1031 (D.C.Cir.1974), rev’d sub nom. FAA v. Robertson, 422 U.S. 255, 95 S.Ct. 2140, 45 L.Ed.2d 164 (1975). Congress then enacted § 1357(d)(2), but only after adding the “notwithstanding” clause. That occurred before the Supreme Court’s decision in FAA v. Robertson, 422 U.S. 255, 95 S.Ct. 2140, 45 L.Ed.2d 164 (1975), superseded in part by statute, Pub.L. No. 94-409, 90 Stat. 1242 (1976) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c)(3)), which held that the FAA may withhold information, as required by the public interest, under FOIA Exemption 3. At that time, several lower courts, as previously stated, were of the contrary view, and Congress was presumptively aware of those lower court decisions. See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 696-97, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1957-58, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (<HOLDING>). We have little doubt that Congress added the
holding that a party relying on foreign law must plead and prove it and partys failure to do so entitles court to assume that foreign law is the same as forum law holding that it is always appropriate to assume that our elected representatives like other citizens know the law holding citizens lacked standing to challenge statute when all citizens affected in the same way holding that the district court is required to know which law will apply before it makes its predominance determination holding that where the party does know that the filing and signing is sic wrongful and the attorney reasonably should know then sanctions against both are appropriate