Such a waiver of sovereign immunity would expose the Trust Fund to writs of attachment
, which would inject an unprecedented and major element of uncertainty and unreliability into the FMS program by creating an exception to the processes and principles under which the program operates.
(52) In response to the court order, the United States attempted to quash the writs of attachment, asserting that any attachment of Iran's diplomatic properties would violate two domestic laws: the Foreign Missions Act (FMA), (53) and ironically, the FSIA--the statute that permitted the district court to adjudicate Flatow's claim in the first place.
While the Flatow court found it unnecessary to reach the question of whether the writs of attachment violated the FMA, (65) the trial judge observed in a footnote that [section] 1610 (a) (4) (B) of the FSIA reinforced the provisions of the FMA by only permitting the attachment of property, "`[p]rovided ...
Flatow's effort to enforce writs of attachment against Iran's diplomatic properties not only illustrates the tension between the FSIA's execution provisions and other domestic laws, but also its potential conflicts with international law.
Consequently, Flatow asserted that enforcement of the writs of attachment on Iran's diplomatic properties would be consistent with international law.
Although the district court did not predicate its decision to quash the writs of attachment on Article 45(a) of the VCDR, the looming conflict between the execution provisions of the FSIA and the United States' international obligations provokes troubling questions for plaintiffs like Flatow.
Given both countries' efforts to repair their diplomatic relationship following the Iran hostage crisis, judicial enforcement of writs of attachment against Iranian property might be perceived as an unwarranted act of hostility and meddling that could unravel the Algiers Accords and discourage other hostile nations from making diplomatic overtures to the United States.
(112) Consequently, courts are unsympathetic to plaintiffs who argue that Congress did not intend the IEEPA to preempt their attempts to satisfy judgments through writs of attachment on blocked properties.
leaves no avenue for plaintiffs to enforce writs of attachment. Funds held in the Treasury pending transfer are unattachable as a matter of law because FSIA plaintiffs cannot identify a legally cognizable waiver of sovereign immunity that would authorize attachment.
The government moved to quash the writs of attachment. They argued that, because the writs did not aim at "blocked assets" as defined in TRIA Section 201(d)(2), the properties were not subject to attachment.
If the Bethesda properties are within the scope of the relinquishment and if the Hegnas have received a sufficient payment from the Treasury, the Court must approve the quashing of the writs of attachment.