text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. App. 2d › Volume 104 › Estate of Miller
Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the California Court of Appeal. Subscribe
Estate of Miller
[Civ. No. 14505. First Dist., Div. One. May 1, 1951.]
Estate of ALICE A. MILLER, Deceased. THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. J. HOWARD McGRATH, as Attorney General of United States, Respondent.
Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, W. R. Augustine and B. Abbott Goldberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant.
Harold I. Baynton, Assistant Attorney General of United States, Frank J. Hennessy, United States Attorney, Valentine C. Hammack and Lillian C. Scott, Special Assistants to Attorney General of United States, George B. Searls and Joseph Laufer, Attorneys, Department of Justice, for Respondent.
BRAY, J.
Appeal by the State of California, petitioner in intervention, from probate decree in favor of the Attorney General of the United States, objector, determining rights under section 259 of the Probate Code.
Questions Presented
1. Does the evidence show that on April 22, 1942, reciprocal rights of inheritance existed as to personal property between the United States and Germany?
2. Does the right to receive payment provided in section 259 of the Probate Code mean immediate payment?
3. Is Estate of Schluttig, 36 Cal. 2d 416 [224 P.2d 695], res judicata as to this case?
4. May the effect and application of foreign law be proved by circumstantial evidence? [104 Cal. App. 2d 3]
Alice A. Miller, an American citizen, died testate in Oakland, California, on April 22, 1942. She left the entire residue of the estate, consisting of both real and personal property, in equal shares to Wilhelmina Gramann and Dorette Brunotte, first cousins and her only relatives. Wilhelmina Gramann, unmarried and a citizen and resident of Germany, had predeceased the testatrix without leaving issue. Thus, Dorette Brunotte, likewise a citizen and national of Germany, was testatrix' sole surviving heir and next of kin. On September 19, 1944, she, too, died. Acting under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the Alien Property Custodian vested the interests of both residuary legatees. (Vesting Order No. 2803.)
The executors filed a petition for partial distribution, listing certain real and personal property as available for immediate distribution and stating that the State of California and the custodian were asserting conflicting claims to the legacies. The state filed a petition in intervention alleging that on April 22, 1942, American citizens had no right to take property or to receive payment from German estates, and hence, the two German legatees were rendered ineligible by section 259 of the Probate Code to take under the will, and, there being no other heirs or next of kin, the estate escheated to the State of California as provided in section 259.2. The Alien Property Custodian answered the petition, as did the executor, denying the asserted absence of reciprocal inheritance rights for American citizens in Germany, and in reliance on his vesting order asked that the residuary estate be distributed to him.
Following the decision in Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503 [67 S. Ct. 1431, 91 L. Ed. 1633, 170 A.L.R. 953] (holding that the treaty of 1923 between the United States and Germany governs the testamentary disposition of realty, but that the disposition of personal property is governed by California law, and that section 259 of the Probate Code is constitutional) the custodian's claim to the realty was no longer questioned. The question of whether reciprocal inheritance rights existed between the two countries is limited solely to the personal property.
The probate court found that on April 22, 1942, under the laws of Germany, American citizens did enjoy reciprocal rights with German citizens as to personal property and money [104 Cal. App. 2d 4] inherited from German estates. It found that the residuary legacy of Wilhelmina Gramann had lapsed and that the custodian, as successor in interest to Dorette Brunotte, only surviving heir, was entitled to the distribution of the entire estate. A final decree was entered distributing the estate to the custodian. (The Attorney General of the United States has succeeded to the rights and duties of the custodian and has been substituted in his place.)
Law Involved
At the time of the death of the decedent, section 259 of the Probate Code provided: "The rights of aliens not residing within the United States or its territories to take either real or personal property or the proceeds thereof in this State by succession or testamentary disposition, upon the same terms and conditions as residents and citizens of the United States is dependent in each case upon the existence of a reciprocal right upon the part of citizens of the United States to take real and personal property and the proceeds thereof upon the same terms and conditions as residents and citizens of the respective countries of which such aliens are inhabitants and citizens and upon the rights of citizens of the United States to receive by payment to them within the United States or its territories money originating from the estates of persons dying within such foreign countries."
Section 259.1 provided that the burden of establishing that reciprocal rights exist is on the nonresident alien (here the United States Attorney General). As said in Estate of Schluttig, supra, 36 Cal. 2d 416, at page 424: "... the issue to be determined involved questions as to the existence, translation, interpretation and effect of the laws of Germany ... The determination of the issue, therefore, was one of fact, and the finding of the trial court, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal." Therefore, the matter for us to determine is whether there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding of the existence of reciprocity on April 22, 1942.
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[1] The evidence consisted of German laws, documentary evidence, and the conflicting testimony of certain experts on German laws. The issue before the superior court required a consideration not only of the existence of the foreign statutes but a finding as to their effect based upon the translation of them and their practical application by the German courts. [104 Cal. App. 2d 5] The parties did not agree as to the correct translation of the statutes and each stressed uncertainties and ambiguities which required explanation. Moreover, it was shown that the right to inherit in the foreign countries depended upon certain policies of the Nazi regime. Upon all of these subjects both parties presented considerable testimony by experts. Respondent introduced the texts of the German laws relating to inheritance. fn. * Without exception, these laws refer to persons without distinction as to race or nationality. Neither Americans nor aliens generally are mentioned in the German Civil Code which was still in effect during the entire Nazi regime. Section 48 of the German Law Concerning Last Wills and Testaments of 1938 provided: "(1) A disposition for the event of death is void insofar as it is contrary to mandatory provisions of law. (2) Any disposition for the event of death is void insofar as it is contrary--because of being grossly opposed to sound sentiment of the people--to considerations which a decedent who is conscious of his duties, must have towards his family and the community of the people."
Dr. von Lewinski, a German national, testified for respondent. He qualified as an expert on German law. He studied law in this country at Harvard and Columbia Law Schools and in 1907 was appointed a judge of the County Court at Berlin where he served for a year and a half. For the next 10 years he was an assistant in both the Prussian Department of Justice and the Federal Department of Justice and also a Justice of the Court of Appeals of Berlin. From 1922 to 1932 he served in the United States as German Agent for the Mixed Claims Commission, Consular of the German Embassy and Consul General in New York. Upon his return to Germany in 1932 he practiced law in Berlin until approximately the time of trial herein, specializing in probate law. He testified that he had handled four to five hundred cases in which Americans had inherited estates in Germany and vice versa; that before the war the right to inherit was recognized and the assets transferred; that the German inheritance laws are contained in the German Civil Code, Fifth Book, and that article 154 of the Weimar Constitution enacted in 1919 recognized and guaranteed the right to inherit in accord with the Civil Code. Translations of these were in evidence. Also, [104 Cal. App. 2d 6] at the time here in question, there were no other laws in Germany having any bearing on the right of inheritance.
With respect to the pertinent sections of the Civil Code, and the right to inherit and succeed, this witness testified that no distinction was made between nationals of Germany and foreigners, including American citizens; that under the German laws of inheritance any foreigner may succeed to an estate in Germany on the same terms as a national of that country. He further testified that this right of inheritance remained intact throughout the Nazi regime and that no laws were enacted which in any way abrogated it. At the outbreak of war actual transfers of property inherited by American citizens were discontinued. Thereafter their property was placed in the hands of administrators who were subject to the control of the courts. The title of the enemy alien was not disturbed, and Germany never passed legislation confiscating enemy property. Dr. von Lewinski, himself, was appointed by the court in a number of instances as custodian of the interests of American heirs.
The witness further declared that the Law of Wills of 1938 was not construed as applying to or affecting wartime gifts to belligerents. He had never heard of a single decision in which a legacy to an American had been held void under the statute. On the contrary, in each of the cases he handled during the war the courts issued orders declaring Americans entitled to share in German estates and he personally knew that the prevailing practice conclusively showed that the courts did not regard a testamentary disposition to an American as "opposed to sound sentiment of the people."
Respondent introduced in evidence considerable documentary evidence of reciprocal rights. There were 57 certificates of inheritance (Erbscheine) which Dr. von Lewinski testified were judicial determinations of the probate courts of the several states, and which embody the decrees of these courts of record. These certificates cover the period 1938 to 1945 and determine the heirship of some 77 residents of the United States. The full war years, 1942, 1943, and 1944 are represented by 12, 17 and 19 certificates respectively. They were issued by probate courts in Germany, sitting in villages, cities and towns and in metropolitan centers such as Berlin, Munich and Stuttgart. With one exception, the American residence of the heir involved is shown without, however, disclosing citizenship.
Photostatic copies of two issues of the Deutscher Reichsanzeiger, [104 Cal. App. 2d 7] in which government orders and official notices are published, were put in evidence. These publications show that the German Alien Property Custodian placed estates belonging to heirs resident in the United States under the charge of administrators who acted under court supervision. In at least four of these estates it is clearly indicated that either the decedents or the heirs were Jews.
Respondent introduced in evidence 25 declarations on official forms made to the German Finance Ministry by persons in charge of the property of American residents. These reports cover the period between September, 1941, and June, 1943. In each case the property includes an inheritance claim. These were submitted to prove that no change in treatment of ownership of inheritance claims occurred.
Dr. von Lewinski testified on the basis of personal experience, that between the establishment of foreign exchange control in Germany and the outbreak of the war, citizens of the United States were able to secure the transfer of property inherited by them upon application filed with the German exchange control authorities. In about 600 cases personally handled by him before the United States imposed freezing controls (Executive Order 8785, June 14, 1941) actual delivery was made to the American heirs. Among the American heirs whose interests he represented, some were of the Jewish faith, and they duly received their inheritances prior to the outbreak of the war. He recalled one Jewish estate in particular, the Garbet estate, in which 200,000 marks were transferred to the heir in New York in 1940. After the outbreak of war with the United States the actual transmission of inheritances to the United States ceased. As to such inheritances, however, he testified that they were put in the hands of administrators, while the alien's title was not disturbed.
To the same effect was the testimony of Mr. Hoecker, an attorney in San Francisco. He testified that from 1933 to 1941 he represented American heirs, among them American citizens of the Jewish faith, in approximately 25 probate cases in Germany, and that in every instance his clients received actual transfers of the amounts due them.
Copies of 10 separate official files of the Devisenstelle (Foreign Exchange Control Office) in Berlin were introduced in evidence. They contained correspondence, license applications and licenses actually issued for the transfer of estates from Germany to the United States. As to at least five of these it affirmatively appears that the applicants are American citizens. [104 Cal. App. 2d 8] Diplomatic correspondence relative to the transmission of funds was put in evidence. In an aide memoire of December 20, 1938, the German government unequivocally guaranteed the rights of American citizens to withdraw inheritances on a reciprocal basis.
Appellant called William B. Stern, since 1939 the Foreign Law Librarian of the Los Angeles County Law Library, who received a Doctor of Laws degree at the University of Wuerzburg in 1933, then entered the Bavarian State Preparatory Service for Jurists in 1933, from which he was discharged in 1934 because of nonAryan descent. He attended an English university, then had a Fellowship in International Law at the University of Texas, and spent a year at Johns Hopkins University studying international law. In 1936 he was an invitee of the Carnegie Endowment of International Law at the University of Michigan and for two years was in charge of the Chicago Law Library. He has made a study of German laws of inheritance and has testified considerably as an expert on foreign laws.
Appellant also called one Oppenheimer, who qualified as an expert on German law. He had studied at the Universities of Berlin, Freiburg, and Breslau, had experience in law offices, with the public prosecutor and then passed an examination which entitled him to become a judge or a practicing attorney, worked with the Mixed Arbital Tribunals established under the Treaty of Versailles, then returned to Germany where he practiced law for many years, handling a great deal of probate work in America, France and England, as well as in Germany. He remained in Germany three and one-half years under the Nazi regime and then practiced in England until 1940, came to the United States and joined a prominent New York law office working on international and foreign laws until 1943 when he was appointed Chief Analyst of the Board of Economic Warfare in Washington, D. C., working on the German and Austrian Nazi legal system. Later he was assigned to the legal division of G-5, Allied Expeditionary Forces, heading up a "Special Legal Unit, Germany, Austria" the objective of which was to investigate the Nazi legal system, to recommend changes so that the German law could be de-Nazified. Later he became Chief of German Law and Court Section with the United States Forces at Frankfurt, Germany. Subsequently he became Assistant Legal Adviser in the Department of State. He returned from Germany about a week before the trial. [104 Cal. App. 2d 9]
In direct contradiction to the testimony of Dr. von Lewinski, both Stern and Oppenheimer testified that the German courts, in interpreting the law, leaned heavily on the commentaries in legal textbooks and periodicals. They then referred to certain commentaries and articles, which were introduced in evidence, which, particularly with reference to section 48, stated in effect that a last will is valid only to the extent to which the intention of the testator coincides with the intention of the community of law. Also, the leaving of property to the church to the elimination of near relatives, excepting wills of the clergy, to foreign associations of freemasons, nationals of an enemy state, the appointment of a Jew as heir by an Aryan testator, would make the will void. Other documents offered by appellant included: (1) Decree for the Settlement of Estates in Cases of Succession by Law in Special Cases, dated October 4, 1944, which states that a person named in a will who is unable to take under section 48 is likewise unable to take under the laws of intestacy. (2) Resolution of the Greater-German Reichstag of April 26, 1942, which among other things states that the F..uhrer must, in his capacity as supreme lord of the judiciary, at any time, with all means he deems suitable, and without being bound by existing rule of law, be in a position to order any judge to fulfill his duties and without institution of prescribed procedures remove him from his office in case of violation of duties. (3) Law for the Revocation of Naturalizations and the Deprivation of German Nationality, July 14, 1933, which deprived German nationals abroad of their German nationality "if they have damaged German interests by a behavior which is contrary to their duty of loyalty against the Reich and Nation" or who do not obey an order of the Reich Minister of the Interior to return. (4) The Armament Law of May 21, 1935, which places the duty to carry arms on every Reich national although he also possesses a foreign nationality. (5) The Law Restricting the Rights of Succession and Inheritance Because of Antisocial Conduct, November 5, 1937, which states that a person deprived of his German nationality by any of the above-mentioned laws cannot take by succession or inheritance from a German national. There is then a provision that a testator may deprive a descendant of the compulsory portion of an inheritance if the descendant has married a Jew or Jewish person without certain permission. (6) Order concerning the Utilization of Jewish Property of 3 December 1938, providing that owners of Jewish enterprises, real estate, [104 Cal. App. 2d 10] "or other Jewish property" may be ordered to sell or liquidate. (7) Procedure Concerning the Removal of Jewish Influence from Enemy Property, February 27, 1940, which provides in effect that enemy property which has more than a 50 per cent Jewish interest therein is deemed to have a decisive enemy influence and does not require approval of the Reich Commissar for the taking of compulsory measures to remove the Jewish influence. His approval must be had if the Jewish interest is less than 50 per cent. (8) 11th Decree for the Execution of the Reich Citizenship Law, November 25, 1941, a Jew loses German nationality if at the effective date of the decree he usually resides abroad, or thereafter takes up his usual residence abroad. The property of a Jew who loses his German nationality by this decree escheats to the Reich. "Persons whose property has escheated to the Reich" under this decree "may not acquire anything from a German national by cause of death." Gifts to them by German nationals are prohibited. The effect of these laws and decrees was disputed by the experts.
Both Stern and Oppenheimer testified that the Constitution of Weimar and the German laws permitting inheritance by Americans were not specifically changed by the Nazis. Yet, section 48, which in effect, prohibited disposition of property if it was "opposed to sound sentiment of the people," coupled with the fact that the judiciary were no longer independent but were, it is contended, subject to the will and whim of Hitler, denied to Americans any right to take testamentary disposition, and left such taking merely a privilege which might or might not be granted. While there is evidence from which such a conclusion can be drawn, it is not one that is impelled. Particularly is this so, when neither Stern nor Oppenheimer pointed to a single instance in which any German court had refused to recognize an American resident's or citizen's right to inheritance, and Dr. von Lewinski had referred to many specific instances of such recognition. While the commentaries took the position that the courts had the right to refuse inheritances to enemy aliens (which, of course, Americans were) and to American Jews, neither of appellant's experts knew of a case in which it was done. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. von Lewinski directly conflicted with that of Stern and Oppenheimer on the effect of these commentaries and the effect and meaning of the various decrees and other documents in evidence. They even disagreed as to the effect of section 48 and its interpretation by the German [104 Cal. App. 2d 11] courts. Dr. von Lewinski was able to point to specific acts of the courts supporting his testimony and interpretation, while appellant's experts could not.
To an American it seems incredible that Hitler would permit German property to be distributed to Americans and particularly to American Jews. Yet, it definitely appears that the procedure provided by the Absentee Administration Decree for the appointment of an administrator for the inheritance of an absent national of an enemy country was followed, and that property of German testators was distributed to administrators appointed for the purpose of holding it for such enemies, including Americans. It may very well have been that Hitler, in spite of his hatred for both Jews and Americans, concluded that as a matter of expediency and shrewd business it was advisable to retain reciprocity with the United States because the number of estates in which property in Germany would be left to Americans would be inconsequential as compared to the number of estates in America left to Germans.
Appellant lays great value on the judgment in case No. 3, Tribunal III, entitled United States v. Joseph Altstotter et al. This was one of the Nuremburg trials held in 1947, in which 16 defendants who were former German judges, prosecutors or officials in the Reich Ministry of Justice, were found guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The tribunal found, in effect, that while on paper the rights established by the Weimar Constitution were retained by the Nazis, there was a progressive degeneration of the judicial system under Nazi rule and that substantially every principle of justice enumerated by prior German law was violated by the Hitler regime. This judgment does not compel a conclusion that the rights of aliens as to inheritance was not recognized. The tribunal was dealing primarily with the denial of justice to the German residents and citizens, and their deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights. There can be no question but that had Hitler deemed it expedient to do so he could have caused the law as to inheritances or their effect to be changed, just as our California Legislature could, if it saw fit, change our inheritance laws as they affect aliens. But the question here is, did he do so? Apparently from the evidence in this case he did not, whether because he deemed it important not to stop the flow of inheritances from this country to Germany, or for some other reason. It is significant upon this question that the Nazis did not adopt a policy of [104 Cal. App. 2d 12] confiscating enemy property. It must be pointed out that section 259 does not require that foreign countries have the same judicial system as ours, nor even an independent judiciary. All that it requires is that there be no discrimination shown in inheritance matters as between the nationals of that country and the residents and citizens of ours.
Summing up appellant's evidence,--the German laws could have been interpreted by the German courts in such a way that the matter of inheritance in a foreign country did not exist as a matter of legal right, but was subject to the arbitrary action of Nazi administrators acting in accordance with Nazi ideology. The courts, too, could have interpreted testamentary dispositions to Americans to be "opposed to sound sentiment of the people," thereby directly discriminating against citizens of the United States because of their citizenship or residence. Had such been the interpretation of the German courts, that is, that the taking of estates by testamentary disposition or succession was merely a matter of sufferance and not one of legal right, there would be no "reciprocal right" as that term is used in the Probate Code. However, the trial court, on conflicting evidence, found that the German courts adopted a different interpretation and that there was no discrimination against Americans. As the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion, we are bound by the trial court's finding.
2. Immediate Payment
[2] Section 259 of the Probate Code states that the rights of aliens not residing here to take by succession or testamentary disposition depend (1) upon reciprocal rights of United States residents to take in the country of which the alien is an inhabitant, and (2) upon the rights of our citizens "to receive by payment to them" here. Appellant contends that this means a right to immediate payment. The evidence shows that both the United States and Germany suspended payments to the nationals of the other during the war. Even before the war, on June 14, 1941, the United States prohibited transfers of credit between banking institutions in the United States and those in other countries except under Treasury license. After the war between the United States and Germany started, the Trading With the Enemy Act forbade the payment of American inheritances to Germany or the receipt by Americans of German inheritances. On December 12, 1938, Germany adopted the Law Concerning the Management of Foreign Currency, which required a license to pay claims of a foreigner against a German. Germany on April 9, 1942, extended the [104 Cal. App. 2d 13] Treatment of Enemy Property Act of January 15, 1940, to the United States, thereby prohibiting the payment of any money to our nationals.
While the portion of section 259 dealing with payment does not use the word "reciprocal" as it does in the prior portion of the section, it is clear that the right to receive payment by our citizens referred to a reciprocal right of citizens of a foreign country to receive payment here. Thus, during the war, there was no reciprocal right of a German to receive payment of an inheritance from an American any more than there was such a right for an American to receive payment of an inheritance from a German. The right to immediate payment was suspended by both countries. Again, prior to the war, both countries required the obtaining of a license before money could be transferred from the one country to the other. Dr. von Lewinski testified that he had never heard of this license being denied an American before the war. That reciprocal right to payment under section 259 did not apply to wartime suspension of payments by the respective countries under their particular Trading With the Enemy Acts is shown by Estate of Blak, 65 Cal. App. 2d 232 [150 P.2d 567]. There the question was whether in 1942 reciprocity under section 259 was accorded citizens and residents of the United States by the Netherlands, in spite of the fact that that country was then under occupation by the Germans. In holding that such reciprocity existed, the court also considered the same contention made by appellant here--that the conditions of section 259 were not met because immediate payment could not be made. As to this, the court said (p. 239): " 'It will also be observed that the Legislature did not say when United States citizens were to receive payment. It used the words "the rights" to receive. The Legislature therefore necessarily contemplated and had in mind that the availability of the proceeds of such foreign estates for immediate distribution and payment to United States citizens would be controlled by the exigencies of the battlefield. It placed no time or other limitation as to when payment was to be made. It was concerned only with the existence of "rights" accorded to United States citizens by and under the legally constituted and recognized laws and government of the country of which the alien was a citizen and resident, to receive their inheritance, knowing that such rights persist and carry on in the scheme and order of society in spite of the immediate fluctuations of [104 Cal. App. 2d 14] war, and that, at most, the remedies for the enforcement of the right may be temporarily suspended.' "
Appellant attempts to distinguish the Estate of Blak decision from the situation in the instant case by pointing out that although the Netherlands was under German occupation its citizens were still Netherlands nationals, and although for certain purposes, because of its occupation by the enemy, it must be considered enemy territory, its territory was recognized by the United States as belonging to the Netherlands, one of our allies. However, the portion of section 259 dealing with payment does not make a distinction between enemy and nonenemy countries. It holds that there must be a reciprocal right to payment, but does not require immediate payment, nor payment during a period when both our country and the other country involved have suspended payments for an emergency period.
[3] Appellant contends that respondent has not sustained the burden cast upon him by section 259.1 to establish the fact of the existence of reciprocal rights. The testimony of Dr. von Lewinski, plus the volume of documents showing the action of the German courts, was sufficient to meet that burden.
4. Evidence
[4] Appellant contends that the 58 Certificates of Inheritance, the 25 Internal Revenue Reports made by private citizens in control of property belonging to absentees, and 11 files relating to administrative action on applications for foreign exchange, were not admissible in evidence; that the proper way to prove foreign law is to introduce the law itself, and foreign law may not be proved by circumstantial evidence; that the documents were not relevant in any event, as they did not show the existence of a right of Americans to receive inheritances.
The German laws introduced in evidence did not show any discrimination against Americans as to inheritance or testamentary disposition. If it were merely a question of the existence of a foreign statute, the introduction of the particular law would meet the situation. But there must in addition be a consideration of the effect of the law and its application. This, being a question of fact, can be determined only by the admission of any facts showing the effect and the application. See Estate of Schluttig, supra (36 Cal.2d 416), where the court said, referring to these very issues: "Upon these subjects, the superior court heard highly conflicting testimony by experts upon the laws of those countries and their application [104 Cal. App. 2d 15] under given circumstances." (P. 424.) See, also, Estate of Reihs, 102 Cal. App. 2d 260 [227 P.2d 564]. So, such issue may be proved in the same manner as any other issue of fact. Obviously, then, circumstantial evidence is admissible in this type of case. Actually, how better can the effect and application of the law be proved than by showing what the German probate courts and persons charged with administering property of foreigners did under it? The documents were relevant. The fact that some of them referred to inheritances due others than Americans did not affect their admissibility, but may have affected their weight, although they tended to show that there was no discrimination against any foreigner.
Appellant relies on the diplomatic correspondence for its contention that there was no reciprocity in the transfer of inheritance money. Again, here, there were circumstances upon which the court might have found favorably to appellant, but such conclusion is not compelled.
Appellant attacks the evidentiary value of the Certificates of Inheritance, the declarations as to property of absentee owners, and the foreign exchange licenses, on various grounds. While some of them probably are irrelevant, some remote, and some were after the Allied Occupation, the bulk of them, under Dr. von Lewinski's testimony, were significant.
3. Estate of Schluttig
[5] During the appeal in our case the Estate of Schluttig was decided. At oral argument, appellant asked permission to produce as additional evidence the entire record in the Schluttig case, in order that it might plead it as res judicata. In the Schluttig case the trial court found that on April 3, 1945, reciprocity as to rights of inheritance did not exist between citizens of this country and those of Germany or Austria. In that case the United States Attorney General claimed the interests of the alien heirs. Obviously, those heirs, and, in fact, all of the parties to the proceeding other than the Attorney General, were different from the parties to this proceeding. Appellant contends that as the United States Attorney General is a party to both proceedings, the Schluttig decision is res judicata as to him, basing such contention primarily on Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal. 2d 807 [122 P.2d 892]. There the decedent in her lifetime had instructed her agent, Cook, to deposit certain moneys in the bank in her name. Before she died, Cook withdrew these funds and deposited them in his own account. After her [104 Cal. App. 2d 16] death he qualified as her executor. He filed an account accompanied by his resignation, omitting any mention of these funds. The legatees objected to the failure to include these funds as assets of the estate. Upon the hearing, the court settled the account as presented, and as part of its order declared that the decedent during her lifetime had made a gift to Cook of the moneys in question. Thereafter one of the objecting legatees was appointed administrator with the will annexed. As such she sued the Bank of America, in which the moneys had originally been deposited, seeking to recover the moneys on the ground that the bank was liable for them as the decedent had never authorized the withdrawal. Among other defenses, the bank pleaded that the finding of the court that the decedent had made a gift of these moneys to Cook was res judicata. Plaintiff contended that the doctrine did not apply because the defendant asserting the plea was not a party to the previous action, nor in privity with a party thereto, and because there was no mutuality of estoppel. The Supreme Court upheld the action of the trial court in applying the doctrine. After reviewing the doctrine at some length, the decision points out that generally the plea of res judicata is available only when there is privity and mutuality of estoppel; also that "The criteria for determining who may assert a plea of res judicata differ fundamentally from the criteria for determining against whom a plea of res judicata may be asserted. The requirements of due process of law forbid the assertion of a plea of res judicata against a party unless he was bound by the earlier litigation in which the matter was decided. [Citations.] He is bound by that litigation only if he has been a party thereto or in privity with a party thereto. (Ibid) There is no compelling reason, however, for requiring that the party asserting the plea of res judicata must have been a party, or in privity with a party, to the earlier litigation." (Pp. 811-812.) It then goes on to show that "Many courts have abandoned the requirement of mutuality and confined the requirement of privity to the party against whom the plea of res judicata is asserted" (p. 812) and then holds that the issue as to ownership of the money is identical with the issue in the probate proceeding; that the order of the probate court was a final adjudication of this issue on the merits. In determining whether the plaintiff was a party or in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding, it pointed out that plaintiff was suing in the capacity of administratrix of the estate, and [104 Cal. App. 2d 17] thereby represented the same persons and interests that were represented in the earlier hearing. In that hearing plaintiff and the other objecting legatees represented the estate of the decedent, as they were seeking not a personal recovery but, like the plaintiff in the present action, as administrator, a recovery for the benefit of the legatees and creditors of the estate, all of whom were bound by the order settling the account. "The plea of res judicata is therefore available against plaintiff as a party to the former proceeding, despite her formal change of capacity. 'Where a party though appearing in two suits in different capacities is in fact litigating the same right, the judgment in one estops him in the other.' " (P. 814.) An analysis of the Bernhard case shows that while it uses broad language which might indicate that the requirement of mutuality had been completely abandoned in res judicata cases, it is only in cases where there is a real privity to the party against whom the plea is asserted that it actually is not required. Thus, it gives as examples of derivative liability master and servant, principal and agent, indemnitor and indemnitee situations. Moreover, its ruling is that in the two proceedings there involved, it was the estate represented at the hearing by the objecting legatees and at the trial by the administratrix, which was the real party in interest and hence bound by the first order.
The Bernhard case lays down three rules to determine the application of res judicata: (1) Was there a final judgment on the merits? (2) Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party in privity with a party to the prior adjudication? (3) Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? Applying these rules, we find that at most, only two of them are met by the instant situation. The Schluttig decision was a final judgment on the merits, and we will assume (without deciding) that lack of mutuality can be extended to situations other than those of master and servant, principal and agent, indemnitor and indemnitee, or persons representing the same estate, and that therefore the requirement of privity is met. It is doubtful if the rule of the Bernhard case should be given such a sweeping application. "... it is a familiar rule that expressions used in judicial opinions are always to be construed and limited by reference to the matters under consideration, and that they cannot be safely applied in their largest and most universal sense to dissimilar cases." (City of Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 238, 250 [27 P. 604].) But [104 Cal. App. 2d 18] when we come to the third rule, we find very definitely that the issue decided in the Schluttig case is not identical with the one presented here. In that case the court was considering and found upon the fact of German law effect and application on April 3, 1945, while the important date in our case is April 22, 1942, practically three years earlier in the war. While in the Schluttig case, as in ours, evidence was introduced covering the whole period of the war, the finding that a certain condition existed in 1945 was not a finding that that condition existed either before or after that year (see Estate of Reihs, supra, 102 Cal.App.2d 260), for finding that on November 24, 1946, reciprocity actually existed). Section 1911 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: "That only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment which appears on its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto." The situation in 1942 was neither actually nor necessarily included in the finding of the situation in 1945. "... it is not enough that the proposed evidence tends to show that the precise question may have been involved in such litigation. It must clearly appear that it was directly involved and adjudicated." (Emerson v. Yosemite Gold Min. etc. Co., 149 Cal. 50, 57 [85 P. 122].)
Appellant contends that the evidence in the Schluttig and our case is essentially the same. In its brief it compares the evidence in the two cases. In order to get very much similarity in that comparison it includes the evidence given before the District Court of Appeal which the Supreme Court held was improperly admitted and which it refused to consider. Much of that evidence was before the trial court in our case, although not before the trial court in the Schluttig case. For example, Dr. von Lewinski was not a witness at the trial of that case. Nor were "certificates of inheritance issued by German courts having probate jurisdiction during the period August, 1937, to August, 1945, ... 37 decrees or orders, issued from 1940 to 1944, appointing curators for beneficiaries of German estates residing in the United States, copies of some foreign statutes and case files of German probate courts which show the procedural steps taken in the administration of certain estates." (Estate of Schluttig, supra, p. 420.) Most of this evidence appears in our case. It is highly significant that in In re Schluttig's Estate, fn. *(Cal.App.) 218 P.2d [104 Cal. App. 2d 19] 819 (taken over by the Supreme Court) the District Court of Appeal, after it had considered the additional evidence above mentioned, produced by the United States Attorney General, felt that a new trial must be granted. In referring to this evidence the Supreme Court said (p. 420): "In summary, said the district court of appeal, it creates a conflict with the evidence produced at the trial and presents questions of credibility of witnesses which an appellate court is not in a position to determine." Moreover, several of the legal documents used in the instant case were issued after April 22, 1942. Again three of the four commentaries relied upon by appellant and concerning which in the Schluttig case it was said (p. 425), "Comments upon German law, shown to have been relied upon in the probate courts of that country, cited as examples of legacies which would be void ..." were not published until 1944. Even were we to examine the record in the Schluttig case, we would have to guess in order to determine whether the trial court in the Schluttig case in making its finding of the situation in 1945 was also necessarily determining the situation in 1942. This we cannot do. It was not a question there decided. " 'Every estoppel must be certain to every intent, and not to be taken by argument or inference.' (Coke on Littleton, 352b.) 'If upon the face of a record anything is left to conjecture as to what was necessarily involved and decided, there is no estoppel in it when pleaded, and nothing conclusive in it when offered in evidence.' " (Beronio v. Ventura County Lumber Co., 129 Cal. 232, 236 [61 P. 958, 79 Am.St.Rep. 118].)
We realize that it is unfortunate that a rule of res judicata or some other rule which might put at rest the determination of the facts as to inheritance reciprocity during the Nazi regime, cannot be applied here. The effect of the decision in the Schluttig case, considered, as it was without regard to the pendency of other somewhat similar cases, is that inheritance of German nationals in California estates during the Nazi regime is, as a practical matter, to be determined as each case arises and then is dependent upon which set of experts the trial court may believe. On the other hand, were such a rule to be attempted, it would be manifestly unfair to select the Schluttig case as the determining factor for the reason that the evidence before the trial court there did not give a full and complete picture of the situation. Had the evidence introduced in the District Court of Appeal been before the [104 Cal. App. 2d 20] trial court, its ruling on the facts would have been a far fairer criterion of what the actual facts are. We now have three cases on the general subject: (1) Estate of Schluttig, which held that reciprocity did not exist as of April 3, 1945; (2) our case which holds that it did exist as of April 22, 1942; and (3) Estate of Reihs, which held that it did exist as of November 24, 1946. Undoubtedly there are other decisions in the offing.
The record in the Schluttig case is inadmissible for the reason that the issue there was not identical with the issue here, nor was it determined by the court there.
Failure to Find
Appellant contends that the court should have made certain findings of fact set forth in "Petitioner's Objections and Proposed Amendment to the Objector's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law." It is not necessary to consider these proposed findings other than to say that, in effect, they are the opposite of the findings the court made. Thus, if the court had accepted appellant's theory of the evidence, these would have been proper findings, but as it adopted respondent's theory, it would have been improper to have made the directly contrary findings proposed by appellant.
The application for leave to produce additional evidence on appeal is denied. The judgment and decree is affirmed.
Peters, P. J., and Wood (Fred B.), J., concurred.
FN *. All discussion herein of German laws and conditions in Germany relates to the situation as of April 22, 1942, unless otherwise stated.
FN *. A hearing in the Supreme Court was granted on July 20, 1950, and the final opinion is reported in 36 Cal. 2d 416 [224 P.2d 695].
of California Court of Appeal opinions.


text:
Mexico City Recommendations
June 1, 2017 Avigail Oren
My parents and I spent Memorial Day weekend exploring Mexico City (#CDMX) for the first time. With only two full days to sightsee, we managed to walk through quite a bit of the Historic District, Colonia Roma (where we stayed), and the charming neighborhood of Coyoacán. Here were our highlights and recommendations:
Museo del Templo Mayor
After walking through the Zócalo--the expansive central square bordered by the National Palace, Metropolitan Cathedral, and Federal Buildings--we decided to tour the ruins of the Aztec Templo Mayor. My father decided to hire a guide registered with the Secretaria de Turismo to take us through the site. Our guide--J. Jaime Baez Jasso (jaixtla_tlalpan@hotmail.com), who we would definitely recommend--walked us through the entire archeological excavation and explained the cosmology and social hierarchy of Aztec society, described the Aztec gods and the rituals that honored them, and pointed out elements from the seven stages of the temple's construction. After two hours, we left with a much deeper understanding of pre-colonial Mexico.
Jaime Baez Jasso
Zinco Jazz Club
Before leaving on the trip, I made a reservation for us to spend Saturday evening at the Zinco Jazz Club. Over drinks, tapas, and tacos, we heard the spectacularly talented house band play big-band classics by Buddy Rich. The talent was A+, the service and food were solid, but the space is tight and it was very warm despite the air conditioner running constantly. We would highly recommend it as a destination for a winter/spring visit to CDMX.
Museo Casa de Leon Trostky
My father, the political scientist, really wanted to see where Trotsky lived out his life in exile in Mexico. My mother and I, while not reluctant, had less investment in the visit--nevertheless, we found it surprisingly enjoyable! As a museum, it's very basic. The house, however, has been preserved and looks as it did in 1940 when Trotsky was assassinated. It's remarkable to walk through and see how sparely he and his wife lived in order to live rich intellectual lives. Trotsky's study and the room where his secretaries worked were filled with books in Russian, Spanish, and English. The walls were also filled with bullet holes from an unsuccessful assassination attempt made in 1939. Although the home is surrounded by a beautiful garden in a charming neighborhood, the presence of the bullet holes, the steel doors and bricked in windows, and the rooms for Trotsky's bodyguards make it easy to imagine how limited Trotsky's life must have been and how little he was able to take advantage of his surroundings.
Leon Trotsky's Study, Museo Casa de Leon Trotsky
Going to the Movie Theater
One of my favorite things to do when traveling abroad is to go to the movies. It provides insight into how the middle class in that country lives and what their film culture is like, but more practically it's an air-conditioned, comfortable place with clean bathrooms where you can spend two hours recovering from a day of walking and sightseeing. In the chic neighborhood where were staying in CDMX, Colonia Roma, the movie theater was resplendent. Like in Argentina, my only Latin American comparison, you purchase specific seats in the theater. Although they did not recline, the seats were as big as armchairs. Someone came around with an iPad to take our orders for concessions--if only we had known it was an option, we would not have waited in line for a Pepsi. The downside, however, was that the previews included many more commercials than are typically shown before a movie in the United States. In case you were wondering, we saw ¡Huye!
Parque México
On our last morning, we took a long walk before heading to the airport. From our AirBnb in Colonia Roma, we headed towards Colonia Condesa and the Parque Mexico. Entering the park on a the verdant path, we saw these extraordinary covered wooden benches every few feet. Numerous dog walkers led the most organized and obedient packs of dogs up and down the paths. And then, just ahead of us, we found the densest, most well-equipped outdoor gym that we have ever seen. I have seen exercise equipment in parks around the world, but this one had the widest variety of equipment packed into one area--it truly looked like a floor of a Crunch or Planet Fitness had been dropped into the middle of an urban jungle. We couldn't resist trying out a few. If we'd only known, we would have packed workout clothes and come every morning!
In Life Tags Travel, Urban History
Drawing the Road Map
In a marathon work session last Thursday, I hammered out the outline for my third dissertation chapter. After I reviewed a large sampling of sources that described the JCC movement's response to Civil Rights activism and the urban crisis, I pulled out my colored pens and began to outline the temporal and political themes that I observed.
I began by identifying three distinct phases or "moments": a period I call the "open membership debates"; the "classical" period of the civil rights movement; and the urban crisis. The phases I pinpointed map neatly onto periodization that historians already use to distinguish between phases of the Black Freedom Movement: first, the early legal fights for equal rights in housing and education during the 1940s-50s (Shelley v. Kraemer; Brown v. Board of Education); then the national, legislative push for voting rights and equal hiring opportunities of the mid-1960s (Civil Rights Act, Economic Opportunity Act); and finally the rise of black nationalism and the urban rioting of the late 1960s. More critically, however, I observed in the documents that JWB staff and Jewish Center workers exhibited distinct attitudes and decision-making in each of these three periods. At the outset of the 1960s, the vast majority of JCCs accepted non-Jews (including non-white Jews) as full members of the JCC. Despite this "equal" policy, however, most Centers did not have African American members and did not serve non-white members of their community with any regularity. Centers used their progressive policy to avoid changing their practices, and black community members recognized that although they could apply to join the JCC they were not necessarily welcome. By the mid-1960s, however, growing support for equal rights, equal facilities, and equal services pressured JCCs to explore how they could serve non-Jewish and non-white members of their communities as effectively as they served their Jewish membership.
After I sketched out these transitions, I drafted my overall argument for the chapter and wrote some tentative claims that I would like to make in each section. In my first-year research seminar, my professor advocated for this process of "point-based outlining." Whereas a regular outline identifies the topics you plan to include in your paper (or chapter), a point-based outline models how your overall argument will build from a series of claims. In my experience, drafting a point-based outline helps you avoid summarizing when you begin to write--it forces you to select only the evidence and context necessary to support your claims.
Armed with this point-based outline, I'm now ready to begin drafting sections of the chapter. I know that as I re-read, analyze, and argue my claims, the overall argument will subtly shift. In that way, the point-based outline is more like a hand-drawn road map than it is a legal contract. It's a tentative and flexible document, intended to be improved as I become more familiar with the landscape. As I proceed I will edit it to reflect new insights or counterarguments, making it more accurate, precise, and easier to follow.
In Dissertation Tags On Writing, Urban History, U.S. History, Civil Rights
I began writing this post in June, but lost steam as soon as I began my internship. While it's no longer timely, I still feel that this article is worth highlighting and hope my comments on it inspire those of you who missed it the first go-round to give it a read. I've chosen not to provide a summary of Coates' story and argument, and recommend that you look at my post after reading the article.
In June, The Atlantic published a cover story by Ta-Nehisi Coates that garnered a lot of buzz. I want to recommend that you read it not only because it's a fabulous article--richly descriptive, informative, packed with history, and with a solid argument--but also because I think it does a pretty decent job of contextualizing my own research. In particular, the sixth section entitled "Making the Second Ghetto" introduces the very historiography into which my own project seeks to intervene.
The strength of Coates' article is how effectively it describes how racial discrimination has, since World War II, been incorporated into the structure of our society--our laws, policies, and practices concerning housing, employment, and mobility. This structural discrimination has perpetuated a wealth gap between black and white Americans. "The Case for Reparations" traces how American racial discrimination outlived the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights movement and continues to exist today in the form of discriminatory lending programs (especially around mortgages and housing), in unequal distribution of job training and placement programs, and in the insiduous claims of pathologically unfit black parents (particularly absent fathers and single mothers). Coates argues that until we recognize that racism continues to shape the opportunities and decisions made by black Americans, we cannot begin to close the wealth gap and mitigate persistent economic inequality.
In "Making the Second Ghetto," Coates supports his claims by referring to a historical work of the same name, which was published by Arnold Hirsch in 1983. This book is a foundational text in the scholarship on twentieth-century U.S. urban history and African American history. In brief, Hirsch argues that racist housing and redevelopment policies in postwar cities transformed segregated neighborhoods (the "first ghetto") into overcrowded, decrepit, and still segregated black "second ghettos." Although it is already 30 years old, historians are still debating its various merits--myself included! Why? Well, primarily because many of our contemporary social problems stem from the deindustrialization and disinvestment in American cities that occurred between the 1940s and 1970s, and if we want to understand the present it helps to examine these same issues in the past.
The Making of the Second Ghetto offered a new, snappy thesis to explain why these events unfolded--prompting a wave of studies that agreed or disagreed with Hirsch's "second ghetto" model. Hirsch changed the way historians thought about the relationship between black and white Americans in the twentieth century by reminding scholars that state policymakers made outsized contributions to the problem of segregated urban neighborhoods. Previously, historians believed that American ghettos were the inevitable result of racism and discrimination. Hirsch challenged the assumption that the "inner city" ghetto was an inevitability, and repeatedly emphasized that the consolidation of the "first ghetto" into the "second ghetto" could have been avoided, had white business interests and white homeowners not parlayed their power into legislative action and housing policies that transformed extant ghettos into even more isolated (and isolating) neighborhoods. Hirsch wrote the following in the introduction to the book:
"Indeed, the real tragedy surrounding the emergence of the modern ghetto is not that it has been inherited but that it has been periodically renewed and strengthened. Fresh decisions, not the mere acquiescence to old ones, reinforced and shaped the contemporary black metropolis"{C}
What historians later knocked Hirsch for, however, was that all of the "fresh decisions" that he focused on in Making the Second Ghetto were made by white elites and not by black residents of the "second ghetto". Much of the research since 1985, and particularly in the twenty-first century, has focused on the black grassroots activism in formal politics during this "urban crisis" of the 1960s and 1970s. The strength of "The Case for Reparations," in fact, is its focus on the activist response of the Contract Buyers League to abusive practices by white real estate speculators. Coates highlights how these aspiring homeowners organized themselves--eventually forming a group as large as 500--to shame contract sellers for their exploitation and to file lawsuits seeking repayment of funds that contract sellers extorted from these vulnerable buyers. Rather than passively acquiescing to structural racism, black urbanites reacted in a variety of ways to challenge exploitation.
This is where my research picks up. My dissertation does not look at arguments for reparation, nor am I particularly concerned with debating against Hirsch--plenty of more advanced scholars have done a superb job of clarifying and elaborating on his theory. Rather, I am interested in grassroots activism as a response to these transformations of the postwar city (the Urban Crisis and consolidation of the "second ghetto"). Specifically, I'm curious about how urban citizens used Jewish Community Centers (JCCs) during the 1960s and '70s as sites of activism. Consequently, how did this activism reshape the JCC? My research examines how non-white (black and Latino) residents of formerly Jewish neighborhoods like Washington Heights or the Lower East Side or the Central Bronx regarded Jewish Community Centers--a space that offered them social services and recreational space but did not claim to be for them. Likewise, the dissertation studies how the Jewish residents remaining in these communities used the JCC as a place to organize to "improve" the neighborhood--whether "improvement" was a euphemism for segregation or meant accepting diversity and advocating for the inclusion of non-Jewish membership.
In Dissertation Tags Historiography, Urban History

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This isn't going to be a long or pretty guide, but sometimes if something goes wrong, we just need to know how to quickly fix it.
Revit may freeze on start-up, or the user interface may not be showing correctly, my first suggestion would be to reset Revit.
Here we will have folder named Autodesk Revit 20**. Rename this folder to something, maybe give it a –OLD suffix.
Then when Revit is next launched, a new folder will be re-created.
2. If the First step does not fix the issue, the second step will be to edit the registry.
This should now remove any specific user based issues, and from the installation files restore Revit to an "out-of-the box" state.


We use Royal Mail for all our deliveries.
NB – All Gift vouchers will be supplied in a gift box.
Your order will be despatched within two working days.
We regret that we can not deliver on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Our gift voucher boxes will go through a normal size letter box.
Due to the high volume of orders at Christmas, we do advise customers to order early for Christmas delivery.
We regret that we cannot guarantee delivery between 21 December – January 2.
Orders made after the 19th December cannot be guaranteed for delivery by Christmas.


text:
At Eddie's in Chinatown, one of Philly's oldest tattoo parlors, women are inking the art
Eddie's in Chinatown has experienced a changing of the guard.
Carli Chesney receives a frog tattoo from artist Brianna Ballinghoof at Eddie's Tattoo in Philadelphia's Chinatown
Michaela Winberg
Listen to the audio version of this story here.
To get into the tattooing industry, you have to know someone.
It's a mantra Brianna Ballinghoff has heard all her life, drummed into her head with regularity by the popular male tattooers she grew up around in Palmyra, New Jersey. Ballinghoff, now 24, has known she wanted to be a tattoo artist since middle school — but always worried she wasn't well-connected enough to land a coveted apprenticeship.
Some of the artists she knew did turn her down, and admitted it was because she was a young woman.
"I didn't know if it was going to happen," Ballinghoff said. "Because it's kind of like, you have to get lucky to have the opportunity."
Artwork by Brianna Ballinghoof, a tattoo artist at Eddie's
Men dominate the permanent ink industry in the U.S., where just 1 in 6 tattoo artists are women. Some of that has to do with history: tattoos became popular via Army and Navy culture, then later spread among bikers. People who got tatted were mostly white, working class men. Now, tattooing is exploding in popularity — and more women are breaking into the industry.
That's what's happening at Eddie's Chinatown Tattoo. The storefront at 9th and Arch streets brands itself on Instagram as Philly's oldest parlor, with the OG owner starting his career in 1952. Right now, other than current owner Braden Kendall, the historic shop employs exclusively women artists.
"Guys, we could be a little grumpy," said Kendall, who's owned the shop for the last 16 years. "I would definitely say the atmosphere in the shop has changed a little bit more in that aspect. It's a little bit more friendlier."
Still, Ballinghoff and her colleagues feel like they're walking a fine line of being proud that they're breaking into a male-dominated industry, and not being pigeon-holed as just a "woman tattooer."
Eddie's at 9th and Arch streets claims to be one of Philly's oldest tattoo shops
Ball-busting, harassment and a 'bunch of douchebags'
Ballinghoff did manage to land an apprenticeship six years ago at a Palmyra shop, but it wasn't easy to assimilate.
"It was one of the scariest things I did in my life," she said. "No one really told me anything. I just had to pull from Instagram or whatever the guys were doing. I would just look. I couldn't really ask, and they didn't really want to help me."
To become a licensed tattoo artist in Philly, you first have to work as an apprentice under another licensed artist for three years. That means a professional artist has to be willing to take you under their wing the entire time, training you in the craft before you can apply for an independent certification from the city's Department of Public Health. In January 2020, there were about 400 people licensed to tattoo in Philly.
Kelly Campanile is an apprentice at Eddie's, and she's learned tattooing culture can be intensely macho — often full of "a bunch of douchebags." Sometimes, she can write it off. But other times it gets to her.
"It's ball-busting, where everybody would make fun of each other," said 30-year-old Campanile, who lives in Point Breeze. "I felt stupid a lot. The male-dominated thing made me feel kind of ditzy."
Kelly Campanile with her artwork at Eddie's
Over the years, they've both dealt with harassment from customers and fellow artists. Ballinghoff said she's had male coworkers make inappropriate comments, and sometimes get physical — one insisted she sit in his lap while he tattooed her.
The hardest one to stomach? A male tattooer in the 'burbs telling her she shouldn't have become an artist in the first place.
"I don't know what the border is between harassment and like, just being the new guy," Ballinghoff said. "He might have just been saying that to push me. It hurt, but I kept doing it. And I feel like I deserve to be here now."
Artwork by Kelly Campanile
Including more women for their talent — not their gender
The woman takeover of Chinatown Eddie's began about a year ago. Among the three men who worked there, one opened his own studio, one relocated to a shop on South Street and one moved to Arizona.
Owner Kendall hired Campanile as an apprentice in July 2020, then Ballinghoff about six months ago. Another female artist rents the third workstation on and off. It didn't happen intentionally, said the 46-year-old shop owner. But it has shifted the culture.
Now, Campanile doesn't feel stupid anymore. She and Ballinghoff both said they feel like they can talk about whatever they want at the shop, and they're free to have a bad day every once in a while. The douchebaggery, they say, has dissolved.
24-year-old Carli Chesney visited Eddie's in August so Ballinghoff could color in her most recent addition: a frog buzzed into her shoulder. Chesney values Ballinghoff's entry into a male-dominated field — especially because she works as an EMT, also a profession made up mostly of white men.
But that's not why she likes Ballinghoff. She just thinks she's a great artist.
"I always appreciate women that are in male-dominated fields," Chesney said. "Brianna's a really good person to go to. But I'm getting tattooed by a different guy in November. It's just kind of whatever style I feel like I want to go into."
Brianna Ballinghoff with her artwork at Eddie's
That's a perspective the Eddie's crew appreciates.
Some customers who mean well tell Ballinghoff that they booked an appointment with her just because she's a woman artist — which they haven't been able to find anywhere else.
"It does bum me out when that happens, especially if it's like a client that I really care about and I put my all into it," she said. "And then she'll say, like, 'I just picked you because you're a girl.'"
Ballinghoff thinks this whole thing is a balance. The tattooing industry needs to continue to be more inclusive of women artists — but not just for the sake of including more women superficially. She hopes tattoo shop owners are on the lookout for talented female artists who deserve a shot.
Seeing Kendall's leadership, she's optimistic.
"To me, it doesn't matter, guy, girl, whatever," Kendall said. "As long as they're a good tattooer and they're a nice person. That's what matters."
Eddie's Chinatown Tattoo, Women, Sex and Gender, Arts, Chinatown


Celebrate Everyday is about joy, love and embracing life, our experiences and the people we care about most. Our blog's goal… together with our followers, we want to share and experience "joie de vivre", a.k.a. the joy of living. We want to encourage creativity at all ages and are committed to living life to the fullest with exuberant grace and appreciation.
Look for posts on celebration topics ranging from signature cocktails that will make a statement… to creating a festive picnic basket for your next family outing… to designing the world's most adorable cake for your dog's birthday. With personal and professional experience in the art of celebration…we are here to inspire and have fun.
Together, we want to share our blissful moments, cherish today and all the surprises it has waiting for us.
Hey guys, had no idea you started a blog. This is awesome!!! Can't wait to read more!!!
Hey Becky, Rae and Holly!! Miss you guys and look forward to keeping up with your blog!
Miss you, too – Kell!
So happy to hear you are enjoying Celebrate Everyday! Look forward to hearing from you.
I learned abou this blog tonight. I love the title. I love the theme. And I love that you are using this to experience the "joie de vivre" as sisters. Keep it up and spread that sunshine!


Rata Wrapped Bale Clamps (otherwise known as soft hands or bale grabs) are the the most popular wrapped bale grabs for sale in NZ, by being able to handle & transport two bales at once and not damage the wrap.
Narrow arm profile – this makes it easy to stack the bales tight & get the Bale Grab between bales that have been stacked tight without damaging the bale wrap.
Equaliser bar – Equaliser bars ensure consistant & even clamping pressure on the bale at all times & keep the bale handler arms synchronised. Equaliser bars on Rata Bale hands are greasable.
Round & Square – Rata Bale Grabs easily handle round or square wrapped bales with ease.
Vertical nudge bars – accommodate the contour & shape of any bale, this prevents damage of bale wrap against back plates or horizontal bars as found on other bale handlers.
Heaviest duty build available – large high tensile pivot pins, heavy duty pipe arms & overall heavy duty build to ensure a lifetime of reliable wrapped bale handling.
This top of the range wrapped bale grab ensures soft handling of your bales whilst providing firm clamping pressure, Rata Wrapped Bale Clamps are manufactured to fit onto any Tractor or Telehandler you may have, allowing you to handle wrapped silage bales with any tractor or telehandler.
As agents for Hustler, Reese, Agrimaster, Bad Boy, Aitchison and Rata All Farm Engineering stock a wide range of parts. If we don't have it in our showroom, parts can be ordered and delivered within 48 hours.


never have been able to contact before.
Mission Statement: Our mission is to make disciples (Matthew 28:19 - 20). A disciple is someone who knows Jesus Christ, shares Christ and multiplies Christ in the lives of others.
Vision: The Vision of White Rock United Holy Church is to become a visible community of believers who develop people to spiritual maturity through Bible studies, small group nurturing activities, seminars and workshops that minister to the whole person - spiritually, emotionally, physically and socially. We seek to equip every believer for a significant ministry by helping them discover the gifts and talents God gave them; and to empower every member for a personal life mission.


text:
Punta Stilo ou Cap Stilo est un cap italien situé à Monasterace, dans la province de Reggio de Calabre, dans le sud de l'Italie.

Description

S'y trouvent le phare de Punta Stilo (construit en 1887 et d'une portée de 22 milles nautiques) ainsi que les vestiges archéologiques de la ville de Kaulon de la Grande-Grèce. Punta Stilo fut également le lieu de la bataille de Punta Stilo qui opposa la Royal Navy britannique à la Regia Marina italienne au cours de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Notes et références

Source de la traduction

Stilo
Géographie de la Calabre
Province de Reggio de Calabre

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Continue foreach loop even after an exception is encounterd in asp.net core razor pages I have to log the exception into a database table and continue the foreach loop without any interruptions .
When i am trying to insert the exception into database table in catch block,its throwing null referenece exception. Here is my code.
        foreach (var row in toEmailList)
        {
            foreach (var matrix in emailMatrixList.Where(u => names.Contains(u.BusinessUnit)))
            {
                // Send to Staff + Supervisor/Manager
                if (row.DaysDueDate <= 42 && row.DaysDueDate >= 28)
                {
                    if (matrix.StaffID.Equals(row.StaffID))
                    {
                        if (!row.EmailLevelSent.Equals("First Level"))
                        {
                            try {
                                var message = new MailMessage();
                                var bodyText = "
" +
                                "
Dear @FirstName @LastName,
" +
                                "
This is a notification to remind you that you have @DaysDueDate days to complete the following online @TrainingTitle training.
" +
                                "
Please remember to complete the training course within the next few days.
" +
                                "
If you do not complete this training within the required time frame, this information will be forwarded to your next level manager.
" +
                                "
Thank you very much,
Kind regards,
" +
                                "
Manager
" +
                                "
";
                                var body = bodyText.Replace("@FirstName", row.FirstName).Replace("@LastName", row.LastName).Replace("@DaysDueDate", row.DaysDueDate.ToString()).Replace("@TrainingTitle", row.TrainingTitle.ToString());
                                if (matrix.StaffEmail.Contains("@domain.com"))
                                {
                                    message.To.Add(new MailAddress(row.StaffEmail));
                                }
                                else if (matrix.ManagerEmail.Contains("@domain.com"))
                                {
                                    message.To.Add(new MailAddress(matrix.ManagerEmail));
                                }
                                message.From = new MailAddress(_from);
                                message.Subject = "Training Notification for " + row.TrainingTitle;
                                if (matrix.ManagerEmail.Contains("@domain.com"))
                                {
                                    message.CC.Add(new MailAddress(matrix.ManagerEmail));
                                }
                                else if ((matrix.ManagerEmail.Contains("N/A")) || (matrix.ManagerEmail.Contains("NA")) || (matrix.ManagerEmail.Contains("#N/A")) || (matrix.ManagerEmail.Contains("na")))
                                {
                                    message.To.Add(new MailAddress(row.StaffEmail));
                                }

                                if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(matrix.InTheLoop))
                                {
                                    message.CC.Add(new MailAddress(matrix.InTheLoop));
                                }
                                message.Body = string.Format(body);
                                message.IsBodyHtml = true;

                                await smtp.SendMailAsync(message);
                                TempData["MailSent"] = "MailSent";

                                Debug.WriteLine("Sending first level email to " + row.FirstName + " " + row.LastName);
                                Debug.WriteLine("CC: " + message.CC.ToString());
                                row.EmailLevelSent = "First Level";
                                Debug.WriteLine("First Level email sent to " + row.FirstName);
                            }
                            catch (Exception e)
                            {
                                FailedEmails.StaffID = row.StaffID;
                                FailedEmails.FirstName = row.FirstName;
                                FailedEmails.LastName = row.LastName;
                                FailedEmails.StaffEmail = row.StaffEmail;
                                FailedEmails.ExceptionLog = e.Message;
                                FailedEmails.SentDate = DateTime.Now;
                                _context.Entry(FailedEmails).State = EntityState.Added;
                            }
                        }

                    }
                }
            }
        }

Any help would be appreciated, is there anything i am missing. Thanks!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Babbacombe Cliff Railway
To the Seaside and back since 1926
Babbacombe Cliff Railway CIC
Prices & Opening Times
Babbacombe Cliff Railway Community Interest Company
The Friends of the Babbacombe Cliff Railway (FBCR) was set up in 2005 as a response to the rumours that the Cliff railway was to close as it was in need of an investment of over £500,000 to make sure it complied with current regulations. This sum was eventually found from the sale of St Marychurch Town Hall and a complete refurbishment of the mechanical parts was carried out in the winters of 2005 and 2006.
Despite a previous failed attempt to sell the railway the FBCR was asked if they would become responsible for the operation and negotiations began in 2006. These proceeded very well and by September a draft lease had been prepared. At the same time various other organisations were consulted about the most suitable structure for the organisation that was to run the railway. The Consensus was to register the FBCR as a charity and to set up a Community Interest Company to carry out the running of the attraction. These processes were successful completed with the Company being set up finally in March 2008. The takeover of the railway was later beset with legal problems and eventually took place on 1 August 2009.
A CIC is a not for profit company set up as either Limited by Guarantee or with Shareholders. We chose the former. In common with other Companies the CIC was registered at Companies House and in addition CIC's have to be approved by a Registrar. As well as the name of the Company the registration details have to include the purpose and objectives of the Company, the range of activities, and details of the beneficiaries.
The Directors have to be chosen from the membership and work voluntarily. All surpluses and profits have to be re-invested into the assets which are locked so that they have to be used for the stated objective of the Company and cannot be assigned to any individual or other organisation. All decisions have to be taken by the Board and these decisions have to be recorded including the voting details. When necessary Directors have to declare and interest in any of the business being transacted. An Annual report has to be made to the Registrar as to how the objectives have been met and how the beneficiaries have been taken care of. CIC's have access to funds from HLF and other similar organisations.
An invitation was sent to the membership of the FBCR and all applications received were scrutinised by a panel who subsequently interviewed the applicants and from this process a Board was set up. At a later date the Council's Consultant, David Cooper, an expert in the design and maintenance of cable railways, requested to join the Board. We therefore have 7 Directors who each have taken responsibility for 1 facet of the business. – Marketing, Sales, Operations, Finance, and Technical.
Built on Wordpress CMS by Studio Devon
"To the Seaside & Back Since 1926"


text:
In natura il litio (Li) (massa atomica standard: 6.941(2) u) è composto da due isotopi (Litio-6 e Litio-7). Entrambi gli isotopi naturali hanno una energia di legame nucleare stranamente bassa rispetto a quella degli elementi adiacenti, l'elio più leggero e il berillio più pesante. Questo significa che il litio è l'unico tra gli elementi stabili leggeri che può portare a un guadagno di energia tramite la fissione nucleare. Sette radioisotopi sono stati osservati: il più stabile è il Litio-8 con una emivita di 838 ms seguito dal Litio-9 con una emivita di 178,3 ms. Tutti i restanti isotopi radioattivi hanno una emivita inferiore agli 8,6 ms.

Isotopi

Litio-4

Il litio-4 contiene 3 protoni e un neutrone. Si tratta dell'isotopo del litio con la vita più breve. Decade perdendo un protone diventando Elio-3.

Litio-5

Litio-6
Il litio-6 è considerato un materiale base per la produzione di trizio e come un recettore di neutroni durante la fusione nucleare. Il litio in natura contiene all'incirca il 7,5% di litio-6. Grandi quantità di litio-6 furono separate per usarle nelle armi nucleari.

Litio-7
Il Litio-7 è uno tra gli elementi primordiali o, più propriamente, uno tra gli isotopi primordiali, prodotto durante nucleosintesi del Big Bang. Inoltre una piccola quantità di Litio-6 è prodotta anche nelle stelle.

Il litio-7 viene usato come costituente del fluoruro di litio per i reattori nucleari a sali fusi. Ovviamente la grande sezione d'urto per l'assorbimento dei neutroni del litio-6 (941 barn) rispetto a quella del litio-7 (0.045 barn) rende necessaria la separazione degli isotopi del litio per l'uso nei reattori a fluoruro.

Litio-8

Litio-9

Litio-10

Litio-11

Litio-12

Tabella degli isotopi

Bibliografia
 Massa degli isotopi da:

 Composizione isotopica e masse atomiche standard da:

 Emivita, spin, e informazioni sugli isomeri da:

Litio


text:
HouseOfNames > Asenhurst
Asenhurst History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms
Asenhurst
The present generation of the Asenhurst family is only the most recent to bear a name that dates back to the ancient Anglo-Saxon culture of Britain. Their name comes from having lived in Ashurst in the county of Lancashire. The name derives from the Old English words, ash, meaning ash tree, and hyrst, meaning hill, and indicates that the town was named for a hill on which ash trees grew.
Early Origins of the Asenhurst family
The surname Asenhurst was first found in the counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, and the north west of England. The Lancashire family seems to be the oldest as noted "A Lancashire family of good antiquity, and until the middle of the last century [1700] lords of Ashurst in that county, where they appear to have been seated not long after the Conquest." [1]CITATION[CLOSE]
Shirley, Evelyn Philip, The Noble and Gentle Men of England; The Arms and Descents. Westminster: John Bower Nichols and Sons, 1866, Print. In the north transept of the church of Leigh, Staffordshire are monuments to the Ashenhurst family. [2]CITATION[CLOSE]
Lewis, Samuel, A Topographical Dictionary of England. Institute of Historical Research, 1848, Print. "The family of Ashhurst had lands [in Skelmersdale, Lancashire] in 1346 and frequently occur later." [3]CITATION[CLOSE]
'Townships: Scarisbrick', in A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 3, ed. William Farrer and J Brownbill (London, 1907), pp. 265-276. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol3/pp265-276 [accessed 21 January 2017].
Early History of the Asenhurst family
This web page shows only a small excerpt of our Asenhurst research.
Another 104 words (7 lines of text) covering the years 1614, 1680, 1647, 1720, 1679, 1662, 1645, 1711, 1681, 1695, 1715 and 1722 are included under the topic Early Asenhurst History in all our PDF Extended History products and printed products wherever possible.
Asenhurst Spelling Variations
Until the dictionary, an invention of only the last few hundred years, the English language lacked any comprehensive system of spelling rules. Consequently, spelling variations in names are frequently found in early Anglo-Saxon and later Anglo-Norman documents. One person's name was often spelled several different ways over a lifetime. The recorded variations of Asenhurst include Ashhurst, Ashurst, Ashirst, Ashairst, Ashenhurst and others.
Early Notables of the Asenhurst family (pre 1700)
Notables of the family at this time include Henry Ashurst (c. 1614-1680), a wealthy and benevolent merchant of London, "noted for his gifts of money to pious or charitable purposes, the founder of the family of Ashurst or Ashhurst of Waterstock, Oxfordshire, was descended from an old Lancashire family, seated at Ashurst, in the township of Dalton and parish of Wigan. " [4]CITATION[CLOSE]
Smith, George (ed), Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1885-1900. Print His son, Sir William...
Another 66 words (5 lines of text) are included under the topic Early Asenhurst Notables in all our PDF Extended History products and printed products wherever possible.
Migration of the Asenhurst family to the New World and Oceana
Thousands of English families boarded ships sailing to the New World in the hope of escaping the unrest found in England at this time. Although the search for opportunity and freedom from persecution abroad took the lives of many because of the cramped conditions and unsanitary nature of the vessels, the opportunity perceived in the growing colonies of North America beckoned. Many of the settlers who survived the journey went on to make important contributions to the transplanted cultures of their adopted countries. The Asenhurst were among these contributors, for they have been located in early North American records: Richard Ashurst arrived in Philadelphia in 1813; and many more.
The Asenhurst Motto
Motto: Vincit qui patitur
Motto Translation: He conquers who endures.
Asenhurst Family Crest Products
Asenhurst Armorial History With Coat of Arms
Asenhurst Coat of Arms & Surname History Package
Asenhurst Family Crest Image (jpg) Heritage Series
Asenhurst Coat of Arms/Family Crest Key-chain
Asenhurst Coat of Arms/Family Crest Coffee Mug
Asenhurst Armorial History with Frame
Asenhurst Framed Surname History and Coat of Arms
^ 'Townships: Scarisbrick', in A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 3, ed. William Farrer and J Brownbill (London, 1907), pp. 265-276. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol3/pp265-276 [accessed 21 January 2017].
^ Smith, George (ed), Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1885-1900. Print


Moving into a new home is often one of the most stressful events that a family can go through. With so much to keep track of and expenses that continue to add up, some may even feel hopeless about getting through a move with their sanity intact. For those who are preparing for one of these major life events, here are four hacks that help you steer clear of overwhelming stress.
In the earliest stages of moving, one of the easiest ways to start off on the right foot is to use the three pile method. This is a method in which everything that is pulled out of messy garages, cabinets, closets, or rooms is placed into one of three piles for easy separation. One of these piles contains trash such as broken kitchenware or toys that no family member will need. The second pile contains anything that the family does not need but that can be sold or given away such as old electronics. The final pile is absolute necessities that will need to be packed as they are found.
Another hack that many realtors suggest is making a few copies of the new home's floorplan and handing them out to family members. These copies will serve a few purposes,like helping each family member plan out their bedroom and limiting the amount of times that heavy furniture must be moved. There should also be a master copy that lists off where boxes should be placed so that no one is scrambling around looking for their belongings or something they need urgently.
For many families, one of the biggest and most stressful components of moving is renting and driving a moving truck. These trucks can be difficult to operate, will cost an incredible amount in fuel, and are notoriously difficult to load and unload. As an alternative, moving pods can be used to streamline moving all of one's possessions. Pods from places like Yellowhead Self Storage are dropped off at the old home, filled by the family, and then driven to the new home by a professional.
Creating a survival kit for the actual day of moving is an absolute necessity for any family. These survival kits should contain all of the day-to-day necessities that a family will need when most of their belongings are packed up. At minimum, these kits should include important paperwork, toiletries, phone chargers, water, and snacks. It is also a good idea to throw in any receipts, some spending money, and a small first aid kit.
Moving to a new home should be an exciting time for a family, and these few hacks can help you pull off your next move without the unbearable stress and anxiety.


I love the premise of this piece: you're the editor of the world's coolest, hippest, tastiest music magazine, but your preteen daughters love Hannah Montana. What to do? What I love even better is the culture-making themes here: the only real solution to deficient culture is better culture, in this case Brandi Carlile. And best of all, being exposed to Carlile's intelligent, soulful, honest music has inspired a 10-year-old budding songwriter. Go Jordan! Go Brandi! And go Dad.
[When] our 10-year-old Jordan started to sound a little like the snotty teenagers she was watching on TV, Hannah Montana and Wizards were outlawed. Soon after, we were fortunate enough to be guests on the Cayamo [singer-songwriter cruise ship], and I made the family a mix of Cayamo artists for the drive down—Lyle Lovett, Patty Griffin, Kathleen Edwards, Over the Rhine, John Hiatt. But it was Brandi Carlile they kept wanting to hear. By the time we saw her concert, my girls knew most of the words. At Emma's ninth birthday party (a lock-in at the Paste office) she cranked up "The Story" for her friends like it was the latest Miley Cyrus hit. The requests for Radio Disney stopped, and I overheard Jordan telling her friends she doesn't think Cyrus is a very good singer anymore.
So when Brandi recently came within half a mile of our house last week to play a pair of intimate performances at Eddie's Attic, I took them to the early show. It was the first real club concert for my kids. Eddie's has a no-talking-during-the-performance rule, and my usually very loud children abided. . . . They mouthed all the words except when they couldn't resist singing along. When Brandi started clapping, they clapped. When Brandi told the audience to stand, Emma stood up on her stool with her hands in the air.
Jordan wrote her first song a couple of days after the show. She won't sing it to me yet, but the lyrics are great. She began guitar lessons earlier this year and is headed to girls rock camp this summer. Emma is saving up her money for a guitar now. When they think of a future rock star, the image is of a down-to-earth Carlile instead of a glammed-up Ashley Tisdale.