The Chennai Super Kings (abbreviated as CSK) is a franchise cricket team standing for Chennai, Tamil Nadu (India), playing in the Indian Premier League (IPL). Founded in 2008, the team played its home matches at the M. A. Chidambaram Stadium in Chennai. On 14 July 2015, the Supreme Court appointed RM Lodha committee suspended the Super Kings from the IPL for a period of two years for the alleged involvement of their owners in the 2013 Indian Premier League betting case.Prior to the suspension, the team was captained by Mahendra Singh Dhoni and coached by Stephen Fleming.It has most fans in instagram around 12.9 million follwers.

The Super Kings had won the title Four  in succession (2010, 2011and 2018,2021,2023).In 2010, they won the Champions League Twenty20 for the first time and repeated the feat in 2014. The leading run-scorer of the team is Suresh Raina, while the leading wicket-taker is Ravichandran Ashwin.CSK has most records of appearance in playoffs (12) and finals(10) The team has one of the strongest fan base in india. They are current defending champions

Franchise History
In September 2007, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) announced the establishment of the Indian Premier League, a Twenty20 competition to be started in 2008.In January 2008, the BCCI unveiled the owners of eight city-based franchises. The Chennai franchise was sold to the India Cements for $91 million, making it the fourth most expensive team in the league behind Mumbai, Bangalore and Hyderabad.India Cements acquired the rights to the franchise for 10 years.

Team history

2008–2009: First seasons
During the first player auctions for the inaugural IPL season conducted in January 2008, the Chennai franchise bought a number of contemporary star cricketers such as Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Matthew Hayden, Stephen Fleming, Muttiah Muralitharan and Michael Hussey. Dhoni became the costliest player of the auction, as the Chennai franchise bought him for $1.5 million.The franchise named Dhoni as the captain of the team and appointed Kepler Wessels as the head coach.They played their first game on 19 April 2008 against Kings XI Punjab at Mohali. The Super Kings won the game by 33 runs after posting 240/5 in 20 overs, which was the highest total of the tournament, a record surpassed by themselves in 2010.The Super Kings ended the league stage with eight wins from 14 games and finished third on the points table.They beat the Kings XI Punjab by 9 wickets in the semifinal.The Super Kings faced the Rajasthan Royals in the final of the IPL at Mumbai. Batting first, the Super Kings scored 163/5 in 20 overs and lost the game by 3 wickets off the final delivery of the match.

In 2009 season, The Super Kings finished with 17 points from 14 matches and earned a second place at the league table.However, at the semi-finals, their hopes of entering the final for a second time were crushed by the Royal Challengers who beat them by 6 wickets.The Super Kings opener Matthew Hayden, who scored 572 runs in 12 innings with 5 half-centuries at an average of 52 and strike-rate of 145, won the Orange Cap for the leading run-scorer of the season and was also adjudged Player of the Tournament.

2010: IPL and CLT20 double wins
In 2010, the Super Kings struggled in the first half of the regular season, winning only two matches out of seven. They won four of their next five games in the season mainly due to the efforts of Murali Vijay and Suresh Raina. After a defeat at home to the Delhi Daredevils, the Super Kings were left with a must-win match against Kings XI Punjab at Dharamsala. The Super Kings won the match by six wickets as they chased down the target of 193 with two balls to spare with skipper Dhoni scoring an unbeaten 54 from 29 balls.Chennai got the third place as they had the better net run rate of the four teams which finished on 14 points.In the semifinal, the Super Kings scored a modest 142/7 in 20 overs against the defending champions Deccan Chargers. But an inspired bowling spell from Doug Bollinger (4/13 in four overs) did the most damage as the Chargers were bowled out for 104. This gave the Super Kings a 38-run victory that took them to the final. The Super Kings faced the tournament favorites Mumbai Indians at their home ground in the final.Suresh Raina's 57 (35) helped the Super Kings recover from 68/3 after 12 overs to put up 168/5 at the end of their 20 overs. Then, their spin duo of Ravichandran Ashwin and Muralitharan conceded only 41 runs in the 8 overs bowled between them to help the Super Kings won the game by 22 runs and secure their first ever IPL title.With this, the Super Kings also qualified for the 2010 Champions League Twenty20 that was held in South Africa.

At the Champions League, the Super Kings were placed in Group A along with champions of Twenty20 competitions from Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. The Super Kings were at the top of the Group table with three wins and a Super Over defeat to the Victorian Bushrangers.In the semi-final at Durban, the Super Kings comprehensively defeated IPL rivals Royal Challengers Bangalore by 52 runs. Raina won the Man of the match for his unbeaten 94 off 48 balls.The Super Kings played their first CLT20 final at Johannesburg where they beat the Chevrolet Warriors by 8 wickets, becoming the first IPL team to win the CLT20. Murali Vijay won not only the Man of the Match in the final for his 58 but also the Golden Bat for scoring the most runs in the tournament and Ashwin, who was the leading wicket-taker, was adjudged the Player of the Series. At the end of the season, Matthew Hayden decided to retire from the IPL.

2011-2015 seasons
In 2011, as two new teams were added to the IPL, the IPL Governing Council declared that each franchise could retain a maximum of four players of their squad, only three of whom can be Indian players, and the rest of the international players would be put in the mega-auction. The Chennai franchise, keen to have the same set of core players, retained captain MS Dhoni, vice-captain Suresh Raina, Murali Vijay and all-rounder Albie Morkel for a total of $4.5 million. At the auction, they bought back some of their star players of previous seasons such as Hussey, Ashwin, Bollinger and Subramaniam Badrinath. In the 2011 IPL, they lost three of their first five games which placed them at the bottom of the ten-team points table.But then, they went on to win seven of their next eight games to finish second and register a spot in the knockout stages. They faced the top-ranked team Royal Challengers Bangalore in the Qualifying final which they won by 6 wickets thanks to an unbeaten 73 from Suresh Raina.
In the final, they faced the same opponents again, which was held at their home ground Chepauk. Vijay and Hussey put on a 133-run first-wicket partnership that helped the Super Kings to post a total of 205/5. Their bowlers, then, restricted Bangalore to only 147 to take the Super Kings to second consecutive title in the IPL. Vijay was awarded Man of the Match for his match-winning innings of 95.CSK also won all their home games that season becoming the first team in IPL to achieve the feat. However at the Champions League later that year, they won only one out of their four group matches and finished at the bottom.

In 2012, the franchise signed up Indian all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja for $2 million at the players' auction.They got off to a rather slow start in the regular season, winning only five of their first 12 games which put them in doubt of qualifying for the Playoffs. Then they won three of their last four matches and qualified for the Playoffs with a better net run rate than the Royal Challengers who also finished with the same number of points.In the Eliminator, they beat the Mumbai Indians by 38 runs before comprehensively beating the table-toppers Delhi Daredevils in the Qualifying final by 86 runs. Murali Vijay, who struck his second IPL hundred (113 off 58 balls), won the Man of the Match.At the final, the Super Kings were defeated by 5 wickets by the Kolkata Knight Riders who chased down the target of 191 with two balls to spare, thus denying the Super Kings a hat-trick of titles in the IPL. At the Champions League, once again they could not progress past the group stage with two wins and two defeats.

In 2013, the Super Kings strengthened their bowling attack by signing up five overseas and five Indian bowlers. In the IPL season, they finished first in the points table with 11 wins from 16 matches and qualified for the Playoffs and 2013 CLT20. This was the first time in six seasons that the Super Kings had was at the top of the league table of the IPL. During the season, they also equaled Royal Challengers Bangalore's 2011 record for most wins in succession in the IPL (7 wins on trot). In the first Qualifier at Delhi against Mumbai Indians, the Super Kings posted 192/1 in 20 overs riding on unbeaten half-centuries from Hussey (86* off 58 balls) and Raina (82* off 42 balls) before bowling out their opponents for 144. Thus they entered the final of the IPL for the fourth time in succession where they would play the same opponents, Mumbai Indians, at Kolkata. At the final, batting first, the Mumbai Indians made 148/9 in their 20 overs. In reply, the Super Kings were reduced to 39/6 at one stage before an unbeaten half-century from skipper Dhoni took them close to the target. However, Mumbai Indians won the match by 23 runs to win their first ever IPL title. Super Kings opening batsman Michael Hussey, who scored 733 runs that season at an average of 52, won the Orange Cap for the most runs in the season while all-rounder Dwayne Bravo won the Purple Cap for bagging the most wickets (32). The Super Kings gained direct qualification for the 2013 CLT20 which was held in India in September–October. They were placed in Group B alongside Brisbane Heat, Sunrisers Hyderabad, Titans and Trinidad & Tobago. They won their first three games before losing the final group match against Trinidad & Tobago. With 12 points from four matches, the Super Kings progressed to the semifinals where they suffered a 14-run defeat at the hands of the Rajasthan Royals at Jaipur.

In 2014,The Super Kings started the season with a defeat in the opening match, after which they went on to win eight of their next nine matches to take the first spot in the points table. However, they suffered a loss of form towards the end of the regular season which resulted in three consecutive defeats. They won their last league fixture and finished third in the points table and qualified for the Eliminator against the fourth-placed Mumbai Indians. They won the Eliminator at Mumbai by 7 wickets and qualified for the Qualifier. At the Qualifier against Kings XI Punjab, the Super Kings won the toss and elected to field. Punjab went on to score 226/6 in their 20 overs. The Super Kings, in reply, could manage only 202/7 despite a 25-ball 87 from Raina. They crashed out of the IPL, but, on account of finishing third, qualified for the main event of the 2014 CLT20. In the group stage of the CLT20, the Super Kings won two matches, lost one while another match was a no result. Thus with 10 points they finished second in the group table and qualified for the semifinal where they met the unbeaten team of the other group, Kings XI Punjab. After being put in to bat, the Super Kings posted 182/7 in 20 overs thanks to Bravo who scored a 39-ball 67. Then their bowlers reduced Punjab to 34/6 in the eighth over, and Punjab were eventually bowled out for 117. At the final in Bangalore, the Super Kings faced the IPL champions Kolkata Knight Riders who set them a target of 181 in 20 overs. Raina guided the run-chase with an unbeaten 109 off 62 balls, helping the team to an eight-wicket win and their second CLT20 title. Super Kings spinner Pawan Negi who took 5/22 during Kolkata's innings won the Man of the Match, and Raina, who finished as the highest run-getter of the tournament, was awarded Man of the Tournament.

In 2015, before the players' auction, Chennai Super Kings gave away Ben Hilfenhaus, John Hastings, Vijay Shankar and David Hussey. At the auction they bought back Michael Hussey for a price of Rs.1.5 crores. They also bought Kyle Abbott, Irfan Pathan, Andrew Tye, Eklavya Dwivedi, Ankush Bains, Pratyush Singh and Rahul Sharma. In the final, they lost against Mumbai.

Controversies
In May 2013, Gurunath Meiyappan, son-in-law of Srinivasan, was arrested by Mumbai Police on charges of placing bets on IPL matches  Meiyappan, who was the Team Principal of the Super Kings, was issued a summons by the Mumbai Police and on interrogation it was found that Meiyappan was in contact with bookies through actor Vindu Dara Singh. Following this, Srinivasan, on 2 June 2013, decided to step aside as BCCI President temporarily until the inquiry into the betting case completed. In February 2014, the three member panel appointed by the Supreme Court of India enquired into the betting case indicted Meiyappan for illegal betting during the 2013 IPL.

On 25 March 2014, the Supreme Court of India issued an ultimatum to the BCCI demanding that Srinivasan either step down as President or be removed from his position. On 14 July 2015, the Supreme Court appointed RM Lodha committee suspended the owners of Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super Kings from the Indian Premier League for a period of two years. On 24 February 2016, the Supreme Court of India agreed to hear a plea for lifting the ban on the Chennai Super Kings.

Awards and Achievements
2008 Indian Premier League
 Runners-up of 2008 Indian Premier League
 Fair Play Award Winner
 Highest total of the tournament (240/5)
 Centuries: (Michael Hussey 116*)
 Hat-tricks: (Lakshmipathy Balaji and Makhaya Ntini)

2009 Indian Premier League
 Semi-finalists of 2009 Indian Premier League
 Winner of Orange Cap (Matthew Hayden)
 Player of the Tournament (Matthew Hayden)

2010 Indian Premier League
 Champions of the 2010 Indian Premier League
 Fair Play Award Winner
 Highest team total of the tournament (246/5)
 Best bowling figures of the tournament (Doug Bollinger )
 Highest score in the tournament (Murali Vijay 127)
 Centuries (Murali Vijay 127)
 IPL Awards: Best Fielder (Suresh Raina)
 IPL Awards: Most Economical Bowler (Ravichandran Ashwin)

2010 Champions League
 Champions of 2010 Champions League Twenty20
 Winner of Golden Bat (Murali Vijay)
 Highest individual score (Suresh Raina 94*)
 Winner of Golden Wicket (Ravichandran Ashwin)
 Best bowling figures of the tournament(Ravichandran Ashwin 4/18)
 Player of the Tournament (Ravichandran Ashwin)

2011 Indian Premier League
 Champions of the 2011 Indian Premier League
 Fair Play Award Winner
 Won all home matches

2012 Indian Premier League
 Runners-up of 2012 Indian Premier League
 Highest team total of the tournament (222/5)
 Best bowling figure of the tournament (Ravindra Jadeja 5/16)
 Centuries: (Murali Vijay 113)
 1st player to score 2000 runs in IPL (Suresh Raina)

2013 Indian Premier League
 Runners-up of 2013 Indian Premier League
 1st team to register 50 wins in IPL
 Fair Play Award Winner
 Centuries: (Suresh Raina 100*)
 Winner of Orange Cap (Michael Hussey)
 Winner of Purple Cap (Dwayne Bravo)

2014 Indian Premier League
 Semi-Finalists
 Fair Play Award Winner
 First Team to play 100 games in IPL
 Suresh Raina becomes the first player to play 100 games and score 3000 runs in IPL
 Winner of Purple Cap (Mohit Sharma)

2014 Champions League
 Champions of 2014 Champions League Twenty20
 Centuries: (Suresh Raina 109*)
 Player of the Tournament: (Suresh Raina)
 Leading Run-Scorer of the Tournament: (Suresh Raina)
 Best Bowling Figures of the Tournament: (Pawan Negi)
 Maximum Sixes of the Tournament: (Suresh Raina)

2015 Indian Premier league
 Runners Up of 2015 Indian Premier League
 Fair Play Award Winner
 Centuries: (Brendon McCullum 100*)
 Best Bowling Figures: (Ashish Nehra) 4/10 (4 Overs)
 Winner of Purple Cap: (Dwayne Bravo) 26 wickets
 Best catch of the season: (Dwayne Bravo)

References

Indian Premier League
2008 establishments in India

Chennai Super Kings


Eater is a food website by Vox Media. It was co-founded by Lockhart Steele and Ben Leventhal in 2005, and originally focused on dining and nightlife in New York City. Eater launched a national site in 2009, and covered nearly 20 cities by 2012. Vox Media acquired Eater, along with two others comprising the Curbed Network, in late 2013. In 2017, Eater had around 25 local sites in the United States, Canada, and England. The site has been recognized twelve times by the James Beard Foundation Awards.

Description and history
The food and dining site Eater is a brand of the digital media company Vox Media. It serves as a local restaurant guide, offering reviews as well as news about the restaurant industry. The property earns revenue via advertising, sometimes displaying content generated by Vox Creative.

Eater was co-founded by Lockhart Steele and Ben Leventhal in July 2005, and initially focused on New York City's dining and nightlife scenes. The blog was one of three comprising the Curbed Network, founded by Steele in 2004, along with the real estate and fashion networks called Curbed and Racked, respectively. By 2007, Eater was receiving tens of thousands of readers per day. After expanding into Los Angeles and San Francisco, the network went national in 2009, and covered approximately 20 cities and one U.S. state (Maine) by mid 2012.

Vox Media purchased the Curbed Network for approximately  in November 2013. Traffic to Eater increased by 250 percent following the acquisition. In early 2014, Business Insider reported that Eater was generating approximately 2 million of Vox Media's 45 million unique monthly visitors, according to the analytics company comScore. The site began using Vox Media's content management system, Chorus, and producing more video content. Steele said he sold Eater partly to observe Chorus' influence on the site. The platform allows Eater to enhance map, journalistic, and visual features, and improves user engagement via forums.

In mid 2017, Eater launched a London site, the network's first outside North America. Eater hosted 23 sites for cities in the United States and Canada at the time.

In 2021, Vox Media acquired drinks website Punch as a brand within Eater.

Programming
Eater may be best known for its maps, which serve as guides to readers on where to eat in specific cities. In 2022, Eater launched their Eater 38 maps, which share 38 essential restaurants in each Eater cities. Other Eater maps include Eater heatmaps which spotlight the newest restaurants in cities; as well as maps focused on certain cuisines or certain neighborhoods. The majority of Eater maps showcase restaurants across the 23 US cities for which it has dedicated sites, but there are also maps identifying the best restaurants in popular national and international destinations including St. Louis, Honolulu, Kansas City, Barcelona, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, and Florence.

In addition to written content, Eater has a team devoted to video. The site produced a web series called Savvy, which featured chefs, restaurateurs, and sommeliers discussing dishes and cooking techniques. The program's second season aired in 2015. In 2017, Vox Media greenlit the series Cult Following and You Can Do This for Eater.Eater's video program is currently focused on mid-form docu-style video, with series such as Mise en Place, The Experts, Smoke Point, and Vendors. The program has earned five New York Emmy awards, including two for Vendors (one in 2022, another in 2021), and four Daytime Emmy nominations.

Eater and PBS collaborated on a six-episode documentary television show about the cuisine of immigrant neighborhoods throughout the U.S., hosted by chef and restaurateur Marcus Samuelsson. The show, No Passport Required, marked Eater's first television production project. Vox Entertainment produced the show, which premiered in July 2018. Vox Media executives Jim Bankoff and Marty Moe serve as two of several executive producers.

In January 2018, Eater and SB Nation aired an online three-episode celebrity cooking competition series sponsored by PepsiCo. The show featured National Football League players Greg Jennings, Rashad Jennings, and Nick Mangold as competitors, as well as chefs Anne Burrell and Josh Capon.

In 2020, Eater debuted its first TV series in partnership with Hulu, Eater's Guide to the World. The seven-episode show was hosted by Maya Rudolph and explored unique dining experiences across the world, with episodes spotlighting Los Angeles, Costa Rica, Casablanca, and more.

Eater has a robust digital footprint and presence across the most influential social platforms, including Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and Facebook, reaching over 30 million people a month across digital platforms.

In 2022, Eater announced its first book deal in partnership with Abrams publishing. Eater is slated to release a line of books, including a cookbook publishing in 2023 featuring restaurant recipes, edited by Eater restaurant editor Hillary Dixler Canavan, and travel guides to New York City and Los Angeles, publishing in 2024.

Leadership and editorial staff
Eater was initially led by co-founders Leventhal and Steele, who had the titles "Head Eater" and CEO, respectively. Steele, who also served as president of the Curbed Network, ranked number 34 in The Daily Meal 2011 list of "America's 50 Most Powerful People in Food", for his role as a founder of Eater.

In 2014, Amanda Kludt was named Eater first editor-in-chief, and Robert Sietsema was hired to be a New York-based food writer.

In March 2022, Stephanie Wu became Eater's second-ever editor-in-chief, succeeding Amanda Kludt. Kludt is now the group publisher of the lifestyle publications at Vox Media, comprising Eater, POPSUGAR, Punch, and Thrillist.

Reception
Food & Wine has called Eater "required reading". In 2006, the magazine included Steele and Leventhal in their "Tastemaker Awards" list, recognizing fifteen people who had significant impact on the food and wine industries by age 35, for their "ingenious" posts.

The network's content has been recognized twelve times by the James Beard Foundation Awards, established to honor excellence in cuisine, food writing, and culinary education in the United States. Eater has also won six awards from American Society of Magazine Editors (ASME) and five Emmys. On the local level, various Eater cities have been recognized by local chapters of the Society of Professional Journalists including the SPJ Northwest, SPJ Chicago, and SPJ DC as well as the New York Press Club and Los Angeles Press Club.

Eater has also popped up in popular culture, cited in TV shows such as The Bear and The Morning Show.

See also
 List of websites about food and drink

References

External links

2005 establishments in the United States
Vox Media
Websites about food and drink
Internet properties established in 2005

Eater (website)


On the morning of 7 April 2017, during the Syrian Civil War, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea into Syria, aimed at Shayrat Air Base. The strike was ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump as a direct response to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack on 4 April 2017.

The strike was the first unilateral attack by the United States military to intentionally target the Ba'athist Syrian government forces during the war.

President Trump justified the strike by stating that it is in the national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons in the world.

References

2017 in Asia
2017 in the United States
April 2017 events
2010s in Syria

2017 Shayrat missile strike


The Missionaries of St. Francis de Sales (MSFS), also known as the Fransalians, was founded in Annecy, France on 24 October 1838 by Fr. Peter Mermier under the patronage of St. Francis de Sales. The political disturbances in the country, especially the French Revolution had its impact in the spiritual realm too as it left the people in a deep spiritual crisis and indifference towards their religious duties. Sensing the signs of the time Fr. Mermier took upon himself the task of a spiritual renewal in his people by preaching parish missions. This special apostolate in turn gave rise to a community of preachers gathered around Fr. Mermier.

History
It was founded in response to the desire of St. Francis de Sales to found a society of missionary priests. Nearly two centuries after the saint's death, Monsignor Joseph Rey, a successor of the Saint in the See of Annecy, broached the subject of such a society to Father Peter Mermier, who had been considering the same idea. Accordingly, Father Mermier put the design into execution.

In 1830 the institute was formed with La Feuillette as the site for the mother-house. This was solemnly blessed by the bishop on 8 August 1837, and the congregation canonically instituted by him on 8 October 1838. The society was not to be a mere association of priests, but a new religious congregation, bound by simple vows. Hence Father Mermier, the first superior-general, offered himself and his companions to the Pope for foreign missions. In 1845 his offer was accepted by Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, and the first missionaries of St. Francis de Sales set out for India.

The work has prospered and since that time more than 100 priests and seminarians have been sent out by the congregation, besides many lay brothers. More than 200 nuns of different orders have gone out at the call of the missionaries to help them. The first batch of the Fransalians (MSFS) landed in Pondichery on 8 September 1845 and the first batch of the Fransalians reached Visakhapatnam  on 19 February 1846. The Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples entrusted the Vicariate of Visakhapatnam to the Fransalians on 2 May 1848. Until 1888 there was only one region of the Fransalians in India: Visakhapatnam Region. In 1888 Nagpur region was created by bifurcating the Visakhapatnam region. Both were raised to the status of province in 1965.

The dioceses of Nagpur and Visakhapatnam have always been governed by prelates belonging to this institute. In Visakhapatnam the first vicar apostolic was Mgr. Neyret (1850); he was succeeded by Mgr. Tissot, first bishop of the diocese. The first bishop of Nagpur was Mgr. Riccaz; after him came Mgr. Pelvat, a great supporter of the Indian way of religious life and Indian Theology developed by Brahmabandhab Upadyay (1861 -1907), followed by Mgrs. Crochet, Bonaventure, and Coppel.

The Fransalians in France and Switzerland were directly under the Superior General until 1959. It became a region in 1960 and a province in 1965.

The Fransalians went to England in 1861. England became a region of the Fransalians in 1940 and a province in 1965. In England the fathers have three missions in the Diocese of Clifton. Since the persecution of 1903, the congregation has been obliged to leave Savoy for England, where the juvenate, the novitiate, and the house of studies are successfully carried on.

The mission in Brazil was begun in 1926. The Province of Brazil was established in 1965. In 1975 the Fransalians of the Visakhapatnam Province entered the North-East India for evangelization. In 1984 the vice-province of NE India was erected and later in 1990 it was raised to the status of a province.

Following the original vision of the Founder, the Servant of God, Fr. Mermier, the Fransalians entered the African Continent in 1988. The mission began in Tanzania and the Province of East-Africa comprising Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda, was established in 1996.

An autonomous American Mission in the US was founded in 1990 and later raised to the Status of a Region under the Superior General on 3 July 2007.

The South-West India Province was established in 1991 bifurcating the Visakhapatnam Province. The Visakhapatnam Province was further bifurcated to form the Tamil Nadu - Pondichery region under the Visakhapatnam Province on 24 January 2005. Three years later this region was raised to the status of  a Province with a new name, Chennai Province on 24 January 2008 and in the same year on 15 August 2008, it was renamed as South-East Province. The Nagpur Province was established in 1965 and was later renamed Maharashtra-Goa Province. It was bifurcated in 1996 and the present Nagpur and Pune provinces were erected.

The superiors-general since the foundation have been the Very Reverend Fathers Mermier, Gaiddon, Clavel, Tissot, Gojon, and Bouvard.

References

 "Missionaries of St.Francis de Sales: Some Important Dates" in Missionariorum Sancti Franscisci SalesiiStatus 2012
 "Fransalians", Devasia Manalel MSFS in A Concise Encyclopedia of Christianity in India2014, pp. 396 –398
 Duval, Adrien. Monsieur Mermier 1790 - 1862: Founder of Two Religious Congregations, Bangalore: SFS Publications, 1985
 Moget, Francis. Early Days of the Visakhapatnam Mission 1846 - 1920), Bangalore: IIS Publications, 1997
 Kuzhuppil, Devasia, Visakhapatnam Province,Bangalore: SFS Publications, 1990
 Mookenthottam, Antony, 150 Years MSFS on Indian Soil:1845 -1995,Bangalore: SFS Publications, 1996

External links

Religious organizations established in 1838
Salesian Order
1838 establishments in France

Missionaries of St. Francis de Sales


The Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) was a Justice Department agency that Richard Nixon established in January 1972, headed by Myles Ambrose. The office was chiefly a tool for the federal government to assist local government in enforcing drug laws and oblige drug addicts to undergo rehabilitation. In July 1973, ODALE was consolidated, along with several other agencies, into the newly established Drug Enforcement Administration.

Sources
The Quest for Drug Control by David F. Musto, Pamela Korsmeyer
PBS Frontline:Thirty Years of America's Drug War

Defunct federal law enforcement agencies of the United States
Government agencies established in 1972
Drugs in the United States
Drug Enforcement Administration
History of drug control in the United States
1972 establishments in the United States
Government agencies disestablished in 1973
1973 disestablishments in the United States

Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement


RealJukebox was a computer program released by RealNetworks that allowed users to organise their digital music. It was first released in May 1999. By late 2001 the functionality of the program had been integrated into the Real's core media player program, RealPlayer.

Versions
RealJukebox came in two flavors. Basic and Plus. The basic player had the ability to rip music, but its ability was limited to 96kbit/s for MP3 Music. It also disabled several features such as advanced automatic playlists, crossfading, format conversion, jewel case label printing, equalizer functionality, and had a limitation on the number of discs that could be burned.

The program did display advertising and has the ability to be removed if one pays a registration fee to remove the advertising and other program limitations.

References

Windows media players

RealJukebox


Email privacy is a broad topic dealing with issues of unauthorized access to, and inspection of, electronic mail, or unauthorized tracking when a user reads an email. This unauthorized access can happen while an email is in transit, as well as when it is stored on email servers or on a user's computer, or when the user reads the message. In countries with a constitutional guarantee of the secrecy of correspondence, whether email can be equated with letterstherefore having legal protection from all forms of eavesdroppingis disputed because of the very nature of email.</ref>

In 2022 a lookback at an 1890 law review article about personal privacy (the "right to be left alone") noted how "digital technology has been allowed to invade our lives" both by personal choice and behavior,  and also by various forms of ongoing monitoring.

An email has to go through potentially untrustworthy intermediate computers (email servers, ISPs) before reaching its destination, and there is no way to verify if it was accessed by an unauthorized entity. Through the process of information being sent from the user's computer to the email service provider, data acquisition is taking place, most of the time without the user knowing. There are certain data collection methods (routers) that are used for data privacy concerns, but there are others that can be harmful to the user. This is different from a letter sealed in an envelope, where, by close inspection of the envelope, it might be possible to determine if it had been previously opened. In that sense, an email is much like a postcard, the contents of which are visible to anyone who handles it.

There are certain technological workarounds that make unauthorized access to email difficult, if not impossible. However, since email messages frequently cross national boundaries, and different countries have different rules and regulations governing who can access an email, email privacy is a complicated issue.

Companies may have email policies requiring employees to refrain from sending proprietary information and company classified information through personal emails or sometimes even work emails. Co-workers are restricted from sending private information such as company reports, slide show presentations with confidential information, or email memos.

Technological workarounds

There are some technical workarounds to ensure better privacy of email communication. Although it is possible to secure the content of the communication between emails, protecting the metadata, for instance who sent email to whom, is fundamentally difficult. Even though certain technological measures exist, the widespread adoption is another issue because of reduced usability.

Encryption

According to Hilarie Orman, mail encryption was first developed in the mid-1980s. She states that mail encryption is a powerful tool that protects one's email privacy. Although it is widely available, it is rarely used, with the majority of email sent at risk of being read by third parties. In general, encryption provides protection against malicious entities. However, a court order might force the responsible parties to hand over decryption keys, with a notable example being Lavabit. Encryption can be performed at different levels of the email protocol.

Transport level encryption
With the original design of email protocol, the communication between email servers was plain text, which posed a huge security risk. Over the years, various mechanisms have been proposed to encrypt the communication between email servers. One of the most commonly used extension is STARTTLS. It is a TLS (SSL) layer over the plaintext communication, allowing email servers to upgrade their plaintext communication to encrypted communication. Assuming that the email servers on both the sender and the recipient side support encrypted communication, an eavesdropper snooping on the communication between the mail servers cannot see the email contents. Similar extensions exist for the communication between an email client and the email server.

End to end encryption

In end-to-end encryption, the data is encrypted and decrypted only at the end points. In other words, an email sent with end-to-end encryption would be encrypted at the source, unreadable to email service providers in transit, and then decrypted at its endpoint. Crucially, the email would only be decrypted for the end user on their computer and would remain in the encrypted, unreadable form to an email service, which wouldn't have the keys available to decrypt it. Some email services integrate end-to-end encryption automatically.

OpenPGP is a data encryption standard that allows end-users to encrypt the email contents. There are various software and email-client plugins that allow users to encrypt the message using the recipient's public key before sending it. At its core, OpenPGP uses a Public Key Cryptography scheme where each email address is associated with a public/private key pair.

OpenPGP provides a way for the end users to encrypt the email without any support from the server and be sure that only the intended recipient can read it. However, there are usability issues with OpenPGP — it requires users to set up public/private key pairs and make the public keys available widely. Also, it protects only the content of the email, and not metadata — an untrusted party can still observe who sent an email to whom. A general downside of end-to-end encryption schemes—where the server does not have decryption keys—is that it makes server side search almost impossible, thus impacting usability.

Architectural impact

The architecture of the system also affects the privacy guarantees and potential venues for information leakage. The email protocol was originally designed for email clients — programs that periodically download email from a server and store it on the user's computer. However, in recent years, webmail usage has increased due to the simplicity of usage and no need for the end users to install a program. Secure messaging is in use where an entity (hospitals, banks, etc.) wishes to control the dissemination of sensitive information. Secure messaging functions similarly to webmail, in that the user must log on to a websiteoperated by the company or entity in questionto read received messages.

With both secure messaging and webmail, all email data is stored on the email provider's servers and thus subject to unauthorized access, or access by government agencies. However, in the case of email clients, it is possible to configure the client such that the client downloads a copy of the message as it arrives, which is deleted from the server. Although there is no way to guarantee whether a server has deleted its copy of an email, it still provides protection against situations where a benign email server operator is served with a court order.

Other workarounds

Although encryption provides for a way to protect the contents of the message, it still fails to protect the metadata. Theoretically, mix networks can be used to protect the anonymity of communication (who contacted whom).

Another workaround that has been used is to save a message as a draft in a webmail system, and share the webmail login credentials with an intended recipient. As an example of a dead drop, this method defeats any kind of monitoring based on the actual email sent. However, this method infamously failed to protect the privacy of the participants in the Petraeus scandal; after coming under investigation for unrelated activities, communication between the parties was accessed by the FBI.

Legal standing

United States

Constitutional protection

Protection under the United States constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[T]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." This Amendment guarantees the privacy, dignity, and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the government or those acting at their direction. The Fourth Amendment is often invoked to protect individual privacy rights against government activities.

In the case of employer emails, although the words "the people" may appear to be broad and to include any employee, this amendment (or any other part of the United States constitution) has not been interpreted to protect the privacy interest of private-sector employees. By contrast, public-sector employees of federal, state, and local governments usually have privacy protection under the United States Constitution.

The protection under the fourth Amendment is not unlimited. For example, in O'Connor v. Ortega, the officials at a State Hospital, after placing Dr. Magno Ortega on administrative leave pending an investigation into possible workplace improprieties, searched his office. Dr. Ortega filed an action against the hospital alleging that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court found that the search was proper, but on appeal the circuit court found that the search did violate Dr. Ortega's Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court disagreed with both the lower courts. The Court's decision was based on consideration of two factors (i) whether Dr. Ortega had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and (ii) whether the search of Dr. Ortega's office was reasonable. The Court held that because Dr. Ortega had a private office, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the Court also found the search of his office to be reasonable because it was work-related. It considered the government's need to ensure efficient operation of the workplace as outweighing an employee's expectation of privacy, even if the privacy expectation is reasonable. Since work environments vary, a public-sector employee's expectation of privacy must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors the Court considered included (i) notice to employees, (ii) exclusive possession by an employee of keys to a desk or file cabinet, (iii) the government's need for access to documents, and (iv) the government's need to protect records and property.

In view of the Ortega decision, the extent of constitutional protection with respect to emails is unclear. Unlike a locked desk or file cabinet, emails are not locked; the employer has access to all messages on the system. Thus, it may be argued that with respect to email, the public-sector employee's legitimate expectations of privacy are diminished.

In some cases, the US constitutional protection can also extend to private-sector employees. This is possible when a private-sector employee can demonstrate "involved sufficient government action".

Protection under state constitutions

State constitutions in at least 10 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina and Washington) grant individuals an explicit right to privacy. The privacy protections afforded by some of these states mirrors the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution but often add more specific references to privacy. Further, general constitutional provisions in other states have also been interpreted by courts to have established privacy rights of various types. Like the rights under the US constitution, the privacy rights under state constitutions also usually extend to protection from the actions of state governments, not private organizations.

In 1972, California amended Article I, Section 1 of its state constitution to include privacy protections. A California appellate court then held that the state's right of privacy applied to both public and private sector interests. Further, in Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., the California Court of Appeals reaffirmed this view and held that an employer may not invade the privacy of its employees absent a "compelling interest".

In August 2014, Missouri became the first state to provide explicit constitutional (art. I, § 15) protection from unreasonable searches and seizures for electronic communications or data, such as that found on cell phones and other electronic devices.

Statutory protection

Federal statutes
The real-time interception of the contents of electronic communication is prohibited under the wiretap act, while the Pen Register Act provides protection from the interception of the non-content part of the electronic communication. The "From" and "To" fields along with the IP address of the sender/receiver have been considered as non-content information, while the subject has been considered as part of the content. Once the email is stored on a computer (email server/user computer), it is protected from unauthorized access under the Stored Communications Act (Title II of Electronic Communications Privacy Act).

After 180 days in the US, email messages stored on a third party server lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. After this time has passed, a government agency needs only a subpoena—instead of a warrant—in order to access email from a provider. However, if the emails are stored on a user's personal computer instead of a server, then that would require the police to obtain a warrant first to seize the contents. This has been criticized to be an obsolete law; at the time this law was written, extremely high-capacity storage on webmail servers was not available. In 2013, members of the US Congress proposed to reform this procedure.

An exception to these laws, however, is for email service providers. Under the provider exception, the laws do not apply to "the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service." This exception, for example, allows various free of charge email providers (Gmail, Yahoo Mail, etc.) to process user emails to display contextual advertising.

Another implication of the provider exception is access by employers. Email sent by employees through their employer's equipment has no expectation of privacy, as the employer may monitor all communications through their equipment. According to a 2005 survey by the American Management Association, about 55% of US employers monitor and read their employees' email. Attorney–client privilege is not guaranteed through an employer's email system, with US courts rendering contradictory verdicts on this issue. Generally speaking, the factors courts use to determine whether companies can monitor and read personal emails in the workplace include: (i) the use of a company email account versus a personal email account and (ii) the presence of a clear company policy notifying employees that they should have no expectation of privacy when sending or reading emails at work, using company equipment, or when accessing personal accounts at work or on work equipment.

State statutes
Privacy protections of electronic communications vary from state to state. Most states address these issues through either wiretapping legislation or electronic monitoring legislation or both.

Unlike the EPCA, most state statutes do not explicitly cover email communications. In these states a plaintiff may argue that the courts should interpret these statutes to extend protection to email communications. A plaintiff can argue that the wiretapping statutes reflect the general intent of the legislature to protect the privacy of all communications that travel across the telephone line (including emails). Further, the plaintiff may argue that email communications may be analogized to telegraphic communications, which are explicitly protected under most state statutes.

Generally, such efforts are not effective in protecting email privacy. For example, in Shoars vs. Epson America, Inc. case (Cal. Sup. Ct. filed
July 30, 1990) a California superior court refused to find employee email privacy protection in California's criminal code. California Penal Code Section 631 prohibits wire-tapping without the consent of all parties involved, adding that a person may not "read or attempt to read, learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in tran- sit or passing over any such wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within the state." The court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Section 631 did not apply since the legislation did not specifically refer to email communication.

State common law protection
The protection of email privacy under the state common law is evolving through state court decisions. Under the common law the email privacy is protected under the tort of invasion of privacy and the causes of action related to this tort. Four distinct torts protect the right of privacy. These are (i) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, (ii) misappropriation of others name and likeliness; (iii) unreasonable publicity given to another's private life and (iv) publicity that unreasonably places another in a false light before the public. Of these the tort of "unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another" is most relevant to the protection of email privacy. "Unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion of another" states that the invasion was intended to be private and the invasion was offensive to an individual.

European Union

The fifty-five article long Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union grants certain fundamental rights such as "right to be left alone" and "respect for private life" to both the European Union citizens and the residents. According to article 7 of the charter, everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home, and communications. The charter came into full legal effect when the Lisbon Treaty was signed on 1 December 2009.

The individual member states cannot enforce local laws that are contradictory to what they have already agreed upon as a European Union member. It was established in Costa v ENEL that the European Union law is placed above the laws of its individual member states.

Email privacy concerns (US)

Email at work

Most employers make employees sign an agreement that grants the right to monitor their email and computer usage. Signing this agreement normally deprives an employee of any reasonable expectation of privacy which means that employer can legally search through employee emails. Even without an agreement, courts have rarely found that the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy to their email at work for a variety of reasons. For example, one court held that emails used in a business context are simply a part of the office environment, the same as a fax or copy machine, in which one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Another court found that by corresponding with other people at work, work email was inherently work-related, and thus there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Employers usually do not have very many obstacles preventing them from searching employee emails. Employers may take the position that employees are sending communications from their equipment that could affect their business; this is usually considered to be a sufficient justification to search through employee emails. Employers may also monitor work emails to ensure the email system is being used appropriately for work purposes. Furthermore, as workplace harassment lawsuits are prevalent, one way for employers to protect themselves from liability is to monitor and attempt to prevent any harassment in the first place. Many employers run software that searches for offensive words and highlights problematic emails. The other main concern with liability is that old emails may be used against the employer in a lawsuit. Many employers consider the monitoring of emails to be a right, as well as a necessity, because they take ownership of the resources. The justifications that employers use to reason their monitoring appears to be legal, like preventing misuse of resources that they own.

Beyond the lack of privacy for employee email in a work setting, there is the concern that a company's proprietary information, patents, and documents could be leaked, intentionally or unintentionally. This concern is seen in for-profit businesses, non-profit firms, government agencies, and other sorts of start-ups and community organizations. Firms usually ask employees or interns to not send work-related material to personal emails or through social media accounts, for example. Even within the firm's email network and circle of connections, important information could still be leaked or stolen by competitors. In order to remedy this, many firms hold training sessions for employees that go over common unethical practices, what employees should do in order to share files/send emails, and how employees can report incidences where company information is in jeopardy. This way of training employees enables employees to understand email privacy and know what type of information can be shared and what documents and information cannot be shared with others. The information privacy agreement that states an employee cannot send proprietary information to others applies not just to people outside the firm but also other employees in the firm. Most firms, for example, don't allow employees to exchange slide show presentations or slide decks that contain proprietary information through personal emails.

Government employees and email
Government employees have further reduced privacy than the private sector employees. Under various public records acts and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the public can gain access to almost anything a government employee writes down. Government employees may also have their personal emails subject to disclosure if the email pertains to government business. Due to the nature of their job, courts are typically unwilling to find that government employees had a reasonable right to privacy in the first place.

Email from home/personal accounts
Unlike work emails, personal email from one's personal email account and computer is more likely to be protected as there is a much more reasonable expectation of privacy, but even personal emails may not be fully protected. Because emails are stored locally, at the ISP, and on the receiving end, there are multiple points at which security breakers or law enforcement can gain access to them. While it may be difficult for law enforcement to legally gain access to an individual's personal computer, they may be able to gain access to the person's emails easily from the ISP.

ISPs are also increasingly creating End User Service Agreements that users must agree to abide by. These agreements reduce any expectation of privacy, and often include terms that grant the ISP the right to monitor the network traffic or turn over records at the request of a government agency.

Global surveillance

From the documents leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, it became well known that various governments have been running programs to tap all kinds of communication at massive scales, including email. While the legality of this is still under question, it is clear that the email of citizens with no ties to a terrorist organization have been intercepted and stored. Whistleblower and former National Security Agency (NSA) employee William Binney has reported that the NSA has collected over 20 trillion communications via interception, including many email communications, representing one aspect of the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.

A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations alleges that Verizon illegally gave the US government unrestricted access to its entire Internet traffic without a warrant and that AT&T had a similar arrangement with the National Security Agency. While the FBI and NSA maintain that all their activities were and are legal, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) granting AT&T and Verizon immunity from prosecution.

Spy pixels
Spy pixels, which report private details (IP address, time of reading the email, event of reading the email) to the sender of the email without the recipient's conscious approval to send the information, were described as "endemic" in February 2021. The "Hey" email service, contacted by BBC News, estimated that it blocked spy pixels in about 600,000 out of 1,000,000 messages per day.

See also
 Spy pixel
Anonymous remailer
 Dark Mail Alliance
 Data privacy
 Email encryption
 email tracking
 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008
 Industrial espionage
 Internet privacy
 Secure communication
 Secure email
 Secure Messaging
 STARTTLS – opportunistic transport layer security
 United States v. Councilman
 Email Privacy Act

References

External links
 Andy Yen: Think your email's private? Think again
 Company email lacks reasonable expectation of privacy (Smyth v. Pillsbury)
 Workplace e-mail privacy from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (Australia)

 "Investigating Employees' E-Mail Use", Morning Edition, National Public Radio, June 18, 2008
 Software That Tracks E-Mail Is Raising Privacy Concerns, New York Times, November 22, 2000

Email
Privacy of telecommunications
Terms of service

Email privacy


Augusto Anfossi (born 1802 in Nice; died 21 March 1848 in Milan)

Born in Nice, Kingdom of Sardinia, he received a Jesuit education. He disliked his education so much that he attacked his teachers, with the consequence of being exiled to France. There he served in the French Army but returned to Piedmont after the accession of Charles Albert, only to be exiled again in 1831. He joined the Egyptian cause against the Turks, but the movements in 1848 Italy caused his return to Milan.

During the Five Days of Milan, Anfossi was in personal command for the fight of Porta Nuova, and was victorious. On 21 March, the fourth day of the revolt, he was mortally wounded and replaced by Luciano Manara.

Sources

1802 births
1848 deaths
People of the First Italian War of Independence
Italian military personnel killed in action
People from Nice

Augusto Anfossi


In theater, an understudy is an actor or singer who studies the part of one of the main actors or singers in cases when they can't perform.

If a main performer is unable to perform, the understudy will take their place. The understudy is often a member of the chorus who might have had a small part in the performance anyway.  Sometimes an understudy is called a "standby".  A standby is usually not a member of the chorus or ensemble.  They may be required to be present in the theatre during the performance, or part of it, in case of a problem.

Sometimes an understudy will become famous when they unexpectedly have to perform instead of the usual lead person.

Theater
Opera

Understudy


Wouter Loos was a soldier on board the Dutch East India Company ship , which sank on Morning Reef in the Wallabi Group of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands off the coast of Western Australia in 1629. Loos had a critical role in the subsequent Batavia Mutiny, becoming the leader of the mutiny after the original leader, Jeronimus Cornelisz (Corneliszoon), was captured.

Loos' role in the Batavia Mutiny
The Batavia Mutiny is well documented. The first account was published in 1647 in Ongeluckige Voyagie, and a detailed and complete translation of Commandeur Francisco Pelsaert's journal was published by Henrietta Drake-Brockman in Voyage to Disaster in 1963.

Loos was aged 24 when the Batavia Mutiny took place. In the course of the mutiny he was accused of being involved in a particularly gruesome and notorious incident in which all the Predikant (minister) Gijsbert Bastiaenszoon's family, apart from his eldest daughter Judith, were massacred in their tent. He was also reported to have bashed in the head of Mayken Cardoes while another mutineer was trying to cut her throat.

There was a dramatic change in Loos role, however, on 2 September 1629. Corneliszoon had been inept in his tactics in the conflict that had arisen between the mutineers and another group, the defenders, who had been holding out against them. On the pretext of negotiating, Corneliszoon, accompanied by Loos and four other henchmen, had arranged to meet with the defenders. However, the defenders sprang a trap and tried to take Corneliszoon and his henchmen prisoner. Other mutineers nearby immediately prepared to attack, so the defenders killed all their prisoners on the spot, apart from Corneliszoon, and Loos, who managed to escape.

As an anonymous defender described it, "by a ruse we took five of the principal murderers prisoner. Seeing this, the others resorted to their weapons. When we saw this, that our enemies wanted to come upon us, we struck four of them dead." This was done to "avoid being hampered by the prisoners". Consequently, Lance-Corporal Cornelis Pieterszoon, Cadets Conraat van Huyssens and Gysbrecht van Welderen, and Assistant Davidt Zevanck were killed on the spot. With their leader Corneliszoon captured and four of their number killed, the mutineers retired in confusion.

Loos elected leader of the mutineers
The mutineers then regrouped and elected the 24-year-old Loos as their "captain". Being a soldier, Loos was far more adept in his tactics. On the morning of 17 September the mutineers attacked again, this time using their muskets to telling effect. Four defenders were wounded, one, Gunner Jan Dircxszoon from Emden, later dying of his wounds. But as the two-hour battle reached its climax, the , commanded by Francisco Pelsaert, miraculously appeared.

Forewarned by Wiebbe Hayes, leader of the defenders, that the mutineers intended to capture the Sardam, Pelsaert acted decisively and the mutiny was ended. Pelsaert then set about investigating the mutiny, salvaging the wreck and recovering property. This took a couple of months.

Investigations of Loos' role in the mutiny
Most participants in the mutiny were subject to judicial torture as part of their examination. Loos managed to resist the torture and diminish his culpability, and so he was not among the seven ringleaders who were hanged on Long Island on 2 October 1629. However, on 27 October Pelsaert reopened Loos' investigation, the result of the Predikant's daughter Judith raising his complicity in the massacre of her family. This re-examination revealed the true extent of his involvement. Upon his guilt being determined, the ship's council then made an unusual decision: instead of hanging Loos, he would be marooned on the coast, along with Jan Pelgrom de Bye van Bemel. De Bye, an 18-year-old cabin boy, had been due to be hanged on 2 October, but had been reprieved due to his youth.

Loos and de Bye marooned on Australian mainland
Subsequently, on 16 November 1629, Loos and de Bye were abandoned on the Western Australian coast, probably at the mouth of the Hutt River, with a small boat, trade goods and 'provided with everything.' They were issued a set of instructions which urged them to 'make themselves known to the folk of this land.' Thus Wouter Loos and Jan Pelgrom de Bye became the first Europeans to become resident in Australia, but they were never heard of again.

See also
 Dutch East India Company

 Houtman Abrolhos
 Western Australia
 Jeronimus Cornelisz
 Henrietta Drake-Brockman
 Francisco Pelsaert

 Hutt River
 Rupert Gerritsen

References

Books
Anonymous "Letter written at sea from Batavia, the 11th Decemb. 1629 in Leyden Ferry-Boat Gossip", in Westerly trans. Randolph Stow, pp. 8–9, April 1972.
Francisco Pelsaert 'Journal of Francisco Pelsaert' in Henrietta Drake-Brockman (comp.) and E. Drok (trans.) Voyage to Disaster, pp. 122–254. Sydney: Angus and Roberson, 1983
Rupert Gerritsen 2007 "The debate over where Australia's first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 1", Hydrographic Journal 126:20-25.
Rupert Gerritsen 2009 "The debate over where Australia's first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 2", Hydrographic Journal 128-129(2009):35-41.
Rupert Gerritsen 2011 Australia's First Criminal Prosecutions in 1629. Canberra: Batavia Online Publishing.
Published Works

External links
Ongeluckige Voyagie

1605 births
17th-century Dutch criminals
Castaways
Dutch expatriates in Australia
Dutch people convicted of murder
Missing person cases in Australia
Mutineers
People who died at sea
Sailors on ships of the Dutch East India Company
Shipwreck survivors
Year of death missing

Wouter Loos


Infanta Cristina (Cristina Federica Victoria Antonia de la Santísima Trinidad de Borbón y de Grecia, born 13 June 1965) is the younger daughter of King Juan Carlos I and his wife, Queen Sofía. She is sixth in the line of succession to the Spanish throne, after her brother King Felipe VI's children, her sister Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo, and Elena's children.

On 26 September 1997, on the occasion of her marriage to handball player Iñaki Urdangarin, she was created Duchess of Palma de Mallorca, by her father, King Juan Carlos. From 2013 to 2017, she was investigated for possible corruption involving a company owned by Cristina and her husband. In 2015, her brother stripped her of her royal dukdom. In 2017 she was acquitted of all charges.

Elena represented the Crown during the reign of her father. Since October 2011, she has remained apart from the royal family and any official act of the Crown and, since 2014, she is no longer a member of the royal family.

Early life

Cristina de Borbón was born on 13 June 1965 at Our Lady of Loreto Hospital, now known as ORPEA Madrid Loreto in Madrid and was baptized into the Church at the Palacio de La Zarzuela by the Archbishop of Madrid. Her godparents were Alfonso, Duke of Anjou and Cádiz (her first cousin once removed), and Infanta Maria Cristina (great-aunt).

She is a sailor, and competed in the Tornado event at the 1988 Summer Olympics.

She received her secondary education at Santa María del Camino School before graduating from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid in 1989 with a degree in political science. She pursued postgraduate studies at New York University, obtaining an MA in international relations in 1990. In 1991, she gained practical experience working at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. In 2001, she was named United Nations goodwill ambassador United Nations Goodwill Ambassador for the 2nd World Assembly on Aging.

She speaks Spanish, Catalan, English, French, and Greek.

Marriage and children
Cristina married team handball player Iñaki Urdangarin at Barcelona Cathedral on 4 October 1997. On this occasion, she was created Duchess of Palma de Mallorca for life. The couple have four children, all born at Teknon Medical Centre in Barcelona:
 Juan Valentín Urdangarin y Borbón, Grandee of Spain (born 29 September 1999),
 Pablo Nicolás Sebastián Urdangarin y de Borbón, Grandee of Spain (born 6 December 2000),
 Miguel Urdangarin y Borbón, Grandee of Spain (born 30 April 2002),
 Irene Urdangarin y Borbón, Grandee of Spain (born 5 June 2005).

They lived in Washington, D.C., from 2009 to 2012, where her husband worked for Telefónica. In August 2013, she moved with her four children to Geneva, Switzerland, to take a job with the Caixa Foundation, while her husband, who was the subject of an embezzlement investigation, remained in Barcelona.

On 24 January 2022, Cristina and Urdangarin announced their separation.

Activities and personal work
Cristina started to attend official events at very young age. One of the first official events she attended was the proclamation of her father in November 1975. Since finishing her most basic education in 1983, Cristina, along with her sister Elena, supported their parents representing the Crown at official events such as the National Day, the wedding of Princess Astrid of Belgium, the re-burial of Queen Victoria Eugenia at El Escorial, and the state visit of Mexican president Miguel de la Madrid to Spain, among others.

After the corruption scandal of her husband, the Duchess and her husband distanced from the royal family, being their last official event as members of the royal family on 12 October 2011. After the ascension of her brother in June 2014, she formally left the royal family.

Regarding her personal work, Cristina has been working for La Caixa Foundation since October 1993.  At the same time, she works for the Aga Khan Foundation. She visits Barcelona often for work, but she has lived in Geneva, Switzerland since 2013.

Corruption inquiry
Her husband was investigated from early 2012 on suspicion of fraudulently obtaining millions in public funds in the Nóos case. In April 2013, Infanta Cristina was formally named as a suspect in the case by the judge in charge. When invited to comment, a Royal Household spokesman said that the Casa Real "does not comment on judicial decisions", yet the next day, after the anti-corruption prosecutor announced that he would appeal the decision, it relented by expressing "absolute conformity" with the legal authorities. In light of the forthcoming trial, she and her children moved to Geneva, Switzerland, in summer 2013. On 7 January 2014, a Spanish judge charged her with tax fraud and money laundering and ordered her to appear in court. The infanta made her first appearance in the Majorca Court on 8 February 2014, where she denied any knowledge of her husband's dealings.

Spanish judge Jose Castro formalised charges against Infanta Cristina on 25 June 2014. In November 2014 the High Court of Palma de Mallorca upheld tax fraud charges against the princess, paving the way for her to face trial; however, it decided to drop money-laundering charges. Her lawyers maintained that they remained completely convinced of her innocence. On 22 December 2014 the High Court of the Balearic Islands announced that Infanta Cristina, her husband, and 15 others would stand trial on tax fraud charges "as soon as next year".

On 12 June 2015, King Felipe VI officially deprived his sister of her dukedom, privately announcing his intention beforehand. After this decision was made public, Cristina's lawyer, Miquel Roca, declared that the king's decision followed a formal request from the infanta, althought the Royal Household denied it, saying that her renunciation to the title was after the king's private phone call to comunicate her the decision. Her right of succession to the throne, and to the royal title of infanta were unaffected.

Cristina's trial began on 11 January 2016, presided over by three judges in Palma de Mallorca. The charges were filed by the 'Clean Hands' anti-graft organisation using a Spanish legal instrument known as the 'people's accusation'. At that time, her lawyers had asked judges to drop the criminal charges against her, and the state prosecutor said there was insufficient evidence to back up the accusations, but on 29 January the Court in Palma de Mallorca, where the trial was being held, said in a statement it was upholding the charges. She took the stand in March 2016, denying being an accessory to tax evasion, and denying knowledge of her husband's activities. She insisted on her right to answer only questions from her own lawyer. She said that her husband handled the couple's finances, and that she did not know why some large personal expenses were charged to a credit card of a company that the couple owned. She said that she never spoke with her husband about these matters because she was not interested in the subject, and that she was very busy with her small children.

On 17 February 2017, she was acquitted of the charges, while her husband received a sentence of imprisonment for a term of six years and three months.

Titles, styles, honours and arms

Titles and styles
As a child of a Spanish monarch, Cristina is entitled to the designation and rank of infanta with the style of Royal Highness. On the occasion of her marriage in 1997, she was also created Duchess of Palma de Mallorca. She lost the dukedom in 2015 following her husband's alleged involvement in a corruption scandal.

 13 June 1965 - 4 October 1997: Her Royal Highness Infanta Doña Cristina
 4 October 1997 - 11 June 2015: Her Royal Highness Infanta Doña Cristina, Duchess of Palma de Mallorca
 11 June 2015 – present: Her Royal Highness Infanta Doña Cristina

Honours

National honours
 : Dame Grand Cross of the Order of Charles III
 : Dame Grand Cross of the Order of Isabella the Catholic
 : Golden Medal of the Balearic Islands.
 : Golden Medal of the City of Elche.

Foreign honours
 : Grand Star of the Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria
 : Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold
 : Grand Cross of the National Order of Merit
 : Member Supreme Class of the Order of the Virtues
 : Grand Cross with Silver Star of the Order of José Matías Delgado
 : Grand Cross 1st class of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
 : Grand Cross of the Order of Honour
 : Grand Cross of the Order of the Quetzal
 : Grand Cross of the Order of the Falcon
 : Grand Cordon (Paulownia) of the Order of the Precious Crown
 : Grand Cordon of the Order of the Star of Jordan
 : Grand Cross of the Order of Adolphe of Nassau
 : Grand Cross of the Order of the Aztec Eagle
  Nepalese Royal Family: Member First Class of the Most Illustrious Order of the Three Divine Powers
 : Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Orange-Nassau
 : Grand Cross of the Order of St. Olav
 : Grand Cross of the Order of the Sun
 : Grand Cross of the Order of Christ
 : Grand Cross of the Order of Prince Henry
 : Recipient of the 50th Birthday Badge Medal of King Carl XVI Gustaf
 : Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant

Ancestry

See also
Line of succession to the Spanish throne

References

External links

 Royal Household of HM the King official website

1965 births
Living people
Spanish infantas
Daughters of kings
House of Bourbon (Spain)
Complutense University of Madrid alumni
Dukes of Palma de Mallorca
Sailors at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Tornado
Olympic sailors for Spain
Spanish female sailors (sport)
Nobility from Madrid
Spanish expatriates in Switzerland

Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Isabella the Catholic

Grand Cordons of the Order of the Precious Crown
Grand Crosses of the Order of Christ (Portugal)
Grand Crosses of the Order of Prince Henry
Grand Crosses of the Order of the Quetzal
Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Falcon
Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Orange-Nassau
Members of the Order of Tri Shakti Patta, First Class
Grand Crosses of the Order of José Matías Delgado
Grand Crosses of the Order of the Sun of Peru

Infanta Cristina of Spain


The Duisburg–Hochfeld railway bridge () spans the Rhine in the German city of Duisburg on the Duisburg-Ruhrort–Mönchengladbach line. The first bridge was built by the Rhenish Railway Company and put into operation at the end of 1873. It was replaced by a new bridge in 1927, which was badly damaged during the Second World War, but rebuilt and is still serves rail traffic between the Ruhr region and Aachen.

History
On 23 August 1866, the Rhenish Railway Company (Rheinische Eisenbahn-Gesellschaft, RhE) opened its line between Osterrath and Essen to connect the coal mines in the Ruhr region with its railway network, which at that time was mainly located on the west bank of the Rhine. This line included the Rheinhausen–Hochfeld train ferry. Prior to the Austro-Prussian War, the Prussian military opposed the building of fixed bridges across the Rhine for military reasons, except in fortified cities such as Cologne, Mainz, Koblenz and Düsseldorf. Hints in 1869 that military opinion had changed led the company to apply immediately for permission to construct a bridge from Rheinhausen to Duisburg.

The first bridge
The Prussian government issued a concession on 29 July 1871 for the construction of a railway bridge on the Osterrath–Essen line near Rheinhausen on the following conditions:
Chambers with mines were to be built in all bridge piers,
Towers were to be constructed with defensive facilities at both bridgeheads and there were to be swing bridges at the end of the main bridge that could be activated during wartime,
Train ferry facilities on the banks were to be removed,
300 thalers was to be paid to the Prussian government for two military gunboats.

Since the Rhenish Railway Company plans for the bridge was largely ready, construction of the double-track bridge was able to begin in 1872. Despite two floods, it was completed in two years. To the west of the Rhine, a 16 span brick approach bridge was built over the flood plain; each span had an internal length of 50 Prussian feet. The central pier of the swing bridge was about 34 metres long and 10 metres wide. In the event of an attack it could be turned 90° and thus made impassable for troops and trains. At the ends of the bridge there were defensive towers, which had pedestrian walkways on each side. The main bridge consisted of four spans, each 98 metres long, which were supported by three piers. Each span consisted of a two-hinged arch truss made of 2,800 tons of wrought iron made by Jacobi, Haniel and Huyssen (later GHH) in Oberhausen. On the eastern side of the Rhine the bridge's defensive tower connected with a swing bridge and a shorter bridge over the flood plain with 6 spans, which were 50 Prussian feet long. The bridge had an overall length of 800 metres.

Freight operations on the bridge commenced on 24 December 1873. The passenger trains still used the train ferry until 14 January 1874. All four lines of the ferry could then be demolished. The construction costs for the Rhenish Railway were about 2.5 million thalers.

The ever-increasing rail traffic across the bridge and the increasingly heavy trains were already starting to damage the bridge by 1910 and at the beginning of 1914 the first plans for a new bridge were being drafted, but were dropped because of the First World War.

Bombing
On 30 June 1923, during the occupation of the Ruhr a time bomb exploded while a Belgian military train was crossing the bridge. Eight people died and several were injured.

The second bridge
The construction of the second bridge began in 1925 and it was commissioned on 13 October 1927. It was built only a few metres downstream of the first bridge. This was demolished as far as the left-bank bridge pylon in order to remove impediments to shipping and the discharge of floods.

The new bridge had a clearance for navigation that was nearly 180 metres wide. The main bridge was 20 metres high with spans of 126 metres and 189 metres. It was continued on both sides by spans that were both 104 metres long and 10 metres high and on the eastern approach there was a bridge with a 51.8 metre-long span over local industrial rail tracks. To the west of the Rhine there was a brick viaduct with 19 spans, each 15.60 metres long, over the flood plain. A pedestrian bridge was attached on its northern side. The steel superstructure for the 907 metre-long rail bridge was built by two local construction companies, Friedrich-Alfred-Hütte (part of the Krupp group) of Rheinhausen and Harkort of Duisburg.

The eastern end of the bridge was made impassable by a bomb on 22 May 1944 during World War II. The adjacent Krupp factory built a temporary bridge and temporary piers within 17 days and the bridge was extensively repaired. However the following year German troops blew up the entire bridge on 4 March 1945, as they retreated from the western bank of the Rhine. They also completely destroyed the pier in the centre of the river.

The third bridge

Immediately after the American army crossed the Rhine, the 332nd Engineer General Service Regiment (as a member of ADSEC Engineer Group "A") constructed a replacement railway bridge  long over the river in the record time of six days, fifteen hours and twenty minutes. The bridge was completed 8 May 1945 and was named the "Victory Bridge" in English. This line was put back into operation on 12 May 1945. The ramps were built over the local marshalling yards of Krupp and German railways, partly assembled from the abundant debris that had accumulated on both sides as a result of the war.

The fourth bridge
In August 1945 work began on the recovery of the remains of the destroyed bridge superstructure. Still usable parts were recovered and reused. Almost half of the old structure was incorporated into the new bridge in its original form. The fourth bridge was put into operation on 1 October 1949 and it remains in operation.

In addition to freight trains, the bridge is used by Regionalbahn services RB 31, Der Niederrheiner,  and RB 33, Rhein-Niers-Bahn, and Regional-Express service RE 2, Rhein-Haard-Express.

On the northern side of the bridge is a wide footpath, which is also used by cyclists.

See also

 List of bridges over the Rhine

Notes

References

External links

Railway bridges in Germany
Buildings and structures in Duisburg
Transport in Duisburg
Bridges over the Rhine
Bridges in North Rhine-Westphalia
Bridges completed in 1873
Bridges completed in 1927
Bridges completed in 1949

Duisburg-Hochfeld Railway Bridge


Revenge of the Nerds III: The Next Generation is a 1992 American made-for-television comedy film and a sequel to the 1984 hit comedy film Revenge of the Nerds, produced by Robert Engelman, directed by Roland Mesa, that stars Robert Carradine, Curtis Armstrong, Ted McGinley, Julia Montgomery, and Morton Downey Jr. It is the third installment in the Revenge of the Nerds series. The subtitle is a reference to the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation, which was then at the height of its popularity.

Plot
A new generation of nerd students now rule on campus at Adams College. The Alpha Betas are respectful of the nerds' prominence. Everything changes when a successful but reprehensible businessman, Orrin Price, becomes a member of the Adams College Board of Regents. A new generation of jocks has also come to Adams, including Orrin's nerd-hating son. Former Alpha Beta Stan Gable, now a motorcycle police officer, is installed as the new dean of students by Orrin Price.

Lewis, who chairs Adams' Computer Science Department, has been distancing himself from his nerd past by growing a ponytail and asking people to call him "Lew" rather than Lewis. His nephew Harold, now a student at Adams, is surprised at his uncle's behavior, pointing out that in his day Lewis was the "George Washington of nerds". Betty, now married to Lewis and also an art professor at Adams College, tries to remind him that she fell in love with him because he had the courage to be himself. But Lewis is more interested in becoming friends with the new dean, not noticing that Stan Gable hopes to break up his marriage and win back Betty. Meanwhile, Harold and his friend pledge Lambda Lambda Lambda, whose group now includes an obese kilt-wearing English inductee and a Korean Elvis impersonator, who emphasizes that he is South Korean when asked about his dixie accent. Harold successfully makes it through the Tri-Lamb's "rush week". However, a barbeque celebrating the new members is disrupted by Alpha Betas in ski masks. More harassment comes, and the Tri-Lambs look for legal help, but have a hard time finding a suitable alumni due to most of them getting technical jobs. However, one alumni is an attorney, Dudley "Booger" Dawson. Booger warns Lewis about the harassment, but leaves in disgust when he sees Betty and Lewis socializing with Stan, calling Lewis a "self hater".

Lewis reaches out to Stan to help defend the Tri-Lambs, but Stan says no. Lewis angrily reminds Stan that he was forgiving of their rocky past and even defended him when others were telling him Stan was worthless. But Stan says that he is not Lewis' friend and that Lewis will always be a nerd. This betrayal spurs Lewis to once again embrace his nerd self. He arranges bail for the arrested Tri-Lambs by putting up his house as collateral. He then calls upon all nerds, those on campus and in the city, who are sympathetic to their cause to participate in a massive nerd strike. Many of the city's basic utilities and services become crippled. To end the strike, Price frames Lewis for embezzling college funds and harvesting marijuana in the basement of the Tri-Lamb house. Stan thinks Orrin Price has gone too far, yet does not object to Price's actions. The strike is called off after Lewis is arrested. Betty confronts Stan about getting Lewis released, even offering herself to sleep with him. Stan becomes deeply ashamed and declines her offer.

Many of Lewis' old Tri-Lamb friends as well as his father return to support him. At the trial, the judge denies all of Booger's arguments and says that Lewis is guilty. Stan has a change of heart and testifies against Price, admitting that he has proof that Price framed Lewis for the theft and also planted the marijuana. Stan also admits that he is a nerd and has always wanted to read books and learn as much as possible, but his family always discouraged it. Price is arrested, and the charges against Lewis are dismissed. The Tri-Lambs are cleared, and the Alpha Betas are defeated once again, this time losing their Adams fraternity charter. Stan feels it best that he resign as dean of students, but Lewis convinces Stan to stay on. The nerds accept Stan as one of their own, once again guaranteeing nerd freedom at Adams College.

Cast
This film features a new generation of nerds in the Lambda Lambda Lambda fraternity and also marks the return of several other characters from the first two films.

 Robert Carradine as Lewis "Lew" Skolnick
 Ted McGinley as Stanley Harvey "Stan" Gable
 Curtis Armstrong as Dudley "Booger" Dawson
 Julia Montgomery as Betty Childs Skolnick
 Morton Downey, Jr. as Orrin Price
 Gregg Binkley as Harold Skolnick
 Jennifer Bassey as Ruth
 Richard Israel as Ira Poppus
 Henry Cho as Steve Toyota
 Bernie Casey as U. N. Jefferson
 James Cromwell as Mr. Skolnick
 Mark Clayman as Bobo Peterson
 Mike Greenwood as Gilbert Lowe
 Laurel Moglen as Judy
 Larry B. Scott as Lamar Latrelle
 Sean Whalen as Harold Wormser
 Brian Tochi as Takashi Toshiro
 John Pinette as Trevor Gulf
 Chi McBride as Malcolm Pennington III (as Chi)
 Grant Heslov as Mason

Production

Casting
Anthony Edwards was unavailable for his role of Gilbert Lowe, Lewis' best friend. Gilbert appears in the film, played by Mike Greenwood, while Sean Whalen plays the role of Wormser, replacing Andrew Cassese. Alan Wittert takes the role of Dean Ulich, replacing David Wohl. The Poindexter character was written out of the series due to actor Timothy Busfield choosing not to participate in the film.

Reception
In Variety, critic Carole Kucharewicz summarized that "although the concept is no longer fresh, it provides some hearty, though rather far between, laughs. 'Nerd' devotees will stick it through to the end although the uninitiated may not get past the first hour; or they may not just get it." She was pleased that despite the film's subtitle, it was chiefly focused on the same themes and characters that made the first film in the series so enjoyable. She said that while many of the sight gags and the performances of Armstrong, Carradine, and Cho were genuinely hilarious, the script became bogged down in flat material for long stretches. Entertainment Weeklys brief review gave the film a C, remarking that "There are a few chuckles in Revenge of the Nerds III: The Next Generation, but the sustained merriment of the original is long gone."

Home media

The film was released on DVD both as part of the Atomic Wedgie Collection and separately.

References

External links

1990s sex comedy films
1992 comedy films
1992 films
1992 television films
20th Century Fox Television films
American sex comedy films
Films about fraternities and sororities
Films about school bullying
Fox network original films
Revenge Of The Nerds 3
Television sequel films
1990s American films


Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge is located in southern Albany County in the U.S. state of Wyoming and includes 1,776 acres (7.2 km2). The refuge is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior. Mortensen Lake NWR is a high altitude refuge and has several small alpine lakes of which Mortenson Lake is the largest. At 7,256 feet (2,211 m) above sea level, the refuge provides protection for numerous migratory bird species.

In 1984, the Wyoming Toad was listed as an endangered species and was widely believed to be extinct in the wild. A small population of the toad was rediscovered in 1987 in the area surrounding Mortenson Lake which led to the establishment of the refuge in 1993. Since 1995, offspring from captured examples of this extremely rare amphibian have been released into the wild to help stabilize the remaining population. The refuge is closed to all public access to aid in recovery efforts of this endangered species.

Mortenson NWR is administered by Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge in Colorado.

References

External links

Protected areas of Albany County, Wyoming
National Wildlife Refuges in Wyoming
Protected areas established in 1993
1993 establishments in Wyoming

Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge


Timothy Jenkins (January 29, 1799 – December 24, 1859) was an American lawyer and politician who served as a U.S. Representative from New York, serving three terms during the mid-19th Century.

Biography
Timothy Jenkins was born in Barre, Massachusetts on January 29, 1799. His father died when he was 16, and Jenkins moved to Washington County, New York in 1817. He attended academies in Salem and White Creek, and then taught school while studying law with Samuel Beardsley and William H. Maynard in Utica and Lauren Ford in Herkimer. Jenkins was admitted to the bar in 1824.

Legal career
He resided in Vernon and Oneida Castle, where he continued to practice law. Among the attorneys who studied under Jenkins was Breese J. Stevens. In Vernon he served in local office, including clerk of the village board of trustees. In Oneida Castle he served in local office including postmaster and fire warden.

Jenkins was the attorney for the Oneida Indians from 1838 to 1845 as they negotiated with the state of New York to resolve land claims and create reservations. He served as district attorney for Oneida County from 1840 to 1845.

Congress
Jenkins was elected as a Democrat to the Twenty-ninth and Thirtieth Congresses (March 4, 1845 – March 3, 1849). He was an unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1848 to the Thirty-first Congress. Jenkins was elected to the Thirty-second Congress (March 4, 1851 – March 3, 1853), and served as chairman of the Committee on Private Land Claims. He was an unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1852 to the Thirty-third Congress.

During his time in Congress, Jenkins was identified as a prominent opponent of slavery, including support for the Wilmot Proviso and opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act. According to some accounts, he was the Wilmot Proviso's actual author.

As a result of his anti-slavery views Jenkins became a Republican when the party was founded. In 1856 he served as delegate to the first Republican National Convention. In 1857 he was the unsuccessful Republican nominee for a seat on the New York Court of Appeals, losing to Hiram Denio. In 1858 he was a candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor of New York, and lost to Edwin D. Morgan, who went on to win the general election.

Death
Jenkins died in on December 24, 1859, while attending a session of the New York Supreme Court in Martinsburg. He was interred at City Cemetery in Oneida Castle.

Family
In 1822 Jenkins married Florilla Tuttle of Vernon. She died soon afterwards, and in 1829 he married Harriet Tuttle, a sister of his first wife. With his second wife Jenkins was the father of four children: Charles M. Jenkins (1830-1856), an attorney; Hiram T. Jenkins (1833-1868), an attorney; Florilla Jenkins (1838-1919), the wife of W. Jerome Hickox; and Albert Jenkins, who died in infancy.

Legacy
Jenkins accumulated a large collection of books and papers, including legal and historical works, speeches, and government publications. In the 1910s his daughter donated the collection to Hamilton College.

A collection of Jenkins' letters, many concerning his antislavery efforts, were donated to the New York State Library.

References

External links

Timothy Jenkins in Our County and Its People: A Descriptive Work on Oneida County, New York.  Daniel Elbridge Wager, editor.  1896.  Page 37.

1799 births
1859 deaths
People from Barre, Massachusetts
People from Washington County, New York
People from Vernon, New York
New York (state) postmasters
New York (state) lawyers
County district attorneys in New York (state)
New York (state) Republicans
Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives from New York (state)
Burials in New York (state)
19th-century American politicians
19th-century American lawyers
Members of the United States House of Representatives from New York (state)

Timothy Jenkins


Álvaro VI of Kongo, sometimes called Nimi a Lukeni a Nzenze a Ntumba (in the Kikongo language), was a ruler of the Kingdom of Kongo.

He was the first member of the Kinlaza kanda, and like his brother, Garcia II established the line in power.  At the death of his predecessor, Alvaro IV an eleven year old candidate from the House of Kwilu, was overthrown by the ambitious Daniel da Silva, Duke of Mbamba. Alvaro VI and his brother Garcia defended the young king.  In gratitude Alvaro V awarded the future Alvaro VI with the duchy of Mbamba in 1634.  Alvaro IV died shortly after and was succeeded by his half brother, Alvaro V who was then himself poisoned.

Jealous members of the house of Kwilu, led by Gregorio, a court noble tried to engineer a coup to defeat Alvaro VI and his brother Garcia, but failed, and they stormed the capital and installed Alvaro VI as king on 26 February 1636.  Gregorio, in turn went eastward and recruited the Duke of Mbata to assist in a counterattack, which failed.

He was descended through the female line of Anna Ntumba from King Afonso I.  He was not supportive of Dutch comment in Soyo, and eventually forced the Count, Paulo to force them out.  During his six-year reign he abandoned the marquisate of Makuta to the Count of Soyo (in 1637) and fought with the Dutch in against the Portuguese at Luanda.

Álvaro died on January or February 22, 1641; his brother succeeded him as Garcia II of Kongo.

See also
 Kingdom of Kongo
 List of rulers of Kongo

References

1641 deaths
Manikongo of Kongo
17th-century monarchs in Africa
Year of birth unknown

Álvaro VI of Kongo


Shrikhand is a traditional sweet of the Indian subcontinent made from strained yogurt. It is often served as part of a thali (platter) or with puris (puffed deep-fried whole wheat bread). It is a traditional dessert in Gujarati and Marathi cuisine.

History
Both Gujaratis and Maharashtrians claim the invention of shrikhand. According to a popular legend, shrikhand was invented by traveling herders. To carry their yogurt more easily while traveling overnight, they strained out its whey. Since the strained yogurt became sour by morning, they mixed it with sugar to make it more palatable, leading to the creation of shrikhand.

According to food historian K. T. Achaya, shrikhand was first made around 500 BC. His book Indian Food: A Historical Companion states, "To dewater curd, it was hung in a muslin bag for a few hours; sugar and spices added to the mass yielded shikharini (identical with modern day shrikhand), first noted around 500 BC." As seen below, this procedure is still followed today.

The 11th century Kannada poet Chavundaraya II gave a recipe for shikharini as strained yogurt mixed with flavorings and spices in his book on agriculture, the Lokopakara." The Soopa Shastra, a cookbook written in 1508 by the Jain king Mangarasa III, also mentions shrikhand.

Preparation
To prepare shrikhand, yogurt is poured onto a cheesecloth. The cheesecloth is tied and hung for several hours to drain the whey. The strained yogurt is transferred to a bowl, and sugar, saffron, and cardamom are added. The mixture is whisked thoroughly to blend the flavors and impart a smooth, creamy texture. It is then covered, chilled for a few hours, and served. The prepared shrikhand may be garnished with almonds or pistachios before serving.

Gallery

See also
 List of yogurt-based dishes and beverages

References

Bibliography

External links

Maharashtrian cuisine
Indian desserts
Yogurt-based dishes
Indian dairy products

Shrikhand