#bank markazi

[head-post]

US court overturns $1.68bn judgment against Central Bank of Iran

The US Court of Appeals reversed a ruling to pay $1.68 billion to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) in a case brought by the families of US servicemen killed in the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut.

Terror victims are seeking judgements through US courts against Iran and other states designated as sponsors of terrorism. The decision came before President-elect Donald Trump is set to return to the White House. He is expected to impose tough sanctions against Iran’s central bank and oil sector in his first days in office.

Manhattan’s 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a lower court should have considered state law issues before ruling against CBI and Luxembourg-based Clearstream Banking, a subsidiary of Deutsche Boerse.

The three justices rejected claims that a 2019 federal law, designed to make it easier to seize Iranian assets outside the United States, stripped CBI of sovereign immunity. Circuit Judge Robert Sack stated:

The law neither abrogates Bank Markazi’s [Central] jurisdictional immunity nor provides an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction.

However, the CBI claimed immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The legislation protects foreign governments from US court liability. The case has now been returned to US District Judge Loretta Preska to address state law issues in the 11-year-old dispute.

The case arose from the plaintiffs’ attempts to hold Iran liable for allegedly providing material support for the 23 October 1983 terrorist attack that killed 241 US servicemen in Beirut.

The plaintiffs allege that they have more than $4 billion in unpaid judgments against Iran. The case represents one of many challenges faced by victims of terrorism seeking to obtain judgments against Iran and other states designated by the US as sponsors of terrorism through US courts.

Read more HERE

[fruityyamenrunner]

i think what contributes is that a transliteration of the pashto name into latin letters yields an unusually English looking phrase "da afghanistan bank", so why not call it by its pashto name

cf

The Central Bank of Iran (CBI), also known as Bank Markazi, officially the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Persian: بانک مرکزی جمهوری اسلامی ايران, romanized: Bank Markazi-ye Jomhuri-ye Eslāmi-ye Irān; SWIFT Code: BMJIIRTH) is the central bank of Iran.

okay so the central bank of aghanistan is called "Da Afghanistan Bank" and i cant figure out....why? what is da? It sounds like someone is just saying "The afghanistan bank". da afghanistan bank...

[listsclub]

The central bank is the central monetary authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Central Bank of Iran was established in 1960 as a state-owned organization. The central bank of Iran is also called in Arabic Bank Markazi Iran. The bank issues banknotes and coins and supervises the country’s credit organizations and banks in Iran. The central bank is also responsible for maintaining the foreign exchange, gold reserves of Iran. The bank is also represented by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In this post, you will get all links and information about banks in Iran.

[junker-town]

The Bulls are a piggy bank, not a basketball team

Photo by Rocky Widner/NBAE via Getty Images

We have that and more in Thursday’s NBA newsletter.

Blog a Bull has a striking analysis of just how much cash the Bulls have stockpiled since beginning the current rebuild during the 2017 NBA Draft. Per the analysis, the Bulls have taken $14 million in cash considerations in trades with other teams, more than any other team. The next team on the list, the Sixers, who came in with a glut of extra draft picks following The Process, took in about $3 million less.

The argument is that the Bulls have selfishly focused on accepting cash as compensation for trades helping other teams shed guaranteed salary. Rebuilding teams do these kinds of trades all the time -- in fact, it’s a hallmark of a good rebuild to use the resource of cap space to gain assets while preserving future cap space for when it’s needed to turn competitive. But good teams target players and picks in those deals. The Bulls have been happy chasing cash.

Cash doesn’t help the team: it helps the investors. In this case, it helps Jerry Reinsdorf. Given Reinsdorf’s resistance to paying luxury tax even when the Bulls are competing for titles, and given the enormous profitability of the Bulls, the cash essentially becomes straight profits. When the Bulls sell a second-round pick, or help the Rockets cut salary for only cash considerations, that doesn’t help the team at all. But it lines Reinsdorf’s pocket.

The analysis also shows that the Bulls have kept total payroll very low (negating one of the benefits of rebuilding, which is the ability to use excess salary cap space to add assets) and that Chicago has been derelict in adding extra draft picks during the rebuild. Basically, the Bulls’ idea of a rebuild has been to be bad and profitable.

Because the front office is really good on the draft, Chicago is poised to emerge from its rebuild soon. But it could emerge in a stronger position if only it’d spend like a normal big-market NBA team. Alas ...

‘That Man Has Too Much Energy’

In a column celebrating Doc Rivers claiming he quit on Donald Sterling six days into his tenure as Clippers head coach -- Sterling vetoed the J.J. Redick sign-and-trade for unknown reasons, Rivers quit, the deal went through, Rivers came back with nary a report leaking out -- there’s a remarkable addition to the Kawhi Leonard quote canon.

From Arash Markazi in the L.A. Times:

[Steve] Ballmer, Rivers said, has “been phenomenal to work with. He’s got more energy than anybody needs. After Kawhi signed, we had this meeting and Ballmer walks in punching the air and making all these sounds and Kawhi, who doesn’t say much, leans over and says, ‘That man has too much energy.’”

You don’t know the half, Kawhi.

Links

Matt Ellentuck on Aces vs. Mystics being the best possible advertisement for the WNBA.

Kyrie Irving’s face is broken again. It’s an analogy for the fact that Society trying to get in and shut down his Galaxy Brain. Save Kyrie at all costs!

I wrote about the hilarity of the first team punished under new, stricter tampering rules being the team that already has Giannis Antetokounmpo.

Veggie burgers are taking over the NBA.

Are ... the Bulls going to make the playoffs?

Kevin O’Connor’s players ready to make a leap.

Hope you kept your Houston Rockets Ryan Anderson jerseys because he’s back!

Kevin Clark walks the audience through the newest batch of Markelle Fultz videos. I’m so glad Magic fans are there to pick up the mantle carried for so long by Sixers fans.

And finally: KEEP GOING, BUDDY.

Be excellent to each other.

[newsnomadblog]

IJC: Iran can move to recover $1.75bn in assets frozen by US

IJC: Iran can move to recover $1.75bn in assets frozen by US

Assets from Iranian national bank, Bank Markazi, were frozen by US courts (AFP/File photo)

13 Feb 2019 | MEE and wires | Middle East Eye

“The International Court of Justice has ruled that Iran can move forward in its effort to unfreeze assets in the United States, rejecting Washington’s claims that the case must be halted because of Tehran’s alleged support for terrorism.

In a decision delivered…

[empiricalscotus]

One Opinion More Complex Than the Next

One Opinion More Complex Than the Next #EmpiricalSCOTUS

The Supreme Court finally appears decently situated to complete its decision making for the term.  Some holdups are still in play including the long since argued case of Gill v. Whitford.  Gill was argued 255 days from the next possible opinion release date of June 14, 2018.  Only 10 cases have taken longer to decide since 1946.  With 39 cases signed decisions so far this term composed of over 90…

[pejvak3-blog]

تصیمم مهم بانک مرکزی که قطعا دلار را ارزان می کند تسنیم/ تازه ترین خبر رسیده حکایت از آن دارد که در

[businessweekme]

Beirut Tribute Gives Trump an Opening to Push Iran Reparations

The Trump administration has an opportunity to showcase its opposition to Iran this week when families of U.S. Marines killed in the 1983 Beirut bombings visit the White House to mark the anniversary of the attack.

Kin of the 241 lost U.S. service members have already collected $1.7 billion in seized Iranian assets over the years and are pushing to unlock one more trove. Some of the relatives will meet Thursday with President Donald Trump, who could use the occasion to take a stand that would benefit the families.

At issue are some $1.68 billion in sovereign bonds owned by Iran’s central bank. The families are asking that those assets be seized as a reparation from Tehran, which the U.S. faults for the attack. But the securities aren’t physically located in the U.S., so Iran and its bankers have argued that the U.S. has no right to lay hands on them.

A years-long U.S. court battle over the bonds has worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Oct. 1 asked the Trump administration to present its view on whether it should hear a plea for immunity by Iran and its bankers. Iran claims that assets held in Europe aren’t subject to legal claims filed by U.S. terrorism victims.

Any response to the Supreme Court by the Trump administration would be filed by the office of U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco in the next few months. A spokeswoman for the office declined to comment.

The families oppose a Supreme Court review because they’ve already received a lower court’s blessing to go after the money.

“I am confident the administration will recommend that Iran’s petition to the Supreme Court be denied,” said Lynn Smith Derbyshire, a spokeswoman for the victims’ families whose brother, Marine Capt. Vincent L. Smith, was killed in the attack. “We can best honor the memory of the fallen by ensuring that Iran does not have the means to conduct more terrorist attacks.”

The case has attracted interest beyond the courtroom. If the Trump administration urges the Supreme Court to ignore Iran’s arguments, then global banks would be on notice that under certain circumstances, judges in New York could require them to turn over assets located abroad to recognized creditors.

In a summary of an appeals court decision in the matter, the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP said the case “has significant implications for international banks, as the decision will encourage plaintiffs to seek to attach assets held by sovereign judgment debtors” abroad.

Trying to Collect

The Marine families have been trying for more than a decade to collect on a judgment they won against Iran in 2007. While the Washington, D.C., judge in that case said they should be able to collect $3.8 billion, seizing Iranian assets to fulfill the judgment has been difficult. The U.S. ultimately identified a cache of Iranian-owned sovereign bonds at Citibank, and lawyers for the families began going after them.

In the middle of the bond dispute is Luxembourg’s Clearstream Banking SA, a lender that specializes in the settlement and custody of international bonds and equities. Clearstream is a unit of the Deutsche Boerse AG, the Frankfurt-based stock exchange.

Clearstream served as the intermediary for sovereign bonds held by Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank. Lawyers for the Beirut victims’ families obtained a lien on almost $2 billion worth of bonds parked in a Clearstream account at Citibank in New York almost a decade ago.

The families had rights to about $1.7 billion of those bonds, a federal judge in New York ruled in 2013. Clearsteam had been collecting interest payments on the bonds at Citibank, in violation of U.S. sanctions laws. Citibank, a unit of Citigroup Inc., wasn’t accused of wrongdoing.

The tougher legal challenge for the families has been getting access to a second tranche of bonds that Iran holds via Clearstream. That’s because the securities are held by Clearstream not in the U.S. but in Luxembourg. Interest payments on the bonds were deposited into a Clearstream account at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York.

Those bond proceeds were never transferred out the U.S., according to filings. Instead, after Clearstream received the payments into its general JPMorgan account, it made an offsetting bookkeeping entry in Luxembourg, crediting a payment to Iran’s unmarked account at an Italian lender, Banca UBAE, according to legal filings in the case.

According to the filings, Clearstream never informed JPMorgan that interest payments on the bonds were ultimately being credited to Iran’s central bank, by way of the account used by Markazi at UBAE.

Second Suit

Families of the Beirut victims sued Clearstream in 2013, demanding it hand over the bonds connected to JPMorgan. That case was heard by the same federal judge who presided over the suit related to Clearstream’s account at Citibank.

The judge ruled against the victims this time, finding that the bonds in Luxembourg were beyond their reach. The families appealed to the Second Circuit, which surprised some legal experts by ruling that the Iranian-owned bonds could be transferred to New York at the direction of the court under a specific set of circumstances.

After the Second Circuit’s decision, which raised questions about how the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act should be interpreted, Clearstream, UBAE and Bank Markazi urged the Supreme Court to resolve the matter by overturning the ruling. This month’s request by the Supreme Court invited the U.S. solicitor general’s office to weigh in on the matter.

Clearstream, which filed its own brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court’s ruling, declined to comment.

The Luxembourg bank was the subject of a previous U.S. Treasury Department settlement and has been investigated by federal prosecutors.

In 2014, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, known as OFAC, penalized the bank $152 million for violating Iranian sanctions by servicing Bank Markazi’s bonds in the Citibank account. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan later issued one or more subpoenas as part of an investigation into Clearstream’s conduct on the Iranian central bank’s behalf. That investigation has gone quiet in the past year.

Whatever happens in the courts or with any further enforcement in the matter could set the tone for other banks that provide services on behalf of sanctioned entities. For now, it’s an open question whether banks can provide certain arms-length dollar-related financial services to Iran’s central bank without inviting U.S. wrath.

The Trump administration has taken a hard line on Iran, pulling out of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement struck in 2015 by the Obama administration. Last week, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin expanded Iranian sanctions to include businesses with ties to a unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The post Beirut Tribute Gives Trump an Opening to Push Iran Reparations appeared first on Bloomberg Businessweek Middle East.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2PUZkuv via IFTTT

[islamicvoice-blog]

US in new global court showdown with Iran

New post https://is.gd/X75THN

The United States will confront Tehran at the UN’s top court on Monday over billions in frozen assets, in a case that could deepen the Trump administration’s rift with international justice.

Iran had dragged Washington before the International Court of Justice in June 2016 to oppose a US Supreme Court ruling that the US$2 billion (RM8.3 billion) should go to victims of terror attacks blamed on the Islamic republic.

Monday’s hearing of US objections against Iran’s appeal comes a week after the ICJ in a separate case ordered the United States to ease sanctions reimposed after President Donald Trump pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

Both the assets and the sanctions cases are based on a 1955 “Treaty of Amity” between Washington and Tehran that predates Iran’s Islamic revolution.

Last Wednesday the Trump administration announced it was not only tearing up the 1955 treaty but also that it was quitting the international accord relating to the UN top court’s jurisdiction.

It remained unclear how Washington will respond to the latest case before the court but US officials confirmed that its lawyers will be present at the hearing on Monday.

The ICJ was set up after World War II to rule on disputes between United Nations member states. Its rulings are binding but it has no power to enforce them.

At Monday’s hearing a 15-judge bench is to listen to arguments by Washington’s lawyers over whether the ICJ can take up the case under its strict rules governing its procedure.

The US Supreme Court ruled in April 2016 that US$2 billion in Iran’s frozen assets must go to American victims of terror attacks.

These included the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut in which 241 soldiers were killed and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In total the decision affects more than 1,000 Americans.

Iran angrily accused Washington of breaking the 1955 treaty – even though it was signed at the time with the pro-US regime of the Shah – and called for the US “to make full reparations to Iran for the violation of its international legal obligations.”

Tehran said that because the US has maintained its designation of Iran as a major state sponsor of terrorism, its assets including the Central Bank also known as the Bank Markazi, have been “subjected to enforcement proceedings in the United States” even if they should benefit from immunity under the 1955 treaty.

A decision by the ICJ’s judges could take weeks or even months before being made public.

Iran won a shock victory last week when the ICJ ruled that the US must lift sanctions against Tehran targeting humanitarian goods like food and medicine.

In response, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the United States was terminating the 1955 friendship treaty.

But Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton also announced that the United States was pulling out of the 1961 Optional Protocol and Dispute Resolution of the Vienna Convention.

The protocol establishes the ICJ as the “compulsory jurisdiction” for disputes unless nations decide to settle them elsewhere.

The step also comes after the Palestinians went to the ICJ to challenge the US move of its Israel embassy to Jerusalem.

Trump last month at the United Nations virulently rejected the authority of the International Criminal Court – a separate court based in The Hague that the US is not a member of – over a probe into US forces in Afghanistan.

– AFP

[maxwellyjordan]

Justices officially return from summer recess, issue orders from long conference

The eight justices of the Supreme Court returned to the bench today to hear oral arguments in the first cases of their new term. But before they did so, they issued an extensive (75 pages) list of orders from last Monday’s “long conference” – their first conference since their summer recess began in late June. The justices issued grants from the conference last Thursday. Today’s orders consisted primarily of denials of review and requests for the U.S. solicitor general to weigh in on several cases.

The justices apparently did not act on two of the highest-profile cases on the list for last week’s conference, which involve a challenge to a Latin cross, located on public land in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, commemorating soldiers who died in World War I. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that the cross violates the Constitution’s establishment clause; the justices have been asked to review that ruling.

The justices asked the U.S. solicitor general to file briefs giving them the federal government’s views in eight cases, three of which involve the same issue. In Hernandez v. Mesa, the government will weigh in once again on a Mexican family’s efforts to hold a U.S. Border Patrol agent liable for the death of their 15-year-old son, Sergio Hernandez, who was shot to death while he was on the Mexican side of the border and the agent, Jesus Mesa, was on the U.S. side. The dispute has already been to the Supreme Court once: In 2017, the justices sent the case back to the lower court for it to take a new look. On remand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the family cannot rely on a 1971 Supreme Court decision allowing a lawsuit seeking damages from federal officials for violating the Constitution to go forward.

In a trio of cases – Clearstream Banking v. Peterson, Banca UBAE v. Peterson and Bank Markazi v. Peterson – the government will provide the court with its opinion on whether the justices should once again intervene in the long-running efforts to obtain money to pay judgments against Iran for its support of terrorism. The respondents in this case are the victims (and their families) of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. A federal court awarded the victims nearly $4 billion in damages, part of which they are now trying to recover by seizing assets owed to Bank Markazi – Iran’s central bank – but held by Clearstream in Luxembourg. A federal district court ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the federal law governing immunity for foreign governments and their property, barred the victims from attaching the assets. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed, holding that the FSIA does not prohibit federal courts from ordering Clearstream to bring the assets to New York. Bank Markazi and Clearstream asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, as did Banca UBAE, an Italian bank embroiled in the dispute, which argues that the 2nd Circuit should have considered its contention that U.S. courts do not even have jurisdiction over it.

The justices asked the government to file briefs in four other cases:

Poarch Bank of Creek Indians v. Wilkes: Whether someone who is not a member of an Indian tribe can sue the tribe to recover for an accident or injury – here, a car accident caused by an employee of a casino owned by the tribe.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian: Issues arising from the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling that landowners can bring claims under state law to require companies to pay to clean up hazardous-waste sites even though the companies are already working with the federal Environmental Protection Agency to remediate the sites.

RPX Corp. v. ChanBond: Whether a party that asks for review of a patent has standing to appeal the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s final ruling on that review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Thole v. U.S. Bank: Whether a participant in a pension plan can bring a lawsuit against the managers of the fund when the participant has not yet suffered any individual financial injury.

There is no deadline for the U.S. solicitor general to file the government’s briefs, but such briefs are often not filed for several months after the justices request them. If that holds true in these cases, it would mean that the justices likely would not ultimately decide whether to grant review until next year – at which point the court is more likely to have all nine justices.

The list of cases in which the justices denied review today spanned over 60 pages. Among the cases that the justices turned down today were:

Martins Beach 1 v. Surfrider Foundation: A property-rights battle involving the 89-acre private beach owned by Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla, who wants to cut off public access to the beach. A nonprofit has argued that Khosla’s efforts violate California laws regulating coastal development. A California appeals court ruled against Khosla, holding that requiring Khosla to allow public access to the beach was not an unconstitutional “taking” of Khosla’s property, for which he should be compensated, because the access requirement was not necessarily permanent.

Davis v. Mississippi: A follow-up to the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for juveniles convicted of murder violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and its 2016 ruling that life without parole is appropriate only “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.” In this case, a Mississippi inmate who was convicted of a murder that he committed at the age of 16 had asked the justices to rule on two issues relating to the constitutionality of life without parole: first, whether the Constitution allows a sentence of life without parole without a finding that the juvenile is permanently incorrigible; and, second and more broadly, whether the Eighth Amendment bars a sentence of life without parole for juvenile offenders.

Garvin v. New York: In a case stemming from an arrest and conviction for a series of bank robberies, the defendant had asked the justices to consider two questions: (1) whether police officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they arrested him inside his apartment without either a warrant or an emergency; and (2) whether New York’s persistent-felony-offender scheme is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, which held that juries – rather than judges – must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, any facts that increase a sentence beyond the statutory maximum.

The justices will meet again for their next conference on Friday, October 5.

This post was originally published at Howe on the Court. Some of the content in this post also appeared in earlier posts, in slightly different forms, at Howe on the Court.

The post Justices officially return from summer recess, issue orders from long conference appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/justices-officially-return-from-summer-recess-issue-orders-from-long-conference/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[updatesnews]

Iran’s central bank claims billions from German stock exchange

Author:  AFP Fri, 2018-01-19 01:13 ID:  1516294949637140600 FRANKFURT AM MAIN: German stock market operator Deutsche Boerse said Thursday that Iran’s central bank had levelled claims for billions of dollars against its Luxembourg subsidiary Clearstream, which blocked the funds after the US accused Tehran of funding terrorism.The central bank (Bank Markazi) demands some $4.9 billion (4.0 billion…

[pamirtimesblog]

GILGIT: The Parliamentary Committee and representatives of Anjuman-e-Tajran (MAJ) and Awami Action Committee (AAC) on Wednesday formed a joint committee to present the agreed-upon recommendation to the federal government on the ongoing anti-tax issue in Gilgit-Baltistan.

Senior Minister Haji Akbar Taban while addressing a press conference in Gilgit said that both parties have signed an agreement and a recommendation document after many rounds of negotiations in order to resolve the issue peacefully. The press conference was also attended by members of Parliamentary Committee and representatives of Anjuman-e-Tajran (MAJ) and Awami Action Committee (AAC) announced the.

Minister Taban said the joint committee will leave for Islamabad on Wednesday to present the agreed-upon recommendations to federal government. He said peaceful and symbolic sit-ins will continue and the long march from Skardu to Gilgit will be called off until the government implements the recommendations. The government will end all cases registers against the protesters, he said.

According to the recommendations, both parties have agreed to repeal the GB Tax Adaptation Act 2012 and end the income tax, bank transaction tax, withholding tax imposed under this act . The recommendations mentions that  GB Council should consult Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly if any alternate law is required in this regard.

The recommendations further include that amendments to be made in Gilgit-Baltistan Mineral Policy 2016 and its subject should be transferred to provincial assembly.

The federal government to share all indirect taxes received from Gilgit-Baltistan with Gilgit-Baltistan government by following the pattern of Azad Kashmir, it mentions.

Following this development in Gilgit, MAT and AAC called-off the Skardu-Gilgit long march. The participants left of their respective districts after spending over 15 hours at Danbudas in minus 15 temperatures.

Also watch the video report of the press conference 

Thousands of people from the four districts of Baltistan region had left for Gilgit on Tuesday to pressurize the government to repeal all taxes imposed in Gilgit-Baltistan under Gilgit-Baltistan Adaptation Act 2012.

Also watch the video report about the Skardu-Gilgit long march 

The protest call was given by the Anjiman-i-Tajran and the Awami Action Committee (AAC) on December 21 and the move was backed by all major political and religious parties, transporters association, hotels associations, gems and minerals associations and bar associations. Markazi Anjuman-e-Tajran and Awami Action Committee also continued the sit-in at Itehad Chowk Gilgit.

The district chapters of trade unions also observed shutter-down strikes in Hunza, Nagar, Ghizer, Astore, Diamer, Gilgit, Skardu, Shigar, Kharmang and Ghanche districts.

GB Tax Issue: Negotiations successful, long march called off, joint committee to negotiate recommendations with with federal govt GILGIT: The Parliamentary Committee and representatives of Anjuman-e-Tajran (MAJ) and Awami Action Committee (AAC) on Wednesday formed a joint committee to present the agreed-upon recommendation to the federal government on the ongoing anti-tax issue in Gilgit-Baltistan.

[empiricalscotus]

Patterns of Eight Justices: Will They Persist with a New Court Member?

Patterns of Eight Justices: Will They Persist with a New Court Member? #EmpiricalSCOTUS

The Supreme Court has had eight members for over a year now.  In that time the Justices authored seventy-seven majority opinions.  Of those opinions sixty-eight were signed.  Through this period there have been some interesting idiosyncrasies from the Justices that we haven’t seen in the past.  We have seen new potential voting coalitions as well as the solidification of old ones.  If Judge…

[tremendouscollectionninja]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court in New York on Tuesday revived part of a $1.68 billion lawsuit against Iran's central bank, Bank Markazi, by families of soldiers killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon.

from Reuters: World News http://ift.tt/2BaWWbY

[pejvak3-blog]

خاطر جمعی رئیس بانک مرکزی به مردم فارس/ رئیس کل بانک مرکزی ایران تاکید کرد: تحریم‌های جدید آمریکا تا

[hax121]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court in New York on Tuesday revived part of a $1.68 billion lawsuit against Iran's central bank, Bank Markazi, by families of soldiers killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon.

from Reuters: U.S. http://ift.tt/2BcVZjx