifically, congress replaced the terrorism exception to sovereign immunity that had been codified at 28 u.s.c. § 1605(a)(7) with a new terrorism exception codified at 28 u.s.c. § 1605a. the new exception provides an explicit private right of action for u.s. citizens injured by state sponsors of terrorism. in addition, congress created a special attachment provision for plaintiffs holding a section 1605a judgment against a foreign state. see 28 u.s.c. §1610(g). 8 ministry of defense v. frym but, by november 1979, the iranian revolution had disrupted relations between iran and the united states. the revolution permanently prevented full performance of the sales and maintenance contracts. iran and cubic eventually entered into a modified agreement, under which cubic would attempt to sell the acmr to another country. depending on the result of cubic’s attempt to resell the acmr, either iran would be entitled to partial reimbursement for payments it made to cubic, or cubic would be entitled to additional payment from iran. in the fall of 1982, cubic sold the equipment to canada but ignored iran’s requests for an accounting. in 1991, pursuant to its contracts with cubic, iran initiated arbitration proceedings with the international chamber of commerce (icc). in 1997, the icc found that iran and cubic agreed to discontinue the acquisition and maintenance contracts in light of the revolution, and that they had reached a modified agreement permitting cubic to sell the equipment to another country. the icc held that cubic owed iran $2.8 million plus interest and costs. in 1998, the ministry filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award. the u.s. district court for the southern district of california confirmed the award. it entered the cubic judgment in august 1999. after the final resolution of this dispute, cubic deposited funds covering the cubic judgment with the southern district of california. the lien claimants moved to attach the cubic judgment. the ministry opposed lien claimants’ attempts, arguing: (1) that the algiers accords, by which the united states and iran resolved the iranian hostage crisis, required the united ministry of defense v. frym 9 states to protect the cubic judgment from attachment; and (2) that the cubic judgment was in any event not attachable under the tria or any other statute. the district court granted lien claimants’ motion to attach. it held that allowing attachment would not violate the united states’ obligations under the algiers accords because the united states committed only to restore iran to its prenovember 1979 position. as of 1979, the district court explained, iran did not have an interest in the confirmed arbitration award. the district court further held that the cubic judgment was a “blocked asset” within the meaning of the tria. the court reasoned that the cubic judgment was blocked pursuant to president obama’s 2012 executive order no. 13359, as well as pursuant to president bush’s 2005 executive order no. 13382. it therefore found that the cubic judgment was subject to attachment under the tria. in the alternative, the district court held that the rubin claimants could attach the cubic judgment under 28 u.s.c. § 1610(g), the special attachment provision of the fsia for creditors holding a section 1605a terrorism-related judgment against a foreign state. ii. standard of review we review the district court’s interpretation of treaties, statutes, regulations, and executive orders de novo. see motorola, inc. v. fed. express corp., 308 f.3d 995, 999, n.5 (9th cir. 2002) (treaties); city of los angeles v. united states dep’t of commerce, 307 f.3d 859, 868 (9th cir. 2002) (statutes); united states v. willfong, 274 f.3d 1297, 1300 (9th 10 ministry of defense v. frym cir. 2001) (regulations); united states v. washington, 969 f.2d 752, 754–55 (9th cir. 1992) (executive orders). iii. discussion we hold that the united states does not violate its obligations under the algiers accords by permitting lien claimants to attach the cubic judgment. we also hold that the cubic judgment is a blocked asset pursuant to president obama’s 2012 executive order no. 13359 subject to attachment and execution under the tria. because it is not necessary to our decision, we do not address whether the cubic judgment is also a blocked asset pursuant to president bush’s 2005 executive order no. 13382. similarly, we decline to address the district court’s alternative holding that the rubin claimants can attach the cubic judgment under 28 u.s.c. § 1610(g). 1. permitting lien claimants to attach the cubic judgment does not violate the united states’ obligations under the algiers accords. the algiers accords do not prevent lien claimants from attaching the cubic judgment because the ministry’s interest in the cubic judgment did not arise until after november 14, 1979. as the supreme court specifically held in ministry of defense & support for the armed forces of the islamic republic of iran v. elahi, the appropriate property interest to consider is iran’s interest in the cubic judgment, which did not arise until 1998. 556 u.s. 366, 376–77 (2009). in november 1979, iran took hostages at the american embassy in tehran. invoking the international emergency ministry of defense v. frym 11 economic powers act (ieepa), president carter responded by issuing executive order 12170, which “blocked all property and interests in property of the government of iran.” exec. order 12170, 44 fed. reg. 65729 (nov. 14, 1979).5 the department of treasury promulgated the iranian assets control regulations to execute president carter’s executive order. 31 c.f.r. pt. 535, 44 fed. reg. 65279–01 (nov. 15, 1979). the regulations provide that “[n]o property subject to the jurisdiction of the united states or which is in the possession or control of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the united states in which on or after the effective date iran has any interest of any nature whatsoever may be transferred, paid, exported, or withdrawn or otherwise dealt in except as authorized.” 31 c.f.r. § 535.201 (2013). the freeze took effect on november 14, 1979. on january 19, 1981, the united states and iran settled the hostage crisis and entered into the algiers accords. the united states agreed to “restore the financial position of iran, in so far as possible, to that which existed prior to november 14, 1979.” the purpose of the algiers accords was to return iran to the position it was in before president carter froze iran’s assets in response to the taking of hostages at the american embassy. in essence, the ministry argues that based on a number of factors—most importantly, $12 million in payments iran made to cubic on the $17 million sales contract—iran had a 5 under the ieepa, the president can impose economic sanctions to respond to “unusual and extraordinary” international threats. 50 u.s.c. §§ 1701, 1702(a). these sanctions are administered by the treasury department’s office of foreign assets control (ofac). 12 ministry of defense v. frym property interest in the acmr before november 14, 1979. therefore, according to the ministry, for the united states to honor its commitments under the algiers accords, it must protect the cubic judgment from attachment. but, under the supreme court’s decision in elahi, when iran gained a property interest in the acmr is irrelevant to our inquiry. elahi involved an attempt by a different lien claimant to attach the cubic judgment under the tria.6 the supreme court rejected this court’s determination that the acmr was the relevant asset at issue. in so holding, the court explained that the lien claimants in that case did not seek to attach the acmr, but instead tried to attach the “judgment enforcing [the] arbitration award based upon cubic’s failure to account to iran for iran’s share of the proceeds of that system’s sale.” elahi, 556 u.s. at 376. the court explained that iran’s interest in the cubic judgment did not arise until 1998, when the district court confirmed the arbitration award. id. further, the supreme court explained, even iran’s property interest underlying the cubic judgment—the proceeds from the sale to canada—did not arise until october 1982 at the earliest. only after cubic sold the equipment could it “reasonably, comprehensively, and precisely account” for the result of its resale attempts. id. at 376–77 (internal quotations omitted). 6 we note that, before the supreme court in elahi, the ministry made a contrary argument to the one it makes here. there, the ministry asserted that iran’s interest in the cubic judgment could not be “backdated” to 1981. ministry of defense v. frym 13 under elahi, iran did not have an interest in the cubic judgment or in the property underlying the judgment until well after the algiers accords were consummated. permitting lien claimants to attach the cubic judgment would therefore not cause the united states to run afoul of its obligations under the algiers accords.7 2. the cubic judgment is a blocked asset subject to attachment and execution under the tria. the cubic judgment is a “blocked asset” pursuant to president obama’s 2012 executive order no. 13539. it is therefore subject to attachment and execution pursuant to the tria. in 2012, president obama invoked the ieepa to block “[a]ll property and interests in property of the government of iran . . . that are in the united states.”8 exec. order no. 13359, 77 fed. reg. 6659, 6659 (feb. 5, 2012). however, 7 the united states agrees with this conclusion. in its amicus brief, the united states contends that its “longstanding position . . . is that the [algiers accords] simply required the united states to return, as directed by iran, specified iranian properties that were in existence and subject to jurisdiction as of january 19, 1981 (the date of the accords). the united states has no transfer obligation with respect to property that iran acquired after the date of the accords.” brief of the united states as amicus curiae at 18–19. the government’s interpretation of its own agreement is entitled to “great weight.” sumitomo shoji am., inc. v. avagliano, 457 u.s. 176, 184–85 & n.10 (1982). 8 this court has already found that the ministry is “an inherent part of the state of iran.” ministry of defense, 495 f.3d at 1036, rev’d on other grounds by elahi, 556 u.s. 366 (2009). therefore, the ministry’s ownership of the cubic judgment—rather than iran’s—does not foreclose the application of president obama’s blocking order. 14 ministry of defense v. frym president obama’s blocking order exempted iranian property and interests in property that had been blocked in 1979, and that were then unblocked in 1981. 77 fed. reg. at 6660. the ministry argues that iran held a property interest in the acmr that was blocked in 1979 then unblocked in 1981. the ministry therefore contends that the cubic judgment falls within the exemption to president obama’s 2012 executive order. we reject this argument, which just like the ministry’s argument that the algiers accords prevent attachment, relies on misidentifying the asset actually at issue in this case. under elahi, the key asset is the one the lien claimants seek to attach: the cubic judgment, not the acmr as the ministry now argues. and the cubic judgment does not fall within the exemption to president obama’s blocking order. iran did not gain a property interest in the cubic judgment until 1998, when the district court confirmed the underlying arbitration award. elahi, 556 u.s. at 376. accordingly, iran’s property interest in the cubic judgment existed neither in 1979, when iran’s assets were blocked, nor in 1981 when those assets were unblocked. whether and when iran gained ministry of defense v. frym 15 a property interest in the acmr is simply not relevant to this case.9 affirmed. 9 the ministry’s contention that 31 c.f.r. § 535.540(f) governed the proceeds of cubic’s sale to canada is irrelevant for the same reason. the relevant asset is not the proceeds of the sale, but rather the judgment confirming the arbitral award. elahi, 556 u.s. at 376. even if it were relevant, the district court correctly found that section 535.540(f) would not apply. the regulation only requires sale proceeds to be transferred to iran when the sale of otherwise blocked property is made pursuant to a specific type of ofac license. the acmr was not blocked after january 1981, and there is no evidence that cubic’s sale of the acmr involved any such license.


text:
One major factor why home improvement Ikea Kitchens Cabinets is highly popular among people is simply because it improves the valuation on a home. Whether you intend to amplify the value 4106 or the usefulness of your property, all these upgrades can bring anyone to attain the two objectives.
The most useful remodeling any homeowner could do to boost home valuation according to Martha Wood is updating the entrance door. Front door is lesser in maintenance and fine entrance door delivers better first reaction. If perhaps you have to decide between solid wood and metal front doors, you have to pick metal entry doors.
Wood patio Ikea Kitchens Cabinets is yet another hassle-free renovation you can apply to your property. Wood patio is invariably prized positively by prospective house buyers, and you can build it at low cost.
Almost all home experts have the same opinion that kitchen improvement is among high priorities in home upgrade January 23, 2016 at 7:45 pm. You do not need to conduct major renovation to the kitchen for the reason that incorporating high quality countertops, energy saving appliances and also replacing damaged cupboard doors can easily rise home worth.
Because every house has various layout, it is immensely important to browse as well as compare several update schemes Ikea Kitchens Cabinets that match your requirements consequently you can receive the most value from your venture.

lowercased:
one major factor why home improvement ikea kitchens cabinets is highly popular among people is simply because it improves the valuation on a home. whether you intend to amplify the value 4106 or the usefulness of your property, all these upgrades can bring anyone to attain the two objectives.
the most useful remodeling any homeowner could do to boost home valuation according to martha wood is updating the entrance door. front door is lesser in maintenance and fine entrance door delivers better first reaction. if perhaps you have to decide between solid wood and metal front doors, you have to pick metal entry doors.
wood patio ikea kitchens cabinets is yet another hassle-free renovation you can apply to your property. wood patio is invariably prized positively by prospective house buyers, and you can build it at low cost.
almost all home experts have the same opinion that kitchen improvement is among high priorities in home upgrade january 23, 2016 at 7:45 pm. you do not need to conduct major renovation to the kitchen for the reason that incorporating high quality countertops, energy saving appliances and also replacing damaged cupboard doors can easily rise home worth.
because every house has various layout, it is immensely important to browse as well as compare several update schemes ikea kitchens cabinets that match your requirements consequently you can receive the most value from your venture.


text:
Horses have had a dramatic impact on Josh’s life. They have given him strength, independence and confidence which has helped him overcome some of the challenges of living with Down syndrome. His mom is a physician and she continues to be amazed at the many ways in which riding has improved his quality of life.
Horses have helped motivate Josh, who has trouble speaking, to utter words, like “walk on” and “whoa.” His core strength has also improved as the horse’s motion challenges him to sit tall in the saddle. This is especially important because one of the symptoms of Down syndrome is low muscle tone.
Riding has also improved Josh’s fine motor skills and eye-hand coordination as he works the reins in his hands. He now steers the horse on his own and can make circles and weave through cones by giving and taking with his reins. After four years of riding at Fieldstone Farm, it is now rare for Josh to miss any target while playing games from atop his horse, no matter how challenging it might be. Other areas of improvement include following directions and sequencing as he hears the instructions that are given during class.
Beyond that, riding has brought tremendous joy to Josh and his family. And his confidence has soared. The transformation illustrates how our horses are able reach each of our students in so many different and individualized ways.
Josh’s mom can’t imagine a life without horses for Josh and says, “From the moment we pull into the parking lot, my son is so happy to be here and I know it is going to be a good day.” It is difficult for Josh to participate in sports other boys his age play, but horseback riding is an activity in which he excels, enjoys and feels a sense of accomplishment.

lowercased:
horses have had a dramatic impact on josh’s life. they have given him strength, independence and confidence which has helped him overcome some of the challenges of living with down syndrome. his mom is a physician and she continues to be amazed at the many ways in which riding has improved his quality of life.
horses have helped motivate josh, who has trouble speaking, to utter words, like “walk on” and “whoa.” his core strength has also improved as the horse’s motion challenges him to sit tall in the saddle. this is especially important because one of the symptoms of down syndrome is low muscle tone.
riding has also improved josh’s fine motor skills and eye-hand coordination as he works the reins in his hands. he now steers the horse on his own and can make circles and weave through cones by giving and taking with his reins. after four years of riding at fieldstone farm, it is now rare for josh to miss any target while playing games from atop his horse, no matter how challenging it might be. other areas of improvement include following directions and sequencing as he hears the instructions that are given during class.
beyond that, riding has brought tremendous joy to josh and his family. and his confidence has soared. the transformation illustrates how our horses are able reach each of our students in so many different and individualized ways.
josh’s mom can’t imagine a life without horses for josh and says, “from the moment we pull into the parking lot, my son is so happy to be here and i know it is going to be a good day.” it is difficult for josh to participate in sports other boys his age play, but horseback riding is an activity in which he excels, enjoys and feels a sense of accomplishment.


text:
Each of Italy’s regions has its own rules, regulations, and requirements when it comes to letting out your property to paying guests.
To make sure you are complying with all local rules, you will need to contact your local tourism office – Azienda Provinciale per il Turismo (APT), to inform them of your plans, the location of your property, the amount of units you plan on renting out, and how often you plan on doing so. Once they have this information they will then class you as either a commercial, or non-commercial landlord. Your status will determine whether or not you have to charge your guests VAT.
Should you be renting the property for prolonged periods, it could be wise to employ the services of a property management company.
As the obligations imposed on both types of landlord can be complicated, we recommend you consult an Independent Financial Advisor about how to proceed.
Before letting your property we advise meeting with an independent solicitor.
Should you employ the services of a property agent?
If you are only letting out a part of your property, or will be around when your guests are there, you may opt to manage all of the logistics yourself. Should you be renting the property for prolonged periods while you are back in the UK, it could be wise to employ the services of a property management company. For an annual fee, usually starting at around €500, or a percentage of rental income, they will take care of advertising your property, collecting payment, greeting guests, cleaning the property, and garden and pool maintenance.
If you spend more than 183 days a year in Italy, and are regarded a resident, you will be liable to pay tax on all forms of income, including rent. The amount you are taxed will depend on each individual’s annual income in Italy, and like the UK, which bracket you fall into. As tax is always tricky to handle, we recommend speaking to an independent financial advisor, or a commercialista (Italian accountant), about the best way to proceed.
If you spend more than 183 days a year in Italy, and are regarded a resident, you will be liable to pay tax on all forms of income, including rent.
Prior to letting out your property, we advise you to consult an independent solicitor, to ensure you are complying with all of the relevant rules and regulations. You can incur sizeable fines if you fail to get the right license, planning permission, or to ensure disabled access, so it’s better to be safe than sorry.
Let us put you in touch with a trusted solicitor, who can answer all your questions on letting Italian property.

lowercased:
each of italy’s regions has its own rules, regulations, and requirements when it comes to letting out your property to paying guests.
to make sure you are complying with all local rules, you will need to contact your local tourism office – azienda provinciale per il turismo (apt), to inform them of your plans, the location of your property, the amount of units you plan on renting out, and how often you plan on doing so. once they have this information they will then class you as either a commercial, or non-commercial landlord. your status will determine whether or not you have to charge your guests vat.
should you be renting the property for prolonged periods, it could be wise to employ the services of a property management company.
as the obligations imposed on both types of landlord can be complicated, we recommend you consult an independent financial advisor about how to proceed.
before letting your property we advise meeting with an independent solicitor.
should you employ the services of a property agent?
if you are only letting out a part of your property, or will be around when your guests are there, you may opt to manage all of the logistics yourself. should you be renting the property for prolonged periods while you are back in the uk, it could be wise to employ the services of a property management company. for an annual fee, usually starting at around €500, or a percentage of rental income, they will take care of advertising your property, collecting payment, greeting guests, cleaning the property, and garden and pool maintenance.
if you spend more than 183 days a year in italy, and are regarded a resident, you will be liable to pay tax on all forms of income, including rent. the amount you are taxed will depend on each individual’s annual income in italy, and like the uk, which bracket you fall into. as tax is always tricky to handle, we recommend speaking to an independent financial advisor, or a commercialista (italian accountant), about the best way to proceed.
if you spend more than 183 days a year in italy, and are regarded a resident, you will be liable to pay tax on all forms of income, including rent.
prior to letting out your property, we advise you to consult an independent solicitor, to ensure you are complying with all of the relevant rules and regulations. you can incur sizeable fines if you fail to get the right license, planning permission, or to ensure disabled access, so it’s better to be safe than sorry.
let us put you in touch with a trusted solicitor, who can answer all your questions on letting italian property.


text:
I can has a new desktop?
Adding texture to photos doesn’t always make them look better, but I kind of like how these turned out.
If you do, and would like to use one for a desktop, you can download them in higher resolution here and here.
Posted in desktop, perspective, photos.

lowercased:
i can has a new desktop?
adding texture to photos doesn’t always make them look better, but i kind of like how these turned out.
if you do, and would like to use one for a desktop, you can download them in higher resolution here and here.
posted in desktop, perspective, photos.


text:
New Haven, Connecticut has so much to offer from amazing food, insane academics, and intricate artwork... you'll find it all. Check out what you need to see in New Haven if you only have 24 hours to spend.
When you lived in the same place all your life you can get in a little bit of a funk. Find out five ways to make your hometown feel like a travel destination?

lowercased:
new haven, connecticut has so much to offer from amazing food, insane academics, and intricate artwork... you'll find it all. check out what you need to see in new haven if you only have 24 hours to spend.
when you lived in the same place all your life you can get in a little bit of a funk. find out five ways to make your hometown feel like a travel destination?


text:
Born in Jessamine County, Kentucky, Butler studied law after graduating from Transylvania University. He served in the War of 1812, taking part in the Battle of the Thames and the Battle of New Orleans. After the war, he practiced law in Carrollton, Kentucky and briefly served in the Kentucky House of Representatives. He served in the United States House of Representatives from 1839 to 1843 before running for Governor of Kentucky in 1844. He lost the 1844 gubernatorial election to Whig nominee William Owsley.
During the Mexican–American War, Butler served as a major general of volunteers. He was General Zachary Taylor's second-in-command during the Battle of Monterrey and later succeeded Winfield Scott as the commander of American forces occupying Mexico City. The 1848 Democratic National Convention nominated a ticket of Cass and Butler, but the Whig ticket of Taylor and Millard Fillmore won the 1848 presidential election. He attended the Peace Conference of 1861, which sought to defuse the secession crisis that arose following the 1860 presidential election. During the Civil War, Butler was a War Democrat who favored the Union.
Butler was born in Jessamine County, Kentucky (then Fayette County), and graduated from Transylvania University in 1812. He began the study of law with Robert Wickliffe, but his education was interrupted by the War of 1812.
The Indians captured Butler and sent him to Fort Niagara where he remained until the British freed him on parole. He returned to Kentucky only to join the American forces that met the British and Indians at the Battle of the Thames in 1813. During the battle, Butler volunteered to set a barn on fire where the enemy had taken shelter. He successfully did so and received the rank of colonel for his bravery. Butler and his men were sent to New Orleans to assist Andrew Jackson in the city's defense. He distinguished himself during the Battle of New Orleans. Among the men under his command was future Florida governor Richard Keith Call, who would remain lifelong friends with Butler.
In 1848, Butler was the Democratic candidate for Vice President of the United States. At the 1848 Democratic National Convention, delegate Francis P. Blair was a leader of the movement to put Butler on the ticket with Lewis Cass, and Butler won the nomination on the first ballot over John A. Quitman and William R. King. In the general election, the ticket of Cass and Butler was defeated by Whig candidates Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore. Butler was the first non-incumbent Democratic vice presidential candidate to lose election.
Butler died in Carrollton, Kentucky on August 6, 1880 at age 89. He was interred in the Butler family cemetery in Carrollton.
The Gen. William O. Butler House, his home in Carrollton, Kentucky, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
^ Krakow, Kenneth K. (1975). Georgia Place-Names: Their History and Origins (PDF). Macon, GA: Winship Press. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-915430-00-0.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to William Orlando Butler.
United States Congress. "William Orlando Butler (id: B001197)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.

lowercased:
born in jessamine county, kentucky, butler studied law after graduating from transylvania university. he served in the war of 1812, taking part in the battle of the thames and the battle of new orleans. after the war, he practiced law in carrollton, kentucky and briefly served in the kentucky house of representatives. he served in the united states house of representatives from 1839 to 1843 before running for governor of kentucky in 1844. he lost the 1844 gubernatorial election to whig nominee william owsley.
during the mexican–american war, butler served as a major general of volunteers. he was general zachary taylor's second-in-command during the battle of monterrey and later succeeded winfield scott as the commander of american forces occupying mexico city. the 1848 democratic national convention nominated a ticket of cass and butler, but the whig ticket of taylor and millard fillmore won the 1848 presidential election. he attended the peace conference of 1861, which sought to defuse the secession crisis that arose following the 1860 presidential election. during the civil war, butler was a war democrat who favored the union.
butler was born in jessamine county, kentucky (then fayette county), and graduated from transylvania university in 1812. he began the study of law with robert wickliffe, but his education was interrupted by the war of 1812.
the indians captured butler and sent him to fort niagara where he remained until the british freed him on parole. he returned to kentucky only to join the american forces that met the british and indians at the battle of the thames in 1813. during the battle, butler volunteered to set a barn on fire where the enemy had taken shelter. he successfully did so and received the rank of colonel for his bravery. butler and his men were sent to new orleans to assist andrew jackson in the city's defense. he distinguished himself during the battle of new orleans. among the men under his command was future florida governor richard keith call, who would remain lifelong friends with butler.
in 1848, butler was the democratic candidate for vice president of the united states. at the 1848 democratic national convention, delegate francis p. blair was a leader of the movement to put butler on the ticket with lewis cass, and butler won the nomination on the first ballot over john a. quitman and william r. king. in the general election, the ticket of cass and butler was defeated by whig candidates zachary taylor and millard fillmore. butler was the first non-incumbent democratic vice presidential candidate to lose election.
butler died in carrollton, kentucky on august 6, 1880 at age 89. he was interred in the butler family cemetery in carrollton.
the gen. william o. butler house, his home in carrollton, kentucky, is listed on the national register of historic places.
^ krakow, kenneth k. (1975). georgia place-names: their history and origins (pdf). macon, ga: winship press. p. 29. isbn 978-0-915430-00-0.
wikimedia commons has media related to william orlando butler.
united states congress. "william orlando butler (id: b001197)". biographical directory of the united states congress.


text:
21 Williams Avenue is well positioned, mid block on Williams Avenue with direct access to both Akerley Boulevard and Wright Avenue. Akerley Boulevard and Wright Avenue are Burnside's main thoroughfares that run from Windmill Road right through to exits and interchanges for Highway 118, 102 & 111 along with Dartmouth Crossing.
Burnside Business Park is a superior location with superb transportation links. It is currently home to over 1,300 enterprises and employs more than 15,000 people. Located in Dartmouth NS, Burnside enterprises are within minutes of downtown Halifax and Robert L. Stanfield International Airport.

lowercased:
21 williams avenue is well positioned, mid block on williams avenue with direct access to both akerley boulevard and wright avenue. akerley boulevard and wright avenue are burnside's main thoroughfares that run from windmill road right through to exits and interchanges for highway 118, 102 & 111 along with dartmouth crossing.
burnside business park is a superior location with superb transportation links. it is currently home to over 1,300 enterprises and employs more than 15,000 people. located in dartmouth ns, burnside enterprises are within minutes of downtown halifax and robert l. stanfield international airport.


text:
Sun Country Airlines has appointed two new outside members to its board. The new directors are Robert R. Fafinski Jr., shareholder and CEO of Fafinski Mark & Johnson law firm, and Michael J. Opat, chair of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Fafinski has been practicing law since 1983 in the areas of corporate law, corporate finance, aviation, equipment leasing, merger and acquisitions and the representation of professional associations.
Opat is the chair of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, the governing body for the largest county in Minnesota. Prior to serving as commissioner, he was a supervisor at the Hennepin Adult Correctional Facility and Minnesota Correctional Officer of the Year. Opat was elected to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners in 1992 and has served from 1993 to present. He led the effort with the Minnesota Twins to finance and build Target Field ballpark in downtown Minneapolis, which opened in 2010.

lowercased:
sun country airlines has appointed two new outside members to its board. the new directors are robert r. fafinski jr., shareholder and ceo of fafinski mark & johnson law firm, and michael j. opat, chair of the hennepin county board of commissioners. fafinski has been practicing law since 1983 in the areas of corporate law, corporate finance, aviation, equipment leasing, merger and acquisitions and the representation of professional associations.
opat is the chair of the hennepin county board of commissioners, the governing body for the largest county in minnesota. prior to serving as commissioner, he was a supervisor at the hennepin adult correctional facility and minnesota correctional officer of the year. opat was elected to the hennepin county board of commissioners in 1992 and has served from 1993 to present. he led the effort with the minnesota twins to finance and build target field ballpark in downtown minneapolis, which opened in 2010.


text:
Perfect for cleaning hardwood, tile and laminate floors, the Bloom Modular Telescopic Flat Mop has a microfibre head that cleans to a shine, and tidies away neatly with the rest of the Bloom Modular range once your hard floors are spotless and shining.
The pivoting mop head helps this flat mop glide into tight corners and under low-slung furniture, so no part of your floor can escape its reach. At 30cm wide, it makes quick work of larger areas and has the perfect partner in the generously sized Bloom Modular Bucket.
Extending from an easy-to-store 77.5cm to a far-reaching 142cm, its handle locks securely into place so you can clean even awkward corners without fear of it retracting mid-mop. Twin locking buttons at the end of the pole let you detach and replace the head easily, and the machine washable microfibre pad detaches easily from the bottom when it needs a refresh – and there’s a replacement available too when it comes to the end of its useful mopping life.
The five pieces in the Bloom Modular range fit together to create a compact set, so you can just grab the whole range and go rather than ratcheting around for separate items in the depths of your cupboards. The handle of this Telescopic Mop clips securely onto the Bloom Cleaning Caddy, which clips in turn onto the Bloom Bucket, so it’s quick and easy to find what you need to get your floors back to their best.
30cm W. Extends from 77.5 to 142cm.
Everything in the bloom range works together to form a harmonious set. Brilliant!

lowercased:
perfect for cleaning hardwood, tile and laminate floors, the bloom modular telescopic flat mop has a microfibre head that cleans to a shine, and tidies away neatly with the rest of the bloom modular range once your hard floors are spotless and shining.
the pivoting mop head helps this flat mop glide into tight corners and under low-slung furniture, so no part of your floor can escape its reach. at 30cm wide, it makes quick work of larger areas and has the perfect partner in the generously sized bloom modular bucket.
extending from an easy-to-store 77.5cm to a far-reaching 142cm, its handle locks securely into place so you can clean even awkward corners without fear of it retracting mid-mop. twin locking buttons at the end of the pole let you detach and replace the head easily, and the machine washable microfibre pad detaches easily from the bottom when it needs a refresh – and there’s a replacement available too when it comes to the end of its useful mopping life.
the five pieces in the bloom modular range fit together to create a compact set, so you can just grab the whole range and go rather than ratcheting around for separate items in the depths of your cupboards. the handle of this telescopic mop clips securely onto the bloom cleaning caddy, which clips in turn onto the bloom bucket, so it’s quick and easy to find what you need to get your floors back to their best.
30cm w. extends from 77.5 to 142cm.
everything in the bloom range works together to form a harmonious set. brilliant!