Mose Oliver Jefferson (August 28, 1942 – May 12, 2011) was a member of the New Orleans family that includes his younger brother, former U.S. Representative William J. Jefferson. On 21 August 2009, Mose Jefferson was convicted on four felony counts of bribery.

Background
Mose Jefferson left his native Lake Providence, Louisiana, to join his older sister Betty Jefferson in Chicago, Illinois, where he attended Marshall High School but dropped out to join the U.S. Air Force in 1959. After being honorably discharged and returning to civilian life, he was convicted of a $450 robbery and served 9 months in Stateville Correctional Center, being released in 1967. He then became a Democratic Party field lieutenant with the political organization of Robert Shaw and his brother William Shaw, the latter of whom served in the Illinois Senate from 1982 to 2002.

Legal difficulties

On July 22, 2009 — during the 16-indictments trial of Mose Jefferson's brother, Congressman William J. Jefferson, before U.S. judge T. S. Ellis III — lead prosecutor Mark Lytle presented a chart which showed
money flowing from Jigawa State in Nigeria to Arkel Sugar in Baton Rouge to pay for a study of the feasibility of Arkel building a sugar plant there, to the coffers of Providence Lake, a company controlled by the congressman's brother Mose Jefferson, to BEP, another company controlled by Mose Jefferson, and on to Harvard University, where it helped pay expenses for Jelani Jefferson, one of the congressman's daughters.

On August 5, 2009, William J. Jefferson was convicted in the Virginia court on 11 of the 16 felony counts. Four days later, on August 9, in an article starting on the front page and extending for almost the entirety of another page, Laura Maggi analyzed Mose Jefferson's imputed connection with the criminal behaviors on which William J. Jefferson had been convicted.

In 2009, while other members of the Jefferson family were facing indictment or trial on various corruption charges, Mose Jefferson faced two trials. Originally a racketeering trial was to begin on August 3, 2009, followed by a bribery trial on August 10. On July 28, 2009, the sequence changed, the bribery trial remaining on August 10, 2009, and the racketeering trial moving to January 25, 2010.

Bribery accusations
In the bribery allegations Mose Jefferson was accused of paying Orleans Parish School Board president Ellenese Brooks-Simms $140,000 in exchange for her support of adopting a software-based teaching system sold by Mose Jefferson. Brooks-Simms accepted the money but, on getting caught, entered into a plea-bargain to testify (along with two other witnesses) against Mose Jefferson, including cooperating with investigators in recording certain conversations she had with Mose Jefferson. According to CBS News, the software sale was just part of a set of schemes wherein Brooks-Simms steered $14 million in sales toward a company which paid Mose Jefferson $913,000 in commissions.

Racketeering accusations
Racketeering charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) involved Mose Jefferson and Renée Gill Pratt, Mose Jefferson's "long-time companion" in a relationship described as being "as close as it gets" by columnist Stephanie Grace. The indictment alleged that Gill Pratt, a former state senator and member of the New Orleans City Council (defeated in 2006 by Stacy Head), had assisted Mose Jefferson in obtaining government grants for humanitarian causes managed by him, his sister Betty Jefferson, and Betty Jefferson's daughter Angela Coleman, whereupon the Jeffersons unduly used some of the money for personal interests. Betty Jefferson and Angela Coleman were additional defendants in the racketeering trial.

Pre-trial Motions
On June 3, 2009, Mose Jefferson requested that the racketeering charge be postponed because of the then-potential time overlap with the trial on bribery charges (both trials originally being docketed to begin in August). The request for delay was probably mooted, however, by new charges arraigned on June 5, effectuating postponement of one trial (the racketeering trial) by request of the court.

Potential change in defense attorneys
The situation was further complicated by an implication that Mose Jefferson needed to obtain a new lawyer, in that Arthur "Buddy" Lemann, according to U.S. attorney Daniel Friel, faced a conflict of interest in having once represented Stacy Simms, daughter of Ellenese Brooks-Simms. Lemann was to represent Mose Jefferson in the racketeering case. Stacy Simms had assisted her mother in laundering the bribe (in the other case), through Stacy's bank account and, after pleading guilty to the felony, joined her mother in becoming a witness for the prosecution of Mose Jefferson. Lemann (arguing that "the very inclusion of allegations related to another pending indictment is improper") had objected that the racketeering indictment described a relationship to the (undecided) bribery case in that part of the alleged racketeering involved Gill Pratt's supposed obtaining of $300,000 for a couple of private schools so that they could buy the software which Mose Jefferson, with Ellenese Brooks-Simms' help, also sold to the public schools; according to the indictment, Mose Jefferson's commission on the sales to the private schools was $30,000, of which Gill Pratt pocketed $3500. "It's not RICO, it's wacko"—said Lemann on June 5 as he objected to the move to separate him from the racketeering case.

Lemann himself was not Mose Jefferson's original attorney; Lemann had replaced Ike Spears, who had earlier been disqualified on a conflict of interest inherent in his having previously represented Brenda Jefferson Foster, younger sister of Mose and William J. Jefferson. Brenda Jefferson Foster had entered a guilty plea in the racketeering case and obtained a promise of leniency in exchange for agreeing to testify against her siblings.

As of June 6, 2009, Mose Jefferson's attorney in the bribery case continued to be Mike Fawer, "another pugnacious defense attorney" as described by the Times-Picayune.

Political allegations by defenders
On June 8, 2009, Lemann called the racketeering case "a political prosecution initiated by the office of a Republican prosecutor against a minority neighborhood association led by the Jefferson family" and asked for the case to be dismissed as being politically motivated. U.S. Attorney Jim Letten claimed to be "not surprised to see that again" in reference to Lemann's having made allegations of prosecutorial political or racial bias when defending former mayor Marc Morial's administrator Kerry DeCay, who was convicted and spent 9 years in federal incarceration.

Indigence claim
Lemmon referred to magistrate judge Louis Moore Jr. the question of whether Mose Jefferson should be declared indigent, a status conference on that question set for July 28. Fawer and Lemann both asked Moore to declare Mose Jefferson indigent because a building he owns on New Orleans' Loyola Avenue was put on hold by U.S. attorney Jim Letten. Fawer and Lemann had intended to use the building as a "means of obtaining payment for their services"; but Moore, on August 6, 2009, cited that Mose Jefferson owns a New Orleans East house which he used as collateral for his bond pending trial. According to Laura Maggi of the Times-Picayune on Mose Jefferson's wherewithal to pay defense lawyers, "Moore pointed out that Jefferson could give up the bond on the house and go to jail"; Moore denied the request for indigence.

Requests for delay
At a hearing before U.S. District Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on June 17, 2009, lawyers for Betty Jefferson and Angela Coleman requested a delay from the August 3, 2009, start date for the racketeering trial; at the same hearing, however, lawyers for Gill Pratt and Mose Jefferson requested that the racketeering trial begin as scheduled on August 3.

During the ensuing week, on June 26, 2009, U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon denied Mose Jefferson's request to delay the start of the bribery case also involving Gill Pratt and Ellenese Brooks-Simms. Fawer immediately filed a second request for delay of the bribery trial, this request arguing that Gill Pratt could not risk testifying in the racketeering case if a charge against her were to be pending in the bribery case. On July 16, 2009, Lemmon ruled as follows:
 denied Fawer's (Mose's Jefferson's) second request for delay.
 denied a motion by Fawer (representing Mose Jefferson) to stay the proceedings so that Fawer (Mose Jefferson) could appeal, to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Lemmon's June 26 denial of Fawer's (Mose Jefferson's) request for delay in the bribery trial.
 denied a Fawer motion to remove a government lien on Mose Jefferson's property on Loyola Avenue to cover Fawer's lawyer charges.
 denied a motion by Fawer to remove him as Mose Jefferson's attorney.

Racketeering trial delayed
On July 28, 2009, Lemelle delayed the start of the racketeering trial to January 25, 2010. The bribery trial of Mose Jefferson alone was still set to begin on August 10, 2009, with jury selection beginning on August 4, 2009.

Bribery trial not delayed
On August 4, Fawer unsuccessfully sought (denied by Lemmon) to delay the bribery trial until after the racketeering trial, because, as summarized by Michael Kunzelman of the Times-Picayune:
Gill Pratt ... isn't available to testify during the bribery case this month because she is awaiting her own trial next year in a [the] separate but related racketeering conspiracy case.

Requests for change of venue
On August 7, 2009, Fawer requested to move the bribery trial from New Orleans because the "trial atmosphere has been utterly corrupted by ongoing media coverage" (Fawer's words) of the conviction of William J. Jefferson; Lemmon's written denial was just two sentences in length, including that questions to potential jurors "will reveal the extent of prejudice, if any, resulting from news coverage of the trial of defendant's brother" (Lemmon's words).

Bribery trial
Jury selection for Mose Jefferson's trial on charges of bribery began on August 10, 2009, with Fawer again requesting a venue change and Lemmon again denying it. By the end of the day attorneys on both sides had selected a 12-member panel of jurors—six women, six men—with two women alternates.

The bribery trial per se began on August 11 at 10:00 AM CDT, with strikingly different perspectives between the prosecution and the defense on the $140,000 which Mose Jefferson gave to Ellenese Brooks-Simms. According to Fawer, Brooks-Simms said "what the government wanted to hear" concerning the $140,000. Fawer maintained that the FBI-recorded conversations between Brooks-Simms and Mose Jefferson would be shown to concur with the defense's characterization of the exchange of money as a gift or loan to Brooks-Simms in that her husband was at the time experiencing expensive medical costs. Fawer also revealed defense plans to call as witnesses not only Mose Jefferson but also Republican former U.S. Representative Bob Livingston, head of the Livingston Group lobbying firm which represented JRL Enterprises, contractor for the "I CAN LEARN" program, in successful efforts to obtain $36 million in federal contracts. The prosecution called Paul Cambon, Livingston's former congressional aide who later became a partner in the Livingston Group. After Cambon testified that the Livingston Group had received monthly retainers of up to $30,000 from JRL Enterprises, prosecutor Michael Simpson asked: "Did the Livingston Group ever kick back $140,000?"—which question was overridden by Lemmon on Fawer's objection.

On August 18, Mose Jefferson, testifying under oath, countervailed the testimony of Brooks-Simms and characterized her as a former lover for whom the $140,000 was a gift; she had testified that they first met in 1999, but he testified that their relationship began in the 1980s.

On August 19, 2009, former Orleans Parish schools superintendent Tony Amato testified in support of the "I CAN LEARN" program, but most of the testimony on that day centered on the nature of the relationship between Mose Jefferson and Brooks-Simms. Fawer called as witness 83-year-old minister Zebedee Bridges who testified that in the 1980s Mose Jefferson was involved in an adulterous affair with Brooks-Simms, but Ralph Capitalli, attorney for Brooks-Simms, characterized the story as "a lie" and stated that Fawer had not inquired of Brooks-Simms about the alleged affair; Capitelli asserted that Brooks-Simms was loyal to her husband throughout 40 years of marriage. Prosecutor Michael Simpson, who repeatedly during the day attempted to steer the discussion back to the exchange of money and the recorded conversations between Brooks-Simms and Mose Jefferson, adopted "an incredulous tone" in that Fawer had said nothing about adultery during the opening statement and during the three days when Brooks-Simms was on the witness stand.

Before the case went to the jury on August 20, 2009, the defense called Livingston as witness, in an attempt to analogize the lobbying activities of the Livingston Group to the involvements of Mose Jefferson, Fawer's repeated arguments that the $140,000 payment could only be a gift in that adoption of I CAN LEARN already had Brooks-Simms' support as well as that of the other voting members of the school system, but Fawer's observations of the time of the payment and the prior day's testimony by Amato were "sideshows" when "This case is about payoffs and rewards" according to federal prosecutor Sal Perricone. At 6:00 PM on August 20 Lemmon ordered the jury sequestered to consider the charges against Mose Jefferson.

The following morning, on August 21, 2009, the jury returned the following verdicts declaring Mose Jefferson guilty on four of the seven felony counts, as reported by WDSU-TV New Orleans Channel 6 (NBC):

Count 1—Conspiracy to commit bribery: Not guilty
Count 2—Bribery of an agent (Brooks-Simms) of an organization seeking federal funding: Guilty
Count 3—Bribery of an agent (Brooks-Simms) of an organization seeking federal funding: Guilty
Count 4—Bribery of an agent (Brooks-Simms) of an organization seeking federal funding: Not guilty
Count 5—Money laundering: Not guilty
Count 6—Obstruction of justice: Guilty
Count 7—Obstruction of justice: Guilty

Sentencing by Lemmon was set for December 9, 2009, Mose Jefferson remaining in the meantime free on personal surety bond.

Racketeering trial
Jefferon's racketeering trial began on March 22, 2010. He died of cancer in 2011 in Lake Providence.

Notes

1942 births
2011 deaths
African-American people in Louisiana politics
American robbers
American people convicted of bribery
People from Lake Providence, Louisiana
Louisiana Democrats
Politicians from Chicago
Politicians from New Orleans
United States Air Force airmen
20th-century African-American people
21st-century African-American people

Mose Jefferson


The Cybermen are a fictional race of cyborgs in the British television series Doctor Who. They are one of the greatest and longest enemies of the Doctor. Cybermen were originally humanoids from the Earth's twin planet Mondas. The people of Mondas began to put more and more artificial metal parts into their bodies to keep themselves alive, making them cyborgs. This led to the race starting to think logically and calculating, showing no emotions. The Cybermen also turning other people into cyborgs.

They were created by Dr. Kit Pedler (the unofficial scientific advisor to the programme) and Gerry Davis in 1966, first appearing in the serial, The Tenth Planet, which was the last to feature William Hartnell as the First Doctor. They have since been in the show a lot.

A parallel universe version of the Cybermen appeared in the 2006 series in the two-part story, Rise of the Cybermen and The Age of Steel. They also appear in Army Of Ghosts and Doomsday. They also appeared in the spin-off series Torchwood in the episode "Cyberwoman". They would later return to the new series in the 2008 Christmas Special "The Next Doctor", introducing two new types of cyberman; the Cyber-Shades and the Cyber-King.

Physical characteristics

While the Doctor's other old enemies the Daleks did not change during the original series's twenty-six season run, the Cybermen were seen to change with almost every appearance. The Cybermen are humanoid, but have replaced their limbs and other body parts with non-living parts to the point where they don't have many flesh parts. In their first appearance in the series, the only portions of their bodies that still seemed human were their hands, but by their next appearance in The Moonbase (1967), their bodies were entirely covered up in their metal suits, with their hands replaced by two finger claws, but changed back to regular five finger hands in The Invasion (1968). As there are not many of them, the Cybermen often convert humans to cybermen.

It is assumed(and often implied) that there are still human parts beneath their suits, meaning they are actually cyborgs, not robots: in The Tenth Planet, a Cyberman tells a group of humans that "our brains are just like yours", although by the time of Attack of the Cybermen, their brains seem to have been replaced with electronics. In Earthshock (1982), the actors' chins were vaguely visible through a clear perspex area on the helmet to suggest some kind of human face. In The Tomb of the Cybermen (1967), veins were visible through the circular head of the Cyberman Controller and  in Attack of the Cybermen (1985) and "The Age of Steel" (2006), the Cyber-Controller's brain is visible through the dome. The first is a Mondas Cyber Controller, while the second is an alternative cyberman. However, in Revenge of the Cybermen (1975), the Doctor says they are "total machine creatures".

Although the Cybermen often claim that they have done away with human emotion, they have exhibited emotions ranging from anger to smug satisfaction in their confrontations with the Doctor (although this is only clearly present during their appearances in the 1980s). Some Cybermen in the early stories were even given individual names such as "Krang". Some parallel Earth Cybermen did retain some memories of their pre-conversion lives, although their emotional response varied

This motive behind the removal of emotions is made more clear in "The Age of Steel" where it is done by putting in things that keep them from feeling emotions. In that episode, the deactivation of their emotional inhibitors drives the converted Cybermen insane when they realise what they have become, killing them. This motive may also be applicable to Mondas Cybermen, given their forcible conversion of other lifeforms to Cybermen to maintain their numbers, despite the fact the Mondasians appear to have originally willingly converted themselves as a survival mechanism.

Cybermen have a number of weaknesses over the years. Their biggest weakness is gold. It was not  mentioned that they did not like gold until their attempt to destroy the planetoid Voga (the so-called "Planet of Gold") in Revenge of the Cybermen (1975). Initially, it was explained that, because it is very hard to grind up, gold chokes their respiratory systems. For example, the  However, in later serials, gold appeared to affect them rather like silver affects werewolves, with gold coins or bullets with gold on the edge fired at them having the same effect. The revived series' Cybermen have no weakness to gold.

Costume details
Nearly all the cyberman costumes were silver in colour and included items and material such as cloth, rubber diving suits, PVC, chest units, tubing, practice golf balls, cricketers' gloves, and silver-painted Doc Martens boots. A BBC Cyberman costume from the black & white era of TV has recently been discovered.

They also have guns

The 1980s design used converted flight suits painted silver. Unlike the Doctor's other enemies, the Cybermen have changed a lot in appearance over the years, looking more and more modern, although retaining certain commonalities of design, the most iconic being the "handle bars" attached to Cybermen heads, that were supposed to aid with their hearing, their round eyeholes and their chest units. Completely black-coloured Cybermen were seen briefly in Attack of the Cybermen.

The Cybermen returned in episodes 5 and 6 of the 2006 season of the new series, in a two-part story set on an alternate Earth. The new Cybermen were designed by production designer Edward Thomas's team and Neill Gorton at Millennium FX. The new Cyberman design is tall, in a style reminiscent of Art Deco, with their Cybus Corporation logo on their chests and made to look like burnished steel instead of silver. The other big changes in the Cyberman design is that the Cyber-Controller  had glowing eyes, a transparent forehead revealing the brain, and sockets on its chest-plate providing connectors to other systems.

Voice
Early Cybermen had an unsettling, sing-song voice, created by changing their voices slightly on syllables which a voice does not normally change. Their mouths opened fully and did not move when they were talking, then their mouths would shut as soon as they stopped talking. However they stopped doing this after their first few appearances.

The voices for the 2006 return of the Cybermen were provided by Nicholas Briggs (who performed the voices for the Cybermen in Big Finish audio stories as well as the Daleks in both the new series and the audio stories). Shown in the season 2 DVD special feature "Confidential Cut Downs," the voice was created by processing Brigg's voice through a voice modulator. The new Cybermen have a blue light in their "mouths" which blinks in synchronisation with their speech.

Cybermats

The Cybermen also use smaller, cybernetic creatures called "cybermats" to attack. In their first appearance in The Tomb of the Cybermen, they resembled big metal fish and had segmented bodies with hair sensor probes along the base of their heads, which were topped with eyes. The Second Doctor described them as a "form of metallic life,".

The second model of cybermat seen in The Wheel in Space was used for sabotage, able to listen to human brainwaves. They were carried to the "Wheel" in small sacs that sank through the walls of the space station, causing drops in air pressure.

The third model, seen in Revenge of the Cybermen, was a much larger, snake-like cybermat that could be remotely controlled and could inject poison into its victims.

Cybermats appear in Blood of the Cybermen. They look like flat snakes, and can turn living things into Cyber-Slaves with their poison. They are remote controlled, and are of the new, 3rd race of cybermen. They are Cyber Cats and Dogs.

Major appearances

Television
 The Tenth Planet
 The Moonbase
 The Tomb of the Cybermen
 The Wheel in Space
 The Invasion
 Revenge of the Cybermen
 Earthshock
 The Five Doctors
 Attack of the Cybermen
 Silver Nemesis
 Rise of the Cybermen / The Age of Steel
 Army of Ghosts / Doomsday
 The Next Doctor
 The Pandorica Opens

Stage plays
 Doctor Who - The Ultimate Adventure — Wimbledon Theatre, London (premiere 23 March 1989)
 Doctor Who - Tomb Of The Cybermen — Oxford Brookes University, Oxford (premiere 25 June 1998)

Audio plays
 The Blue Tooth
 Spare Parts
 The Gathering
 Real Time
 The Reaping
 The Ultimate Adventure
 The Harvest
 Kingdom of Silver & Keepsake
 Sword of Orion
 Human Resources
 The Girl Who Never Was
 Silver Lining
 The Crystal of Cantus
 Scorpius
 Fear
 Conversion
 Telos

Novels
 Iceberg by David Banks (Virgin New Adventures)
 Killing Ground by Steve Lyons (Virgin Missing Adventures)
 Illegal Alien by Mike Tucker and Robert Perry (BBC Past Doctor Adventures)
 Made of Steel by Terrance Dicks (Quick Reads Initiative)

Games
On the BBC website, the Cybus Cybermen appear in two online games, Cyber Assault and Save Paris, both depicting the war between the Cybermen and Preachers on the parallel Earth. The Adventure Games has an episode, Blood of the Cybermen, which feature a 3rd, new race of Cybermen.

Footnotes

References

Doctor Who

he:דוקטור הו - דמויות#סייברמן

Cyberman


'''Cambodia Then '''and Now: Commemorating the 1991 Peace Agreement

Keynote Address by Professor the Hon Gareth Evans, Former Foreign Minister of Australia and President Emeritus of the International Crisis Group, to Seminar on Measuring Cambodia's Progress Toward Equality, University of NSW Law School, 6 August 2011.

Cambodia first made its claim on my heart and mind in 1968, as some of you in the Cambodian community will have heard me say before, I was travelling across Asia, as so many young Australians have, to study in the UK, and spent a few fantastic days here, staying in a very downmarket hotel near the Central Market, drinking beer and eating noodles in student hangouts, and taking a wild ride in a share taxi up to Siem Riep -- scattering pigs, chickens and children in villages along the way-- to confront the majesty of Angkor Wat.

I had similar experiences in a number of other Asian countries, but there was something very distinctive about Cambodia. In later life I kept on running into a number of those young men and women I had met in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Nepal or Afghanistan – or people exactly like them. But I never again met any of the young Cambodians I had spent time with, or any of their contemporaries. The sad and horrible truth is that they all died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge – executed outright as middle class enemies of the state, or worked to death through malnutrition or disease out in the fields.

As the horror of the genocide unfolded, and then the protracted misery of the civil war which followed it, I made a pledge to myself that if I could ever do anything for the wonderfully kind people of this country to relieve some of that misery then I would certainly try hard to make a difference. The opportunity to do so came after I became Australian foreign minister in 1988. And of the various things I managed to achieve in the nearly eight years I held the position, nothing has given me more pleasure and pride than the Paris peace agreement concluded in 1991, whose 20th anniversary we commemorate this year, and at this seminar, one of series being held around the world.

                                    #

Nobody should forget the extent to which Cambodia was on its knees by the late 1980s. Since 1970 the country had been ravaged successively by massive US bombing, by civil war, by a genocidal reign of terror exceeded only by the Nazis, by invasion and by civil war again, resulting overall in the deaths of some 2 million Cambodians and the destruction of the lives of many more. The Vietnamese invasion in November 1978 brought to an end the worst of the Khmer Rouge reign of terror, but it triggered a new civil war. Recurring bloody military engagements, guerilla assaults and ambushes, the further displacement of large numbers of civilians, and the inability of life generally to return to any kind of pre-1970 normality, all took their further toll of an exhausted and suffering people.

Nor should anyone forget how complex and intractable the continuing conflict was, being played out as it was at three distinct levels. The first level was that of the warring internal factions – with Hun Sen's Government waged against a fragile coalition of the non-communist Sihanoukists and KPNLF [[]]) and communist Khmer Rouge, and each group was immensely distrustful of all the others. The second level was regional, with Vietnam supporting Hun Sen and ASEAN supporting his opponents. And the third level involved the great power patrons of the warring factions - with China supporting the Khmer Rouge and Prince Sihanouk; the Soviet Union supporting Hun Sen; and the United States supporting the two non-communist resistance groups.

To unravel all this, and produce out of it something resembling a durable peace - even if, as we'll come back to later, we have not yet seen a durable, human-rights respecting democracy - was a formidable achievement indeed for the international community, and one in which, I am pleased to be able to say, Australia played a quite central part.

Australia's involvement in this achievement dates back to 1983, when the Hawke Government came to office in 1983 with a commitment to play a more active role in a Cambodian settlement, and from the outset the Government's Indo-China policy focused on exploring the various options for a Cambodian settlement. Bill Hayden's achievement as foreign minister from 1983-88 was to have Australia accepted by the international community, including eventually ASEAN, as a responsible and knowledgeable voice on the issue of the Cambodian settlement. Our views at this time were not necessarily welcomed by all parties, but they were given weight and taken into account, and Australia's activities did impart a sense of urgency, previously absent, to the effort to find a solution.

In the late 1980s other regional countries, and in particular Indonesia, gradually sought to play a more active diplomatic role in pursuit of a solution to the Cambodian problem. The resulting Jakarta Informal Meetings (JIMs) in July 1988 and February 1989 were inconclusive: although they did result in some clearer definitions of the issues involved, there was no significant lessening of the differences among the four Cambodian factions. But hopes for a major move forward had arisen with the announcement by Vietnam in January 1989 that it was prepared to withdraw all its troops from Cambodia by September that year.

Seeking to force a breakthrough, France - the former colonial power and still a significant influence in the region - judged in mid- 1989 that the time was ripe for a full international conference on Cambodia. The Paris Conference on Cambodia (PICC) was accordingly convened, with joint Indonesian-French chairmanship, in Paris in July-August 1989. This brought together all four Cambodian factions, the six ASEAN countries, the Permanent Five Members of the UN Security Council, Vietnam, Laos, Australia, Canada and India as well as Zimbabwe (representing the Non-Aligned Movement) and a representative of the UN Secretary-General.

In the event, the Paris Conference failed, but not without coming close to succeeding. A comprehensive settlement strategy was mapped out which broke down for a number of reasons, but only one of which was really crucial. One side of the conflict, the combined resistance forces of Prince Sihanouk, Son Sann and the Khmer Rouge, together with their international backers, demanded a place for each of the four internal parties, including the Khmer Rouge, in the transitional administration, but to this demand the SOC Government of Hun Sen, and its international backers, were simply not prepared to concede.

It was to break this impasse that the Australian peace proposal, which I announced in outline in the Senate on 24 November 1989, was put forward. So as to side-step the power-sharing issue which had bedevilled the Paris Conference, and constrain the role of the Khmer Rouge in the transitional arrangements, we proposed that the United Nations be directly involved in the civil administration of Cambodia during the transitional period. There should be, we said, a UN military presence to monitor the cease-fire and cessation of external military assistance; a UN role in organising and conducting elections; and UN involvement in the transitional administrative arrangements to ensure a neutral political environment conducive to fair and free general elections. At the heart of the idea of giving an unprecedentedly central role to the United Nations, not just in peacekeeping or electoral monitoring, but in the actual governance of the country during the transitional period, was that this would give China a face-saving way of withdrawing its support from the Khmer Rouge, which would then wither on the vine. And it was essentially this solution – although there was a long diplomatic road ahead with many twists and turns - which unlocked the conflict and brought long-awaited and desperately needed peace to the country.

Where did the idea of major United Nations involvement in a transitional administration come from? It was not in itself completely new – Prince Sihanouk had for example as early as March 1981, and occasionally subsequently, raised the idea of some form of United Nations trusteeship – but the degree of detail with which the concept was subsequently developed, and the effort with which it was pursued, certainly was new.The crucial figure in late 1989 was my old friend , US Congressman Stephen Solarz, who had developed the idea in broad outline, but had been unable until then to get anyone in Washington to take it seriously, and suggested it to me in a meeting we had in the living room of the Australian permanent representative to the UN. The senior diplomat sitting in on that meeting was unimpressed: "I have to say, Minister, that that is the greatest load of poppycock I have ever heard" he said as we left the apartment. But I decided to ignore the gentleman in question and do some detailed testing of the water – and the rest is history.

In advocating a very substantially enhanced UN role in the settlement, we knew we were being ambitious. The United Nations was well enough experienced in peace-keeping operations and monitoring elections, but had not up to that time had a role in the civil administration of one of its member states, nor primary responsibility for organising and conducting elections as distinct from monitoring them. Moreover, conditions within Cambodia - including the potentially fragile character of any cease-fire, the difficulty of monitoring guerrilla forces, and the lack of developed transport and communications infrastructure - meant that the overall UN operation would be much more difficult than had been experienced in most other situations.

So a long, gruelling diplomatic effort was always going to be required to translate the Australian proposal into reality. If it were simply a matter of adopting a strategy that would isolate and marginalise the Khmer Rouge, not very many voices would have been heard in opposition. But the crucial point was that the Khmer Rouge could not be effectively isolated and marginalised, and its military influences nullified, so long as it continued to be supplied, especially by China, with arms, money and diplomatic support. China (determined as always to neutralise Vietnam's influence over Cambodia) had consistently maintained that it would give a commitment to cease military support to the Khmer Rouge, and support a ceasefire, only in the context of a comprehensive settlement agreed by all four Cambodian parties and which guaranteed the future independence and neutrality of the country. Unless and until China was prepared to withdraw from the picture, then whatever Australia and other countries might have chosen to do, the continuation of bloody civil war was inevitable. So, as I have already intimated, our UN peace proposal was expressly designed to give China a face-saving way of engaging in just that withdrawal.

There could be no absolute guarantee that, if it accepted the peace plan, the Khmer Rouge would not simply resume fighting after the transitional period (and indeed, as we now know, the Khmer Rouge did in fact walk away from the agreement, making the period leading up to the 1993 incredibly tense). But there were two crucial new factors that would minimize this risk. First, China would give an international legal undertaking to cease arms supply to the Khmer Rouge, would be under close international scrutiny to uphold that undertaking, and could be reasonably expected to honour it. The second consideration was that the new Cambodian administration would be accepted by the international community as the government of the country and was likely to receive substantial economic, social and technical assistance during the rehabilitation and reconstruction process envisaged under the comprehensive settlement. Taken together, these factors would mean that the newly elected Cambodian government would be in a much better position than its predecessor to withstand any renewed challenge from the Khmer Rouge.

The initial response to my November 1989 statement laying out the proposal for a major UN role was nothing less than remarkable. It very quickly became clear that the idea was one whose time had come. Within a matter of weeks, most of the participants at the Paris Conference had given it varying degrees of public, as well as private, endorsement. This process was considerably assisted by an extraordinary feat of diplomatically effective endurance by Michael Costello, then the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Deputy Secretary. I had tasked him early in December 1989 to pay a quick visit to Hanoi - in between talks scheduled on other matters in Hawaii and Tokyo - to take preliminary soundings. This initial detour turned into a series of thirty major meetings with key players in thirteen countries over a period of just twenty-one days. During the course of this odyssey the Australian 'idea' became a fully fledged Australian 'initiative' or 'plan' as we constantly refined and developed the detailed elements of the proposal and responded to suggestions or criticisms from our various interlocutors.

Particularly encouraging was the positive reaction of the United States Administration, which had already initiated with the Soviet Union in late 1989 a proposal to join the other three Permanent Members of the Security Council in a series of consultations on Cambodia. Representatives of the Permanent Five met in Paris on 15-16 January 1990 and agreed by consensus on a set of sixteen principles which would form the basis of their future discussions. Those principles included strong endorsement of the concept of an enhanced United Nations role in the transitional period. The January meeting was significant in another sense. It marked the start of a two-track international approach to the Cambodia problem - the Permanent Five process and the Paris Conference process - between which a productive interaction was subsequently maintained.

By late January 1990, Indonesian Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, who as Co-Chairman of the Paris Conference had been exploring the possibility of an informal regional meeting on Cambodia, felt sufficiently encouraged to convene a meeting in Jakarta on 26-28 February involving the four Cambodian parties, Vietnam and Laos and the ASEAN countries. In recognition of the contribution we were making to the peace process, Australia was invited to attend as a resource delegation, and this is the origin of what became the famous "Red Book".

In preparation for the Jakarta Informal Meeting on Cambodia (IMC), an Australian technical mission visited Cambodia, Bangkok and the Thai-Cambodia border area from 2-16 February 1990 to gather further information on administrative structures and other data necessary to develop a full United Nations role in Cambodia. At the Jakarta Meeting, ten days later, a 155-page series of Working Papers, incorporating the technical mission's findings and covering in some detail all the necessary elements of a comprehensive settlement were distributed. Needless to say, we were rather busy in Canberra that month! The Papers were subsequently published as Cambodia: an Australia Peace Proposal – which became known as the "Red Book", so-called from the colour of its binding.

They outlined in detail the roles proposed for the United Nations in civil administration; in organising and conducting elections; and in maintaining a secure environment in which Cambodians might exercise their electoral choice free from fear, intimidation and violence. The Papers also explored a range of costings. Conventional wisdom had it that such an exercise would be beyond the resources of the United Nations, but our indicative calculations showed that such a proposal - estimated to cost US$1.3 billion for 18 months - was both practicable and affordable. (It is interesting to note that the actual cost of the UNTAC operation when eventually put into place, for the two year period from November 1991 to November 1993, was $US 1.7 billion - remarkably close to our original guesstimate: although a number of details of the plan had by then changed.)

The February 1990 Jakarta Meeting came very close to reaching agreement on a statement of principles providing for an enhanced role for the United Nations in a comprehensive settlement, but in the end it just failed to do so. Consensus, very frustratingly, broke down on the question of whether the agreed record should make specific reference to 'the prevention of recurrence of genocidal policies and practices'. While the outcome was disappointing in that regard – to put it gently – the meeting did begin a process of consensus-building which ultimately bore fruit in the Paris Peace Conference of the following year.

Steady diplomatic progress was made throughout the rest of 1990 in the refinement and development of the Australian plan, with the Permanent Five and the Paris Conference Co-Chairmen in close consultation with the UN Secretariat now playing the central role. The Permanent Five held six major consultative meetings on the subject between January and August, reaching agreement in New York on 27-28 August on a 'framework' document setting out the key elements of a comprehensive political settlement, based on an enhanced UN role, in a skilful and judicious balance of the various interests involved.

Then, at a meeting in Jakarta on 9-10 September 1990, hosted by Indonesia and France as Paris Conference Co-Chairmen, the four Cambodian parties accepted this Permanent Five framework in its entirety as a basis for settling the Cambodian conflict, and agreed to establish a Supreme National Council (SNC) - part of the original Australian proposal, and called for in the framework - which would, among other things occupy the Cambodian seat in the United Nations.

The next step was for the United Nations itself to endorse the basic elements of the peace plan. It did so, urging the parties to elaborate the Permanent Five framework into a concluded comprehensive political settlement in UN Security Council Resolution 668 of 20 September 1990, and UN General Assembly Resolution 45/3 of 15 October 1990. These Resolutions also welcomed the agreement of the Cambodian parties to form the SNC 'as the unique legitimate body and source of authority in which, throughout the transitional period, the independence, national unity and sovereignty of Cambodia is embodied'.

The last of the settlement building blocks to be put in place was the preparation of a detailed negotiating text. Agreement was reached on the form and structure of such a text at a Working Group Meeting in Jakarta on 9-10 November, hosted by the Paris Conference Co-Chairmen. Australia, still enormously active behind the scenes, had prepared and circulated a full draft negotiating text; and this work was substantially drawn upon during the discussions. The meeting gave a mandate to its Co-Chairmen to complete the draft: their representatives, and the Secretary-Generals, met with Permanent Five officials on 2326 November and reached consensus on a full draft comprehensive agreement. By the end of 1990, then, all the necessary foundations had been laid.

As 1991 dawned, there seemed likely to be a relatively swift and painless run home to the tape. But despite all the momentum and expectations generated over the long months since the Australian plan was first put on the table in November 1989, the process faltered and seemed - five months into the year - in danger of stalling completely. Phnom Penh, supported by Hanoi, expressed a series of reservations about the Permanent Five negotiating text. Some of these reservations - in particular the issue of army demobilisation, and the relative vulnerability of each side following it - raised serious questions requiring further thought and negotiation; others - like the question of the implications of a UN role for Cambodian sovereignty - seemed to be trying to prise open agreements in principle long since reached; others were essentially minor quibbles, but capable of endlessly protracting the settlement process.

Despair, however, was as premature as celebration would have been in 1990. A rush of events in June 1991 injected immense new life into the settlement process. Prince Sihanouk emerged from months of self-imposed isolation and formed an improbable liaison with Hun Sen which, being with the apparent approval of China, pushed the Khmer Rouge into something of a corner. He convened a meeting of the SNC in Pattaya, Thailand on 24-26 June (the first since its notional formation the previous September), and at that meeting brokered a series of agreements between the four Cambodian parties.

Crucially, all the Cambodian parties at Pattaya reiterated their support for the Permanent Fiveframework, and for a comprehensive settlement in which the United Nations would have a central role. There remained many issues of detail - not least the question of interim enforcement of the ceasefire and arms cessation agreements, and resolution of the demobilisation question which was continuing to worry Hun Sen's SOC. But there was general agreement on a course of future meetings to address these issues - involving, again, the Paris Conference Co-Chairman, the Permanent Five, and ultimately the reconvened Paris Conference.

Finally, twenty years ago this year, the Agreements on a Comprehensive Political Settlement of the Cambodia Conflict were signed on 23 October 1991 by the four Cambodian parties and the international participants at the Paris Conference on Cambodia. The settlement committed the Cambodian parties and those supporting them to a permanent ceasefire, the holding of free and fair elections, and the adoption of a new democratic constitution - all under the supervision of the United Nations through the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC).

The Paris Agreements included provisions that were typical of traditional peacekeeping functions: the verification of the withdrawal of foreign forces and the supervision of the ceasefire - plus some of the newer functions being assumed by the UN, such as involvement in elections. However, in Cambodia, the concept of peacekeeping was much expanded, to include comprehensive efforts towards institution building and social reconstruction as integral parts of the package designed to secure a lasting end to armed conflict and a genuine transition to democracy.

The relevant measures included a direct control function in respect to key areas of civil administration in the transitional period - a completely new role for the UN; cantonment and demobilisation of the four Cambodian armies; organisation and supervision of elections; repatriation and resettlement of more than 365,000 Cambodian refugees and displaced persons from camps along the Thai-Cambodian border; and peace-building measures such as efforts to ensure the observation of human rights.

The final important element of the Agreements in this regard related to the rehabilitation of essential Cambodian infrastructure during the transitional period, and the post-transitional reconstruction of the country. Another innovative aspect of the comprehensive settlement was that it did not end with the completion of UNTAC's mandate, but was rather a continuing international process to which the signatories were committed in a variety of ways, including in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Cambodia through involvement in the International Committee on the Reconstruction of Cambodia (ICORC); through obligations to uphold the neutrality of Cambodia; and continuing involvement in human rights questions. The latter resulted in, among other things, the later appointment by the UN Secretary-General of a Special Representative on Human Rights - and the first holder of that position was another Australian, Justice Michael Kirby.

                                    #

But peacemaking is never over until it's over, and the crucial necessity now became for the Paris Agreements to be effectively implemented. On 28 February 1992 the UN Security Council approved the overall plan for UNTAC which called for 15 900 military personnel, 3600 civilian police and 1020 administrative personnel: 34 nations contributed to the military operation and 45 to the peace keeping exercise overall, a breathtakingly large commitment from the international community in terms of anything that had gone before.

The first UNTAC units arrived in Cambodia on 15 March 1992, accompanied by the Secretary-General's Special Representative, Yasushi Akashi, and the Australian commander of the military component, Lieutenant General John Sanderson, whose outstandingly professional leadership was in my judgement absolutely crucial to the success of the UNTAC operation. Trouble was not long in coming. By June 1992 it became apparent that one of the central elements of the comprehensive settlement would not be fully implemented due to the refusal of the Khmer Rouge to canton and disarm their troops. Breaches of the ceasefire also occurred, though on a relatively small scale. More troubling were attacks directed at UNTAC civilian and military personnel. A reason cited by the Khmer Rouge for their intransigence was that Hun Sen's SOC retained control of their administrative structures: certainly it was the case that the UN Civil Administration component was deployed far too slowly, and never in fact became the confident monitoring and neutrality-guaranteeing body that it had been intended to be.

The Khmer Rouge never did cooperate with UNTAC or show any willingness to participate in the UN organised elections. Despite this, and the violence which characterised the electoral campaign (not instigated only by the Khmer Rouge), the general atmosphere was judged sufficiently neutral for the elections to proceed. This they did from 23-27 May 1993, with an almost 90 per cent turnout and, to everyone's surprise and delight, almost no violent disruptions. I don't think I have ever been more moved than when I saw those first satellite pictures of men, women and children lined up at the polling stations in their scores of thousands, knowing the risk of bomb attack, but thrilled at the prospect of peace at last, and the chance to have some say at last in how they lived their lives.

The results brought a further surprise, the clear winner being Sihanouk's FUNCINPEC, with Hun Sen's Cambodian People's Party (CPP) coming second. Hun Sen ¬-- in a foretaste of what was to come -- absolutely refused to accept this, and an uneasy power-sharing arrangement was eventually adopted, with the new Government headed by Sihanouk's son, Prince Ranariddh as 'First Prime Minister', and Hun Sen as 'Second Prime Minister', with mainly FUNCINPEC and CPP Co-Ministers in each portfolio.

We have to acknowledge that by no means did everything go perfectly with the UNTAC operation. Obvious lessons to be learned were the fundamental need for greater flexibility within UN Headquarters and in the field to get an operation up and running and to deal more rapidly with significant changes in conditions. There were also, as I have already indicated, serious weaknesses in the actual implementation of what was in many ways the most innovative single element of the Paris Plan, i.e. the civil administration function.

It is also clear, in retrospect, that the Paris Agreements should have included specific measures for building a functioning criminal justice system as part of the transitional period and postconflict peace-building exercise, as the rule of law, and institutions needed to support it, had clearly broken down in Cambodia. If a peacekeeping force is given a mandate to guard against human rights violations, but there is no functioning system to bring violators to justice - even those who violate others' right to life - then not only is the UN force's mandate to that extent unachievable, but its whole operation is likely to have diminished credibility, both locally and internationally.

Despite all the setbacks and deficiencies, the UN-supervised settlement did achieve its principal aims. It succeeded in removing the Cambodian conflict as a source of regional tension; it enabled Vietnam to enter into much more productive relations regionally and internationally; external patrons withdrew material support for the various political groupings, sucking away the oxygen that had sustained civil war for so long; the more than 365 000 displaced Cambodians from the Thai border were successfully repatriated; the path was cleared for Cambodia to assume its rightful place in the community of nations; and reconstruction could at last begin.

                                    #

At the signing of the Paris Peace Agreements in 1991 I said in the course of my speech: "Peace and freedom are not prizes which, once gained, can never be lost. They must be won again each day. Their foundations must be sunk deep into the bedrock of political stability, economic prosperity and above all else, the observance of human rights."

The truth of that observation has been amply demonstrated in the course of events since 1993. The democratic process has remained fragile, the biggest shock coming with Hun Sen's coup in July 1997, but with plenty of other things to be legitimately concerned about before and since, including the continued obstacles put in the way of Sam Rainsy and his party operating as a full-throated opposition voice. The legal system is still in very poor shape, with far too many still having a sense of impunity, i.e that they can do just about anything without the justice system touching them, and continuing troubling signs of politicization of the courts, including for example the renewed detention just last month of human rights defender Leang Sokchuen in a case that has been taken up by Human Rights Watch, with the offence for which he was convicted being changed in the course of his appeal to one that did not exist at the time he committed it: the only crime he seems to have committed was criticising the government.

Similarly there has been a long and tortuous process involved in bringing to justice the main perpetrators of the 1970s genocide, in the hybrid national-international tribunal set up for this purpose. I am not as critical as some of the decision by the government not to continue the prosecutions beyond the present core surviving leadership group -- including Khieu Sampan, with whom I had personally many negotiating sessions (a disconcerting experience when you stop to think of the magnitude of the slaughter for which he had shared responsibility) -- but it is hard not to be deeply unimpressed by the political gamesmanship and lack of evidently sincere commitment to the process over many years.

When we set in train the UN peace plan for Cambodia in 1989 it was with a three part agenda, the hope being to deliver not just peace, but democracy and human rights as well. I suspected at the time that we were being a little optimistic on the latter two objectives, and this has absolutely proved to be the case.

That doesn't diminish the scale of the original achievement: what was desperately needed was a return to some semblance of normality, after years of the most horrific violence, and the peace process we commemorate this year did deliver that. Despite all the John Pilgers and other sceptics who blasted me at the time, loudly proclaiming that the Australian-initiated peace process was playing into the hands of the Khmer Rouge, our confidence that it would lead to their eventual disintegration has been absolutely vindicated. One of the best bits of evidence that the wheel has turned is that Cambodia is now making a really significant contribution to UN peacekeeping in various parts of the world. From receiving blue berets to stabilize the country to sending blue berets to stabilize other countries is one hell of a full circle to turn!

And this peace in turn has made possible the gradual revival of confidence in the economy, to the extent that Cambodia is now one of the success stories of the region. I have to say that when I visited Phnom Penh a year ago, after a long time away, I could really sense the spirit of confidence and vitality in the air. Phnom Penh looks and feels very different, and very much more vibrant, than the city struggling to find its feet I knew twenty years ago.

But all that said, the glass is still only half full. In democracy and human rights terms, Cambodia still has a long way to go before it can stand proudly in the ranks of those nations who can credibly claim to fully respect both. It is crucial, for this reason, for civil society activists in Cambodia to main their commitment to effective change, and crucial for we in the rest of the world to give them all the support their commitment, and courage, deserves.

សន្ធិសញ្ញាទីក្រុនងបារីស ១៩៩១


Picos is a municipality in the state of Piauí in the Northeast region of Brazil. Picos is the state's third-largest city, located in the south-central region of Piauí and is the most economically developed city in the region. The city's financial prosperity, combined with its geographical location, gives Picos a "commercial hub" status, especially for fuel and honey (Picos is known as the "capital of honey"). As of 2020, the population was approximately 78,431.

Climate
According to data from INMET - National Institute of Meteorology, the city of Picos Piauí has average annual temperature of .

Demographics
The population of the city of Picos is currently 78,431 inhabitants (IBGE 2020), and 58,307 in urban areas and 15,107 in rural areas, thus characterizing the third largest city from Piaui. It has a population density of 137.23 inhabitants / km ².

Neighborhoods and Villages

Villages
Villages include Coroatá, Fátima do Piauí, Gameleira dos Rodrigues, Lagoa Grande, Mirolândia, Morrinhos, Samambaia, Saquinho, Sipaúba, Tapera, Torrões e Val Paraíso and Lagoa Comprida.

Neighborhoods
Named neighborhoods include Aerolândia, Altamira, Aroeiras do Matadouro, Bairro de Fátima, Boa Sorte, Boa Vista, Bomba, Canto da Várzea, Catavento, Centro, Condurú, DNER, Ingazeira, Ipueiras, Jardim Natal, Junco, Malva, Morada do Sol, Morro da AABB, Pantanal, Vila do Flamengo, Paraibinha, Paroquial (Chão dos Padres), Parque de Exposição, Passagem das Pedras, Pedrinhas, Pedro Brito, São José, São Sebastião (Malvinas), Trisidela and Umari e Unha de Gato (3º BECnst).

Transportation
The city is served by Sen. Helvídio Nunes Airport.

Education

Schools

Public schools include E. Téc. Est. Petrônio Portela (PREMEM), Esc. Normal Official De Picos, U.E. Antonio Marques, U.E. Araújo Luz, U.E. Cel, Fco. Santos, U.E. Coelho Rodrigues, U.E. Dirceu Mendes Arcoverde, U.E. Jorge Leopoldo, U.E. José De Deus Barros, U.E. Julieta Neiva Nunes, U.E. Landri Sales, E. Pol. Marcos Parente, U.E. Mario Martins, U.E Miguel Lidiano, U.E. Ozildo Albano, U.E. Petrônio Portela, U.E. Poliv. Des. José Vidal Freitas, U.E. Teresinha Nunes, U.E. Urbano Eulálio Filho and Ceja José De Sousa Bispo.

Private schools include former Colégio São Lucas, Colégio Decisão, Colégio Machado de Assis, former Colégio Antares, now Colégio São Judas tadeu, Instituto Monsenhor Hipólito (Colégio das Irmãs), Colégio Santa Rita, and Instituto Nivardo Moura.

Colleges and Universities
 UESPI - State University of Piauí
 UFPI - Federal University of Piauí
 IESRSA - Institute of Higher Education R. Sá
 IFPI - Federal Institute for Education, Science and Technology
 ISEAF - Institute of Education Antonino Freire
 UNOPAR - Universidade Norte do Paraná

Federal Institutes of Education and Learning
 SENAI/FIEP (National Service of Industrial Learning)
 Senac (National Service of Commercial Learning)
 SESI (Industrial Social Service)
 SEST/Senate (Social Service Transportation / National Service Learning Transportation)

References

See also
List of municipalities in Piauí

Municipalities in Piauí
Populated places established in 1890

Picos


Charles Henry Aldrich (August 28, 1850 – April 13, 1929) was an American politician who served as a Solicitor General of the United States.

He attended the University of Michigan and received his A.B. in 1875. The University also awarded Charles an honorary masters in 1893. Admitted to the bar in 1876, Aldrich established a practice in Fort Wayne, Indiana, for 10 years. He then moved to Chicago, where he maintained his practice from 1886 up until his appointment to U.S. Solicitor General.

In March 1892, Aldrich was appointed Solicitor General in place of William Howard Taft, who had just been appointed judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. During his time as Solicitor General, Aldrich notably litigated the debated lives of United States patents, which principally involved telephone and electric light companies. He held the position until May 1893.

Aldrich returned to private practice after his service in the Office of the Solicitor General. Aldrich's achievements also included his leadership in various legal organizations, including president of the Chicago Law Club, member of the Chicago, Illinois, and American Bar Associations, trustee of the Chicago Law Institute, and Vice President of the Union League Club.

Aldrich was married to Helen Roberts on October 13, 1875. The couple had two children, Charles H. Aldrich, Jr. and Helen Aldrich Hare.

He died on April 13, 1929, in Chicago, aged 78, and was interred near his hometown in Orland, Indiana.

External links

1850 births
1929 deaths
Politicians from Chicago
Indiana lawyers
Lawyers from Chicago
United States Solicitors General
University of Michigan alumni
People from LaGrange County, Indiana
People from Orland, Indiana
People from Fort Wayne, Indiana
19th-century American lawyers

Charles H. Aldrich


The J. Henry Meyer Memorial Library was a library at Stanford University in California. It was dedicated on December 2, 1966. In 2007, a seismic assessment identified $45 million in required retrofits, more than the cost of a new library elsewhere on campus. Consequently, the library was designated for closure and a new design was accepted featuring a public open space area at the site. The library closed permanently on August 22, 2014, and was demolished during the months of February and March, 2015.

Designed by architect and Stanford alumnus John Carl Warnecke, Meyer Library's arcades featured high columns and vaulted ceilings. It was a four-story building with a sloping tile roof, and the outer sides of the building were lined with vertical bands of tall windows. The inner, central section of each side of the building was covered with a mesh of small windows.

The first floor of the Meyer Library consisted of several seminar rooms, a computer cluster, and a 24-hour study room. The first floor was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The second floor was the home of Academic Computing and Residential Computing, which provided technological expertise and resources to faculty and students. There was a specialized Multimedia Studio and a Digital Language Lab. The Meyer Technology Services Desk provided direct troubleshooting and consulting services. The third floor contained library systems and offices.

The fourth floor housed the East Asia Library, which has a vast Chinese collection of over 300,000 volumes, a Japanese collection of over 100,000 volumes, and a Korean collection of over 10,000 volumes. This collection was moved to the new Lathrop Library.

Namesake
The library was named for J. Henry Meyer (1855–1921), a wealthy California businessman who was an early supporter of Stanford, particularly the Stanford libraries. He was born in Sacramento and settled in San Francisco. He was a banker and an important influence on the development of the street railway systems in San Francisco and Los Angeles. He helped underwrite the establishment of Stanford's Lane Medical Library, and in 1916 he created a Stanford endowment fund to collect important western historical manuscripts. Two of his three children graduated from Stanford, and they continued his tradition of supporting the university. Their support, together with a grant from the U.S. Office of Education, made the undergraduate library possible, and it was named in their father's honor.

See also
 Stanford University Libraries

References

External links
 Stanford University Libraries

Library buildings completed in 1966
Meyer Library
Meyer Library
Demolished buildings and structures in California
Buildings and structures demolished in 2015

J. Henry Meyer Memorial Library


Maastricht (Limburgish: Mestreech) is a city in the south of the Netherlands. It is the capital city of the province of Limburg.
About 120,000 people live there.
Maastricht has an airport and a university (Maastricht University).

The first settlement in that region was founded in the Stone age about 25000 years ago, the first permanent settlement was founded by the Celts about 500 B.C. Maastricht got City Rights in 1204. Since 1815, after the Napoleonic Wars, Maastricht belongs to the Netherlands. The European Contract of 1992 was signed in Maastricht, the so-called Treaty of Maastricht.

History
The first settlement was about 25000 years ago. Real permanent settlements (and not just hunter gatherers) were founded at least as early as 5000 B.C. 4000 years after that, the Celts built a settlement in Maastricht. They presumably worshipped a River God. A Roman city was built around 0 AD, making Maastricht the oldest city of the Netherlands (together with Nijmegen). In this time, Maastricht was called Trajectum ad Mosam. This means Road across the Maas. A Roman bridge in Maastricht connected the west with the east, making Maastricht a very strategic point. This bridge - located at Eksterstraat - collapsed in the 13th century, and was replaced by the famous St. Servaas bridge.

In the early middle-ages Maastricht was very important in the spreading of Christianity in the Netherlands. In the 4th century, the bishop St. Servaas was the first bishop in the Netherlands, and the Onze Lieve Vrouwekerk (which also is the oldest still standing building in the Netherlands) could be described as the root of Christianity in the Netherlands. Servaas' remains are still kept in Maastricht in a tomb.

Maastricht received its City Rights fairly early, in 1204. It was of strategic importance during the Eighty Years War and the Napoleonic Wars. Therefore, Maastricht has two forts; Fort St. Pieter and Fort St. Jan. Maastricht also had city walls. Remains of those walls can still be seen today (notably the Helpoort is one the few still standing City Ports).

In the beginning of the 20th century, Maastricht was an industrial city, with many factory's. Jan Pieter Minckeleers - a scientist from Maastricht - was the first to discover Coal Gas, making the first city lights available. In 1940, Maastricht was conquered by the German forces. However, many paintings were hidden in the caves at Sint Pietersberg - a steep hill in the south-west of Maastricht. Even De Nachtwacht was hidden there. Maastricht was liberated on 14 September 1944. In 1992 Maastricht was the host-city for the 1992 European Treaty, where the EU was officially formed and a decision was made about the Euro.

Topography
Maastricht is located on both sites of the river Maas in the south-east of The Netherlands and the south-west of the province of Limburg. Maastricht lies in a valley, the Maasvalley, so hills surround the city. On the south-west of the city, the famous St. Pietersberg is located. On the western edge of the city, there is no space between the city and the Belgian border. On the east, is the Savelsbos (a forest). Neighbouring municipality's are Eijsden and Visé (B) in the south, Lanaken (B) and Riemst (B) in the west, Meerssen and Valkenburg in the north, and Margraten in the east.

Traffic and public transport
The city can easily be reached. There is a highway (A2; E25) running from the south to the north (within the Netherlands, this highway runs from Eijsden to Amsterdam). Another highway also begins in Maastricht, the A79 (going to the east). Maastricht has two train stations (Maastricht and Maastricht Randwyck). Trains are going to Amsterdam, Heerlen, Roermond, and Brussels (B). Plans are made to re-establish the old train route to Lanaken (B). If this connections is to be made again, Maastricht will be accessible from all directions by train.

A few kilometres north of Maastricht, is the Maastricht Aachen Airport. That's the second airport of The Netherlands.

Areas
Maastricht is divided into many areas. The areas Heer, Amby, St. Pieter, and Wolder used to be individual villages, but are now (for a few decades) part of Maastricht. According to the Dutch central bureaus of statistics (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek; CBS), Maastricht can be divided into seven larger districts. These are:

 Centre. (areas: Binnenstad, Jekerkwartier, Kommelkwartier, Statenkwartier, Boschstraatkwartier, Sint Maartenspoort, Wyck)
 South-West. (Villapark, Jekerdal, Biesland, Campagne, Wolder, Sint Pieter)
 West. (Brusselsepoort, Mariaberg, Belfort, Pottenberg, Malpertuis, Caberg, Oud-Caberg, Malberg, Dousberg-Hazendans, Daalhof)
 North-West. (Boschpoort, Bosscherveld, Frontenkwartier, Belvédère, Lanakerveld)
 East. (Wyckerpoort, Heugemerveld, Wittevrouwenveld, Nazareth, Limmel, Scharn, Amby)
 North-East. (Beatrixhaven, Borgharen, Itteren, Meerssenhoven)
 South-East). (Randwyck, Heugem, Heer, De Heeg, Vroendaal)

References

Other websites
City of Maastricht, official site (Dutch)
City of Maastricht, official site (English)
Map of Maastricht

Tourism
Tourist Board, Dutch, English, French or German
Hotels in Maastricht
Sights in Maastricht
Restaurants in Maastricht
MaastrichtNet, Agenda for Maastricht with English Section Highlights of the Week
Maastricht360.nl, 360° view of Maastricht
Bonnefanten Museum

History
Maastricht in Roman times
Churches of Maastricht
News Reports of Musketeer Skeletons found
Webpage about the fortifications

Higher education and research
Maastricht University
Academie van Bouwkunst Maastricht (Academy of Architecture)
Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology - United Nation University
Maastricht School of Management
Center for European Studies (CES)
Conservatorium Maastricht (Academy of Music)
Toneelacademie Maastricht (Academy of Dramatic Arts)
Academie Beeldende Kunsten Maastricht (Academy of Fine Arts)
Jan van Eyck Academie

Other
Vastelaoftrap Kickoff of the carnival days
Crossroads  English-language website for expatriates in Maastricht, published by the European Journalism Centre

Maastricht


Imber is a village in Wiltshire, England, which has no people. It is on Salisbury Plain, a flat area in Southern England. The people of Imber were moved out in 1943, and rehoused elsewhere. The whole area was needed as a training ground for the military. Imber is now part of the British Army's largest training area in England.

The area around Imber has been settled since the Iron Age, before the Romans came to Britain. The first mention of the village was in Saxon times, in 967. The village is also listed in the Domesday Book. At that time, around fifty people lived there. The village has a church that was built in the 13th century. In the 14th century, about 250 people lived in the village. In 1851, the population reached its peak at about 440 people. When they left in 1943, about 150 people had to move.

Other websites
 Google Satellite mapThe link does not deliver to the exact place, The actual area is north-west of the green arrow, and best got by typing "Imber, Wiltshire" into the Google search box.

Villages in Wiltshire

Imber


The Hong Kong Film Critics Society Awards () are the annual awards given by the Hong Kong Film Critics Society in Hong Kong since 1994. The awards are determined by votes cast in three rounds after a substantial discussion session between the members of the society. The transcript of such discussion can be found in the annual journal of Hong Kong film reviews which is published by the society every year.

The society presented the awards in a casual but star-studded ceremony. Over the years, several venues have been used for the award presentation, including Planet Hollywood Restaurant (closed), Hong Kong Art Centre, Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, and Hong Kong Film Archive.

Awards ceremonies

Notes

External links
 Official site
 Hong Kong Film Critics Society Awards at Internet Movie Database

Hong Kong Film Critics Society Awards
Cinema of Hong Kong
Chinese film awards
Awards established in 1995
Annual events in Hong Kong
1995 establishments in Hong Kong

Hong Kong Film Critics Society Award


The western grey kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus) is a large and very common kangaroo or macropod. It lives right across the southern part of Australia. They live from just south of Shark Bay in Western Australia to western Victoria. In South Australia they live along the coast. They also live in the Murray-Darling Basin in New South Wales and Queensland.  The subspecies on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, is called the Kangaroo Island kangaroo.

Description
The western grey kangaroo is one of the largest kangaroos. It weighs 28–54 kg and its length is 0.84-1.1m with a 80–100 cm tail, and is about 1.3m tall. It has sexual dimorphism with the male up to twice the size of female. It has thick, coarse fur with colour ranging from pale grey to brown. It has a paler color on its throat, chest and belly. It feeds at night, mainly on grasses but also on leafy shrubs and low trees. It has a nickname Stinker because mature males have a curry-like odour.

The kangaroo lives in groups of up to 15. The males compete for females during the breeding season. During these "boxing" contests, they would lock arms and try to push each other over. Usually, only the strongest male in the group mates. The gestation period is 30–31 days. After the birth, the tiny baby Joey attaches to the teat in the females pouch for nine months. After it comes out of the pouch, it will continue to drink milk from the mother's pouch for about another nine months.

Classification
Long known to the Aboriginal people of Australia, for Europeans, the western grey was the centre of a great deal of sometimes comical taxonomic confusion for almost 200 years. It was first noted by European settlers when the great explorer Matthew Flinders landed on Kangaroo Island in 1802. Flinders shot several for food but assumed that they were eastern grey kangaroos. In 1803 French explorers captured several Kangaroo Island Western Greys and shipped them home to Paris, where they lived in the zoological gardens for some years. Eventually, researchers at the Paris Museum of Natural History recognised that these animals were indeed different and formally described the species as Macropus fuliginosus in 1817. Unfortunately, for reasons that remain unclear, it was described as native to Tasmania.

There the matter rested for over 100 years, and it was not until 1917 that researchers realised that the "forester kangaroo" of Tasmania was in fact Macropus giganteus, the same western grey kangaroo that was, and still is, widespread in the more fertile south-eastern part of the mainland. By 1971, it was understood that the Kangaroo Island species was the same as the kangaroos of southern Western Australia, and that this population extended through much of the eastern part of the continent as well. For a time, three subspecies were described, two on the mainland and one on Kangaroo Island. Finally, by the early 1990s, the current understanding emerged.

Subspecies

There are two subspecies of the western grey: Macropus fuliginosus fuliginosus which lives on Kangaroo Island, and Macropus fuliginosus melanops, which has a range of different types that change gradually from west to east.

The western grey does not live in the tropical north or the fertile south-east of Australia. The eastern grey does not live over the NSW-South Australia border, but the two species are both common in the Murray-Darling Basin area. They never interbreed in the wild, although hybrids between eastern grey females and western grey males have been produced in captivity.

The western grey kangaroo is also called the black-faced kangaroo, mallee kangaroo, sooty kangaroo and carno kangaroo.

References

Macropods
Marsupials of Australia

Western grey kangaroo


The Congress of Arras was a meeting in Arras in 1435, between representatives of England, France, and Burgundy. The Treaty of Arras (1435) was an important diplomatic win for France, late in the Hundred Years' War. The English expected only to talk peace with the French. However, Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy made peace with Charles VII of France. This hurt England because Philip the Good had helped them for 16 years. Richard the Lionheart refused to accept any documents of proposals after the signing.

Hundred Years' War
1435
15th century in England
15th century in France
Arras

Congress of Arras