Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association

The Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association (UCCLA) ( ("AU-CDC")) is an independent, non-partisan educational and research organization. Established in 1986 after the Civil Liberties Commission (affiliated with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress) was disbanded, its members – all of whom are volunteers – have been particularly active in championing the cause of recognition, restitution and reconciliation with respect to Canada's first national internment operations, helping secure a redress settlement in 2008 with the Government of Canada along with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Taras Shevchenko Foundation (see InternmentCanada.ca). They have also challenged allegations about "Nazi war criminals" hiding in Canada, have exposed the presence in Canada of veterans of the NKVD/SMERSH/KGB, have helped raise public awareness about Soviet and Communist war crimes and crimes against humanity (in particular about the genocidal Great Famine of 1932–1933 in Soviet Ukraine, the "Holodomor"), and have made numerous public representations, articulating the interests of Canada's Ukrainian community. The first chairman of the CLC/UCCLA was John B. Gregorovich, a lawyer. The current chairman is Roman Zakaluzny; the immediate past president was Professor Lubomyr Luciuk.
UCCLA's members meet annually during conclaves held in different cities across the country, often co-ordinating their meeting dates with the unveiling of trilingual historical markers commemorating the internment operations at different camp locations or otherwise recalling important individuals or events in Ukrainian and Ukrainian Canadian history. The association and its supporters have also placed two dozen trilingual markers and four statues across Canada, in Ukraine and in France honouring the Ukrainian Canadian Victoria Cross recipient, Cpl Filip Konowal; recalling the contributions of Ukrainian Canadian servicemen and women during the Second World War (London, England); and honouring the Welsh journalist, Gareth Jones, who exposed the truth about the Holodomor. UCCLA has also commissioned a number of articles and books that have been distributed internationally dealing with the Holodomor, Anglo-American perspectives on the question of Ukraine's independence, the Ukrainian nationalist movement before, during and after the Second World War, and Soviet crimes against humanity and war crimes. In 2003–2004, UCCLA campaigned to have the 1932 Pulitzer Prize of Walter Duranty, the "New York Times" correspondent in Moscow from 1922 to 1934, revoked. Duranty wrote in 1933, during the Great Famine, that "there was no famine" and criticized articles by other Western journalists as "failed predictions of doom for the Soviets".
Its most recent campaign (which began in the late winter of 2010) has been about ensuring that all 12 galleries in the publicly funded Canadian Museum for Human Rights are thematic, comparative and inclusive – rather than elevating the suffering of any one or two communities above all others. To that end the association has distributed thousands of protest postcards nationally and published a notice raising their concerns in "The Hill Times" (31 January 2011). Some of UCCLA's critics have tried to censure or even call for the silencing of its voice in the public debate over the proposed contents and governance of the tax payer funded Canadian Museum for Human Rights. One of UCCLA's most recent campaigns (February 2016) involves an appeal to the then-Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Mélanie Joly, requesting her intervention to help save and re-consecrate the internment camp cemetery at Spirit Lake (La Ferme), Quebec.
UCCLA continues to be a volunteer organization supported by the donations and efforts of thousands of Canadians of Ukrainian heritage.
UCCLA-supported publications.
Some of the books and pamphlets published with the support of the UCCLA include:


Constitution of Bulgaria

The Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria (, "Konstitutsia na Republika Balgaria") is the supreme and basic law of the Republic of Bulgaria. The current constitution was adopted on 12 July 1991 by the 7th Grand National Assembly of Bulgaria, and defines the country as a unitary parliamentary republic. It has been amended five times (in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2015).
Chronologically, it is the fourth constitution of Bulgaria, the first being the Tarnovo Constitution of 1879. It was immediately preceded by the two Socialist-era constitutions–the Dimitrov Constitution (named after Georgi Dimitrov), in force between 1947 and 1971, and the Zhivkov Constitution (named after Todor Zhivkov), in force between 1971 and 1991.
On September 2, 2020, the Draft Constitution of Bulgaria from 2020 was submitted to the National Assembly.
Content.
Political System.
Distribution of powers.
The constitution sets about a parliamentary form of government, in which executive power is rested upon the Government of Bulgaria, legislative power within National Assembly and judicial power is distributed through the judicial institutions, with the Supreme Judicial Council at its head. The institution of President of Bulgaria is created as an arbiter between the other branches of government and wields mostly ceremonial powers, most notable of which is his position as Commander-in-chief of the Armed forces of Bulgaria.
Government formation.
The Bulgarian government is nominally appointed by the President, but the latter must follow strict protocol during said appointment. When government formation takes place, the President is obliged to give the first mandate over to the largest party or faction within the national assembly. That faction then puts forward its proposed government, when is then put to a vote in the assembly. For the government to be elected, it needs to obtain the support of a majority of elected representatives during a session in which there is a quorum. Should the largest party refuse the mandate, or should it fail to secure the support of a majority in the house, the President is then obliged to hand the mandate over to the second largest party or faction. Only if the second largest faction also fails to form a government is the President allowed to exercise discretion appointing a temporary caretaker government until new elections can be held.
Society.
Identity.
The Bulgarian constitution states that the territorial integrity of the country is "inviolable" and expressly forbids any autonomous territorial formations from being allowed to exist. The Bulgarian language is designated as the country's only official language.
Religion.
The constitution establishes the Eastern Orthodox Church as "a traditional religion in the Republic of Bulgaria", but states that religious institutions must be separate from the state and forbids religious communities and institutions from being used for political purposes. It also prohibits the formation of political parties based on religious or racial/ethnic affiliation.
Marriage.
Marriage is defined as a "voluntary union between a man and a woman", explicitly rejecting any marriages other than civil marriages concluded under this clause, thus effectively prohibiting both same-sex and polygamous marriages.
Amendments to the constitution.
Amendments to most parts of the constitution may be adopted by the ordinary National Assembly, but the adoption of an entirely new constitution or the alteration of key articles, such as those pertaining to the form of state organization or national territory can only be adopted through the calling of a Grand National Assembly of Bulgaria. The Grand National Assembly is an extended National Assembly composed of 400 elected representatives, instead of the 240 in the ordinary National Assembly. It is tasked specifically with making major alterations to the nation's constitution and is dissolved following the completion of the amendment process.
In either case, constitutional amendments may only be proposed either by 25% of the elected representatives within the assembly or by the President and require a 66% supermajority of elected representatives in order to be adopted.
Proposed 2020 amendments.
During the 2020–2021 Bulgarian protests, Prime Minister Boyko Borisov announced that he would back a change in the country's constitution. The proposal tabled by his party would call for a Grand National Assembly in order to discuss the changes. Among them was a proposal to scrap the institution of the Grand National Assembly altogether, reduce the terms of judges and prosecutors and reduce the number of elected representatives in the ordinary National Assembly from 240 to 120. His proposals were supported by his coalition partners in the SDS and conditionally by the VMRO, pending additional amendments to return conscription and adopt further articles prohibiting same-sex marriage, among others. The Volya Movement did not comment on the proposals, but rejected the government's calls for Grand National Assembly elections. Democratic Bulgaria tacitly supported the proposals, while President Rumen Radev, the opposition Bulgarian Socialist Party and There Are Such People parties and opposition leader Maya Manolova rejected them outright. Likewise, the proposals were also mostly rejected by the protesters on the streets.


Kurt Huber

Kurt Huber (24 October 1893 – 13 July 1943) was a university professor and resistance fighter with the anti-Nazi group White Rose. For his involvement he was imprisoned and guillotined.
Early life.
Huber was born in Chur, Switzerland, to German parents. He grew up in Stuttgart and later, after his father's death, in Munich. He showed an aptitude for such subjects as music, philosophy and psychology. Huber became a professor of Psychology and Music in 1926 at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.
Resistance.
Huber was appalled by the rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party and decided that Hitler and his government had to be removed from power. He came into contact with the White Rose movement through some students who attended his lectures, Hans Scholl and Alexander Schmorell. Huber wrote the White Rose's sixth and final leaflet calling for an end to National Socialism.
Arrest.
Huber's political activities came to the attention of the Gestapo and he was arrested on 27 February 1943. By coincidence, composer Carl Orff called at Huber’s house the day after he was taken. Huber’s wife begged him to use his influence to help her husband. But Orff told her that if his friendship with Huber was ever discovered he would be “ruined.” Orff left; Huber’s wife never saw him again. Later, wracked by guilt, Orff would write a letter to his late friend Huber imploring him for forgiveness. Orff's "Die Bernauerin", a project which he completed in 1946 and which he had discussed with Huber before the latter's execution, is dedicated to Huber's memory. The final scene of this work, which is about the wrongful execution of Agnes Bernauer, depicts a guilt-ridden chorus begging not to be implicated in the title character's death.
Trial and execution.
Huber was brought before the People's Court on 19 April. In a brief show trial, Chief Justice Roland Freisler subjected Huber to a humiliating verbal attack. He was sentenced to death for insurrection. On 13 July, he was executed by guillotine at Munich's Stadelheim Prison, along with Alexander Schmorell. The university had stripped Huber of his position and his doctorate at the time of his arrest. Attempts to take up a collection for Huber's widow Clara only brought about more trouble and eventually led to Hans Leipelt's arrest and execution.
Legacy.
The square opposite from the main building of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich was named "Professor Huber Platz" in his remembrance. Huber wrote a biography of Gottfried Leibniz which he completed while in prison and which was published in 1951 edited by his wife and pupil. After the war, a memorial volume with contributions from his friends and colleagues, including the 1946 letter from Carl Orff, was published by his widow.


Grete Jost

Grete Jost (26 May 1916 – 15 January 1943) was a Viennese communist resistance activist against Austrofascism and, after 1938, against National Socialism.
Biography.
Provenance and early years.
Margarete "Gretl" Jost was born at the height of the First World War into a working-class family. She grew up in the quarter of the district in the south-eastern part of the central Vienna. The family was resolute in its support of the (not yet quite mainstream) Social Democratic Workers' Party ("Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei"). In that respect Grete and her two sisters enjoyed what some would have regarded as an "Austro-Marxist upbringing".
She attended state junior and middle schools locally. Aged only seven she was enrolled into the "Workers' Gymnastics Association" ("Arbeiterturnverein"). She was also a member of the (socialist) organisation between 1926 and 1930. In 1931 she got a job selling shoes. She lost it fairly soon, after which she had no regular employment till 1937, when she managed to get another job as a sales assistant, this time in a knitwear shop. While working as a shoe saleswoman she joined the organisation.
Politics and resistance.
Jost withdrew from her trades union activism and, following the brief but brutally suppressed insurrection of February 1934, joined the Communist Party. Joining the Communists reflected a widespread belief on the political left in Vienna that the Social Democratic Workers' Party had shown itself to be insufficiently robust in resisting the political developments of the time. Austria was in the process of becoming a one-party state and Communist Party membership had been illegal since May 1933. She nevertheless participated in party training and recruitment activities. She worked as a treasurer for local party cells and, till Autumn/Fall 1937, undertook distribution of party literature.
She intensified her illegal political activism after March 1938 which was when Fascist Austria was formally incorporated into an enlarged Nazi Germany following a largely unresisted military invasion from the north-west. Margarete Jost became a member of the regional "Provinzkommission". From 1938 she was working as a contact between locals party activists and senior party officials. She became the party contact for the "Südbahnstrecke" - the part of Vienna surrounding the Südbahnhof railway terminus. On the one side this involved communicating instructions from the party regional leadership to activists living "underground" (their place of residence not registered with the city authorities): on the other hand she was responsible for passing to the leadership reports of the "illegal work" undertaken by activists in this part of Vienna. In July 1940 the authorities arrested forty members of the organisation, but even after this sources indicate that there were still around fifty communist activists in the district defined, for the purposes of party organisation, by the suburb of Baden and the surrounding district ("Bezirk Baden und Umgebung"). Jost administered cash contributions and the application of the funds to support comrades who had been arrested and the families left destitute by those arrests.
Grete Jost travelled several times in the company of other party members to the underground party headquarters at Baden, some 30 km / 18 miles south of Vienna to discuss political developments and the party's "illegal work". She also continued regularly to distribute antifascist publications such as the party's daily newspaper, , "Weg und Ziel" and other publications. One publication that she distributed was entitled "Letter of a Young Worker to a Nazi Work-colleague" ("Brief eines jungen Arbeiters an einen nationalsozialistischen Arbeitskammeraden"). This was viewed with particular disfavour by the Nazi authorities because they called on workers to fight against Hitler-fascism and included presise instructions on how to degrade and/or undermine fascist institutions and the German army.
Arrest, trial, conviction and execution.
Grete Jost was arrested on 8, 9 or 11 February 1941. Sources differ, but only in respect of the date. She was taken to the "investigation prison" alongside the Schiffamtsgasse in the Leopoldstadt quarter of central Vienna. Those of her fellow detainees who survived included Antonia Bruha. They would later describe Jost as a courageous and energetic woman, always thirsty for knowledge. She took food to fellow inmates and engaged in lengthy conversations with those that needed to talk. She never gave up on the fight against the Nazi régime. When she was able to obtain information from outside, she always took care to pass it on in full.
Jost's trial took place on 23 September 1942. She was convicted on the usual charge, under these circumstances, of "preparing to commit high treason" ("Vorbereitung zum Hochverrat") and condemned to death. Others sentenced to deathat the same time included Theodor Pawlin, Theodor Gindra, Gustav Srch and Rudi Spulka. She was transferred to the death cells which were located in the basement under the women's section on the prison hospital. The Communist resistance activist Anna Haider was employed as an assistant in the hospital and was therefore able sometimes to access the death cells to take newspapers to the condemned and, sometimes, engage in conversation with them. She later reported that even at this stage Grete Jost's conduct was exemplary, always ready to comfort others scheduled for execution, and never losing hope of liberation from her fate through the timely arrival of the Red army.
It is apparent, too, from the letters she sent her fiancé and parents during the Autumn/Fall of 1942 that even after sentencing Grete Jost did not immediately lose all hope, though she does appear to have been subject to savage mood swings. Relatives tried desperately to obtain a pardon for her. Her mother had even travelled to Berlin to lobby the justice department. These efforts proved fruitless, however.
A guillotine had been installed inside the Vienna District Court complex ("Wiener Landesgericht") in 1938, shortly after the annexation. Margarete Jost was executed on it on 15 January 1943. Her final words, reportedly, were "Es lebe die Freiheit!" ("loosely, "Long live freedom"").


Christian Hersleb Horneman

Christian Hersleb Horneman (10 December 1781 – 22 June 1860) was a Norwegian jurist and elected official. He served as a representative at the Norwegian Constitutional Assembly.
Christian Hersleb Horneman was born in Trondheim, Norway. He attended Trondheim Cathedral School. In 1801, Horneman earned his Cand. Jur. from the University of Copenhagen. He served as an auditor in Helsingor and at Kronborg Castle. In 1810 he was appointed magistrate and town clerk in Kragerø in Telemark. In 1815, Horneman returned to Trondheim where he served as an assessor for the court over the next forty years. He also served as chairman of the supervisory board of Norges Bank from 1832 to 1848.
He represented Kragerø at the Norwegian Constituent Assembly in 1814 where he voted with the independence party ("Selvstendighetspartiet"). He was elected to the Parliament of Norway, representing Trondheim in 1824, 1827, 1830, 1836 and 1839.
He was married during 1810 with his cousin Fredrikke Horneman (1787-1852) with whom he had nine children. He was a member and later president of the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters. He also served as mayor Trondheim.


Uijeongbu scandal

The Uijeongbu Yi Sun-ho lawyer scandal was a 1997 judicial scandal in Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea. For the first time in South Korean judicial history, prosecutors investigated a large number of sitting judges; they found that fifteen District Court judges had received millions of won in payments from attorneys. In the end the judges were not indicted because prosecutors believed the money had no direct connection with their legal duties. However, judges who received sums greater than one million won were obliged to resign, while those who received smaller amounts suffered demotion or disciplinary measures. Along with a 1998 bribery scandal in Daejeon, the Uijeongbu scandal was one of the motivations behind a law, finally passed by the National Assembly in 2000, which attempted to address the issue of special treatment shown to judges who retired to become lawyers in private practise. The scandals also lead to a revision of the code of judicial ethics banning cash thank-you gifts.


Mordehai Dubin

Mordehai Dubin (; January 1, 1889, Riga, Governorate of Livonia, Russian Empire — 1956, Tula, USSR) was a major Jewish spiritual and political leader in Latvia. He served as a Member of Parliament ("Saeima") for the Agudas Israel party. He headed the Jewish community in Latvia until 1940, when it was annexed by the USSR.
Due to his efforts, the imprisonment of the famous "Lubavitcher" Rebbe Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn in the USSR in 1927 was commuted to exile in Latvia.
Dubin was a personal friend of Kārlis Ulmanis, the nationalist authoritarian dictator of Latvia from 1934 to 1940.
Dubin was deported from Latvia by the Soviet authorities in 1940 and released in 1942. After World War II he returned to Riga where the local press attacked him violently, of course under orders from above. He was arrested again and deported in 1948. He lived under arrest and exile in Siberia, first in Samara, and later in Tula, where he died in 1956 in a labor camp and is buried.


Laws of William the Conqueror

William the Conqueror, the first Norman King of England who reigned from 1066 until his death in 1087, created 10 laws for the English people to abide by after the Battle of Hastings.
Laws.
The first law stated that "First that above all things he wishes one God to be revered throughout his whole realm, one faith in Christ to be kept ever inviolate, and peace and security to be preserved between English and Normans." The second law stated that every freeman shall make an oath that he will be loyal to king William and protect his lands. The third law stated that the Normans that he brought with him shall have peace and if any of them is murdered then the lord shall seize him. The fourth law stated that every Norman shall pay what they call Scot and lots.
The fifth law stated that one could only sell cattle in a city with three credible witnesses. The sixth law stated that if a Norman shall charge an Englishman with a crime, then the Englishman can defend himself in such manner as he prefers: with either a hot iron or a battle. The seventh law stated that people shall follow the laws of King Edward the Confessor in respect to lands and possessions. The eighth law stated that "Every man who wishes to be considered a freeman shall be in pledge so that his surety shall hold him and hand him over to justice if he shall offend in any way."
The ninth law stated that any sale of a man of an outside country shall pay a fine paid in full to William. The tenth law stated that none shall be hanged or slain for any crime. Instead they were to be blinded and castrated. If violated then they shall pay a fine to William.


William de Notton

Sir William de Notton (died c.1365) was an English landowner and judge, who had a highly successful career in both England and Ireland, culminating in his appointment as Lord Chief Justice of Ireland in 1361.
He belonged to the landowning family of de Notton, who took their name from Notton in West Yorkshire. By the time of his birth however Notton had already passed to the
Darcy family. He acquired the manors of Fishlake, Monk Bretton and Woolley Hall in Yorkshire, as well as Litlington, Cambridgeshire, and Cocken Hatch near Royston, Hertfordshire. Cocken Hatch had previously been held by John de Vere, 7th Earl of Oxford.
Early career.
He served on a commission of oyer and terminer in 1343-5. In 1346 he became Serjeant-at-law : he was an excellent lawyer, whose arguments were frequently reported in the Year Books. He became a Member of Parliament in 1349 and sat on a commission to inquire into the condition of labourers and artisans in Surrey.
Chantry.
In 1350 he and his wife Isabel conveyed their lands at Fishlake, Monk Bretton, Woolley and Moseley to John de Birthwaite, the Prior of Monk Bretton Priory, to build a chantry chapel at Woolley, where prayers would be said for the King and his family, and for Notton, Isabel and their children. The grant may have been inspired by the ending of the first outbreak of the Black Death, a time when many people felt a sense of thanksgiving for their deliverance from the plague, together with an increased awareness of their own mortality.
In 1354-5 he conveyed his lands at Cocken Hatch, which had been granted
to him by the Earl of Oxford, to the Prior of Royston.
Judge.
In 1355 he was appointed a judge of the Court of King's Bench. When he was on assize in 1356 he was ordered to remove from office the Sheriffs of Oxfordshire and Northumberland. In 1357 he was appointed to a powerful commission to inquire into an alleged affray between a servant of John Gynwell, Bishop of Lincoln and members of the Order of Hospitallers. Ironically (in view of Notton's later office as Irish Chief Justice) the alleged instigator of the affray, Richard de Wirkeley, the Prior of the Hospitallers, was himself a former Lord Chief Justice of Ireland; while the commission included another former Irish Lord Chief Justice, Henry de Motlowe.
He sat on another judicial commission later in the same year to inquire into the death, presumed to be murder, of George de Longueville, described as "chevalier" (knight), at Billing, Northamptonshire. Longueville was an MP, and a member of the prominent landowning family who later owned Wolverton in Buckinghamshire. He was probably the father or brother of John Longueville, who married the heiress of Wolverton, Joan le Hunt, daughter of John le Hunt (yet another English judge who served as Lord Chief Justice of Ireland). Little seems to be known about the circumstances of his murder, and the outcome of the commission of inquiry is unknown.
Excommunication and later career.
In 1356 Thomas de Lisle, Bishop of Ely, was charged with inciting the murder of Wiliam Holm, a servant of Blanche of Lancaster, the King's cousin, with whom Bishop de Lisle had a long-standing quarrel, and was also accused of sheltering the murderers. Notton sat on the court which found the Bishop guilty on both charges. For this he was summoned to appear and answer for his conduct at the Papal Court in Avignon in 1358, and when he failed to appear, he was excommunicated. King Edward III, who clearly placed great trust in Notton, simply ignored the sentence of excommunication. Notton remained on the King's Bench until 1361 when he was sent to Ireland as Lord Chief Justice. In 1363 he was a member of the Council which advised the King's second son Lionel of Antwerp, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
He probably died in 1365, and was certainly dead before 1372. By his wife Isabel he had at least two children, but much of his property passed to Sir William Fyncheden, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in England, who died in 1374. The precise relationship between the two men is unclear .


Stedman v United Kingdom

Stedman v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR CD 168 is a UK labour law case, which deals with religious freedom, and the duty of an employer to let religious people have Sundays off.
Facts.
Ms Stedman, a Christian, had worked at an employment agency since 1990. From December 1991 the
applicant, along with other staff, was required to work on Sundays. In the period from December 1991 to May 1992 she worked on 10 out of a total of 25 Sundays. On 27 April 1992 Ms. Stedman gave the manager one month's notice that she was no longer prepared to work on Sunday. On 7 May 1992 she was told that her contract of employment was to be amended to include Sunday as a normal working day, on a rota basis, with no enhanced rate of pay. The applicant refused to sign the new contract and said that she would continue working under her existing contract. On 4 June 1992 she was dismissed after 22 months of employment, and paid one month's pay in lieu of notice.
She claimed this was a breach of her right to freedom of religion under Art.9 ECHR. Under Art.1 the MS must secure Convention rights. She also complained of breach of her right to a family life under Art.8, because she was bound to work some Sundays, and her husband did not.
Judgment.
The European Commission of Human Rights (i.e. the case was not admitted to the actual court) stated by a majority that Ms Stedman resigned because she did not want to work. She was not dismissed because of her religion. Even if she had been employed by the state and dismissed in similar circumstances, there would not have even been an interference with her Art 9(1) rights. The application was ‘manifestly ill founded’ under Art 27(2) ECHR.
For Art 8, ‘given the almost inevitable compromise and balance between work and family commitments, particularly in families where both partners work’ there was no interference, to constitute any violation.
Other challenges under Art.14 and Art.6 were similarly dismissed, and the case was inadmissible.


Gag Law (Puerto Rico)

Law 53 of 1948 better known as the Gag Law, () was an act enacted by the Puerto Rico legislature of 1948, with the purpose of suppressing the independence movement in Puerto Rico. The act made it a crime to own or display a Puerto Rican flag, to sing a patriotic tune, to speak or write of independence, or to meet with anyone or hold any assembly in favor of Puerto Rican independence.
It was passed by a legislature that was overwhelmingly dominated by members of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD), which supported developing an alternative political status for the island. The bill was signed into law on June 10, 1948 by Jesús T. Piñero, the United States-appointed governor. Opponents tried but failed to have the law declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
The law remained in force for nine years until 1957, when it was repealed on the basis that it was unconstitutional as protected by freedom of speech within of the Constitution of Puerto Rico and the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Prelude.
After the United States invaded Puerto Rico in 1898 during the Spanish–American War, some leaders, such as José de Diego and Eugenio María de Hostos, expected the United States to grant the island its independence.
The United States had other ideas. Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 ratified on December 10, 1898, the U.S. annexed Puerto Rico. Spain had lost its last colony in the western hemisphere, and the United States gained imperial strength and global presence.
In the early 20th century, the Puerto Rican independence movement was strong, growing, and embraced by multiple political parties. Among these were the Union Party of Puerto Rico founded in February 1904 by Luis Muñoz Rivera, Rosendo Matienzo Cintrón, Antonio R. Barceló, and José de Diego; the Liberal Party of Puerto Rico founded by Antonio R. Barceló; and the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party founded by José Coll y Cuchí.
In 1914, the entire Puerto Rican House of Delegates demanded independence from the U.S. Instead, the U.S. imposed the Jones Act of 1917, which mandated U.S. citizenship on the entire island. The passage of the Jones Act coincided with America's entry unto World War I, and it allowed the U.S. to conscript Puerto Ricans into the U.S. military. The Jones Act was passed over the unanimous objection of the entire Puerto Rican House of Delegates, which was the legislature of Puerto Rico at that time.
In addition to subjecting Puerto Ricans to the military draft, and sending them into World War I, the Jones Act created a bicameral, popularly elected legislature in Puerto Rico (following ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1913 providing for popular election of senators), a bill of rights, and executive functions similar to those in most states. Because Puerto Rico was not a state, it did not have electoral status for U.S. presidential elections. The Act authorized popular election of the Resident Commissioner, previously appointed by the President of the U.S.
In the 1930s, leaders of the Nationalist Party split as differences arose between José Coll y Cuchí and his deputy, Pedro Albizu Campos, a Harvard-educated attorney. Coll y Cuchí left the party and Albizu Campos became president in 1931. He retained this post for the rest of his life, including terms in prison. In the 1930s, social unrest rose during the harsh conditions of the Great Depression. The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, then presided over by Albizu Campos, had some confrontations with the established government of the U.S. in the island, during which people were killed by police.
In 1938, Luis Muñoz Marín, son of Luis Muñoz Rivera and at first a member of the Liberal Party, founded the "Partido Liberal, Neto, Auténtico y Completo" (the "Clear, Authentic and Complete Liberal Party") in the town of Arecibo. He and his followers Felisa Rincon de Gautier and Ernesto Ramos Antonini claimed to have founded the "true" Liberal Party. His group renamed itself as the Popular Democratic Party (PPD). According to the historian Delma S. Arrigoitia, it abandoned its quest for independence and, by 1950, settled for a new political status for Puerto Rico called the "Estado Libre Associado" (Free Associated State), which opponents likened to continued colonialism.
In the 1940 election, the PPD finished in a dead heat with Barceló's Liberal Party. In order to secure his position as Senate president, Muñoz Marin brokered an alliance with minor Puerto Rican factions, which was possible in such a multi-party system. In the elections of 1944 and 1948, the PPD gained a majority in the Senate and increasing victory margins. In addition, its candidates won almost all legislative posts and mayoral races. The Nationalist Party did not gain much electoral support.
By the late 1940s, the PPD fostered the idea of the creation of a "new" political status for the island. Under this hybrid political status as an "Estado Libre Associado," or Associate Free State, the people of Puerto Rico would be allowed to elect their own governor, rather than having to accept a US appointee. In exchange, the United States would continue to control the island's monetary system, provide defense, and collect custom duties. It reserved the exclusive right to enter into treaties with foreign nations.
Under this status, the laws of Puerto Rico would continue to be subject to the approval of the Federal government of the United States. The status of "Estado Libre Associado" displeased many advocates of Puerto Rican independence, as well as those who favored the island's being admitted as a state of the U.S.
Passage.
In 1948, the Senate passed a bill that restricted expressions of ideas related to the nationalist movement. The Senate at the time was controlled by the PPD and presided over by Luis Muñoz Marín.
The bill, known as Law 53 and the "Ley de la Mordaza" (Gag Law), passed the legislature was signed into law on June 10, 1948, by the U.S.-appointed governor of Puerto Rico Jesús T. Piñero. It closely resembled the anti-communist Smith Law passed in the United States.
The law prohibited owning or displaying a Puerto Rican flag anywhere, even in one's own home. It also became a crime to speak against the U.S. government; to speak in favor of Puerto Rican independence; to print, publish, sell or exhibit any material intended to paralyze or destroy the insular government; or to organize any society, group or assembly of people with a similar destructive intent. Anyone accused and found guilty of disobeying the law could be sentenced to ten years imprisonment, a fine of $10,000 (US), or both.
Dr. Leopoldo Figueroa, a member of the "Partido Estadista Puertorriqueño" (Puerto Rican Statehood Party) and the only non-PPD member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, said the law was repressive and in direct violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees Freedom of Speech. He noted that Puerto Ricans had been granted US citizenship and were covered by its constitutional guarantees.
Reaction.
Among those who opposed the "Gag Law" was Santos Primo Amadeo Semidey, a.k.a. "The Champion of "Habeas Corpus"." Amadeo Semidey was an educator, lawyer and former Senator in the Puerto Rico legislature who confronted the government of Puerto Rico when the government approved and executed the laws of "La Mordaza." Amadeo Semidey, an expert in Constitutional Law, immediately filed a "habeas corpus" action with the U.S. Supreme Court which questioned the constitutionality of Law 53, and demanded the release of Enrique Ayoroa Abreu, arrested in Ponce. Amadeo Semidey and other lawyers also defended 15 members of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, who were accused of breaking Gag Law 53.
Revolts.
On June 21, 1948, Pedro Albizu Campos, president of the Nationalist Party since 1931, gave a speech in the town of Manati where Nationalists from all over the island had gathered, in case the police attempted to arrest him. Later that month Campos visited Blanca Canales and her cousins Elio and Griselio Torresola, the Nationalist leaders of the town of Jayuya. Griselio soon moved to New York City where he met and befriended Oscar Collazo. From 1949 to 1950, the Nationalists in the island began to plan and prepare an armed revolution. The revolution was to take place in 1952, on the date the United States Congress was to approve the creation of the political status of the Commonwealth ("Estado Libre Associado") for Puerto Rico. Albizu Campos called for an armed revolution because he considered the "new" status to be a colonial farce. He picked the town of Jayuya as the headquarters of the revolution because of its location. Weapons were stored in the Canales' residence.
The uprisings, which became known as the "Puerto Rican Nationalist Party Revolts of the 1950s," began on October 30, 1950. Albizu Campos ordered them after learning about his potential imminent arrest. Uprisings occurred in various towns, amongst them Peñuelas, Mayagüez, Naranjito, Arecibo and Ponce. Most notable were the Utuado Uprising, where the insurgents were massacred, and the Jayuya Uprising, in the town of the same name, where Nationalists attacked the police station, killing officers. The government sent in the Puerto Rican National Guard to take back control and used its planes to bomb the town.
Nationalists declared the "Free Republic of Puerto Rico" in Jayuya. Other Nationalists attempted to assassinate Governor Luis Muñoz Marín in his residence at "La Fortaleza," as part of the San Juan Nationalist revolt.
By the end of the local revolts, 28 were dead - 7 police officers, 1 National Guardsman, and 16 Nationalists. There were also 49 wounded - 23 police officers, 6 National Guardsmen, 9 Nationalists and 11 non-participating bystanders.
The revolts were not limited to Puerto Rico. They included a plot to assassinate United States President Harry S. Truman in Washington, D.C.. On November 1, 1950, two Nationalists from New York City attacked the Blair House, where Truman was staying while renovations were being made to the White House. They did not harm him.
Truman acknowledged that it was important to settle Puerto Rico's status, and supported the plebiscite in 1952 in which voters had a chance to choose whether or not they wanted the constitution that had been drafted for the "Estado Libre Associado". Nearly 82% of the voters on the island approved the new constitution.
The last major attempt by the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party to draw world attention to Puerto Rico's colonial situation occurred on March 1, 1954, when four nationalists - Lolita Lebrón, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Irvin Flores and Andres Figueroa Cordero, attacked members of the United States House of Representatives by opening fire from the Congressional gallery. They wounded five representatives, one of them severely.
Examples of suppression.
Francisco Matos Paoli, Olga Viscal Garriga, Isabel Rosado and Vidal Santiago Díaz were four supporters of independence who were suppressed during the crackdown.
Francisco Matos Paoli, a poet and member of the Nationalist Party, was arrested and imprisoned under the Gag Law. For writing four Nationalist speeches and owning a Puerto Rican flag, Paoli was imprisoned for ten years.
Olga Viscal Garriga was a student leader at the University of Puerto Rico. She was known for her skills as an orator and an active political activist. She was arrested in 1950 for participating in a demonstration that turned deadly in Old San Juan when U.S. forces opened fire and killed one of the demonstrators. Viscal Garriga was held without bail in "La Princesa" prison. During her trial in federal court, she was uncooperative with the U. S. Government prosecution, and refused to recognize the authority of the U.S. over Puerto Rico. She was sentenced to eight years for contempt of court (not for the initial charges regarding the demonstration), and released after serving five years.
Isabel Rosado was a school social worker accused by the US Government of participating in the revolts. Police arrested her at her job. The police produced no clear or convincing evidence for any of their charges against her. Rosado was convicted at trial and sentenced to fifteen months in jail; she was fired from her job. After being released, Rosado was unable to get a job in the public school system, and had to work in a private school.
Vidal Santiago Díaz was Albizu Campos' barber. On October 31, he offered to serve as an intermediary if the government arrested Albizu Campos. That afternoon, while waiting alone in his barbershop "Salon Boricua" for an answer from the attorney general, he saw that his shop was surrounded by 15 police officers and 25 National Guardsmen. A gunfight ensued between Santiago Díaz and the police. It happened to be transmitted live via radio to the Puerto Rican public in general. The battle lasted 3 hours and came to an end after Santiago Díaz received five bullet wounds. Although Santiago Díaz had not been involved in the Nationalist revolts, he was sentenced to 17 years of prison after recovering from his wounds. He served 2 years before he was set free on a conditioned parole.
Repeal.
Law 53 (the Gag Law) or "La Ley de la Mordaza" as it is known in Puerto Rico, was repealed in 1957. In 1964, David M. Helfeld wrote in his article "Discrimination for Political Beliefs and Associations" that Law 53 was written with the explicit intent of eliminating the leaders of the Nationalist and other pro-independence movements, and to intimidate anyone who might follow them - even if their speeches were reasonable and orderly, and their activities were peaceful.
See also.
Articles related to the quest of Puerto Rican independence:
19th Century male leaders of the Puerto Rican Independence Movement
19th century female leaders of the Puerto Rican Independence Movement
Articles related to the Puerto Rican Independence Movement
 Articles related to Politics of Puerto Rico


The Road and Rail Traffic Appeal Tribunal

The Road and Rail Traffic Appeal Tribunal was appointed under the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933. The Act came into effect on 1 January 1934. The function of the Tribunal was to examine road haulage and to establish a licensing procedure for goods vehicles.
The Tribunal ceased to exist in 1951. Its responsibilities were taken over by the Transport Tribunal.


Georgia during Reconstruction

At the end of the American Civil War, the devastation and disruption in the state of Georgia were dramatic. Wartime damage, the inability to maintain a labor force without slavery, and miserable weather had a disastrous effect on agricultural production. The state's chief cash crop, cotton, fell from a high of more than 700,000 bales in 1860 to less than 50,000 in 1865, while harvests of corn and wheat were also meager. The state government subsidized construction of numerous new railroad lines. White farmers turned to cotton as a cash crop, often using commercial fertilizers to make up for the poor soils they owned. The coastal rice plantations never recovered from the war.
Bartow County was representative of the postwar difficulties. Property destruction and the deaths of a third of the soldiers caused financial and social crises; recovery was delayed by repeated crop failures. The Freedmen's Bureau agents were unable to give blacks the help they needed.
Wartime Reconstruction, or "Forty acres and a mule".
At the beginning of Reconstruction, Georgia had over 460,000 freedmen. In January 1865, in Savannah, William T. Sherman issued Special Field Orders, No. 15, authorizing federal authorities to confiscate abandoned plantation lands in the Sea Islands, whose owners had fled with the advance of his army, and redistribute them to former slaves. Redistributing 400,000 acres (1,600 km²) in coastal Georgia and South Carolina to 40,000 freed slaves in forty-acre plots, this order was intended to provide for the thousands of escaped slaves who had been following his army during his March to the Sea. Shortly after Sherman issued his order, Congressional leaders convinced President Lincoln to establish the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands in March 1865. The Freedmen's Bureau, as it came to be called, was authorized to give legal title for plots of land to freedmen and white Southern Unionists. Rev. Tunis Campbell, a free Northern black missionary, was appointed to supervise land claims and resettlement in Georgia. Over the objections of Freedmen's Bureau chief General Oliver O. Howard, President Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman's directive in the fall of 1865, after the war had ended, returning these lands to the planters who had previously owned them, and expelling their new Black farmers.
Presidential Reconstruction.
On Georgia's farms and plantations, wartime destruction, the inability to maintain a labor force without slavery, and miserable weather had a disastrous effect on agricultural production and the regional economy. The state's chief money crop, cotton, fell from a high of more than 700,000 bales in 1860 to less than 50,000 in 1865, while harvests of corn and wheat were also meager. After the war, new railroad lines and commercial fertilizers created conditions that spurred increased cotton production in Georgia's upcountry, but coastal rice plantations never recovered.
Many emancipated slaves flocked to towns, where they encountered overcrowding and food shortages, with significant numbers dying from epidemic diseases. The Freedmens Bureau returned much of the prewar black labor back to the field, mediating a contract-labor system between white landowners and their black workers, who often consisted of the landowners' former slaves. Taking advantage of educational opportunities available for the first time, within a year, at least 8,000 former slaves were attending schools in Georgia, established with northern philanthropy.
In mid-June 1865, Andrew Johnson appointed as provisional governor his friend and fellow Unionist, James Johnson, a Columbus lawyer who sat out the war. Delegates to a constitutional convention, meeting in Milledgeville in October, abolished slavery, repealed the Ordinance of Secession, and repudiated the Confederacy debt. The General Assembly, while alone among ex-Confederate states in refraining from enacting a harsh Black Code, assumed newly freed slaves would enjoy only the limited freedom of the prewar period's 'free persons of color,' and enacted a constitutional amendment outlawing interracial marriage. On November 15, 1865, Georgia elected a new governor, congressmen, and state legislators. Voters repudiated most Unionist candidates, electing to office many ex-Confederates, although several of these – including the new governor, former Whig Charles J. Jenkins – initially opposed secession. The new state legislature created a political firestorm in Washington by electing to the Senate Alexander Stephens and Herschel Johnson, who had been the Vice-President and a Senator of the Confederacy, respectively. Neither Stephens or Johnson, nor any of Georgia's newly-selected U.S. House delegation, were inaugurated or allowed to take their seats, as the federal government, at the time, refused to accept into the congregation persons implicated so heavily with the Confederacy's secession and rebellion, or to enable them to wield federal-level political influence.
Congressional Reconstruction.
Andrew Johnson's decision in August 1866 to restore the former Confederate states to the Union was criticized by the Radical Republicans in Congress, who, in March 1867, passed the First Reconstruction Act, placing the South under military occupation. Georgia, along with Alabama and Florida, became part of the Third Military District, under the command of General John Pope. Radical Republicans also passed an ironclad oath which prevented ex-Confederates from voting or holding office, replacing them with a coalition of freedmen, carpetbaggers, and scalawags, mostly former Whigs who had opposed secession.
As directed by Congress, General John Pope registered Georgia's eligible white and black voters, 95,214 and 93,457 respectively. From October 29 through November 2, 1867, elections were held for delegates to a new constitutional convention, held in Atlanta rather than the state capital of Milledgeville, to prevent the interference of the ex-Confederates. In January 1868, after Georgia's first elected governor after the end of the war, Charles Jenkins, refused to authorize state funds for the racially integrated state constitutional convention, his government was dissolved by Pope's successor General George Meade and replaced by a military governor. This counter-coup galvanized white resistance to the Reconstruction, fueling the growth of the Ku Klux Klan. Grand Wizard Nathan Bedford Forrest visited Atlanta several times in early 1868 to help set up the organization. In Georgia, the Klan was led by John Brown Gordon, a charismatic General in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Freedmen's Bureau agents reported 336 cases of murder or assault with intent to kill against freedmen across the state from January 1 through November 15 of 1868.
In July 1868, Georgia was readmitted to the Union, the newly elected General Assembly ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, and a Republican governor, New York native Rufus Bullock, was inaugurated. The state's Democrats—including former Confederate leaders Robert Toombs and Howell Cobb—denounced the policies of the Reconstruction in a mass rally in Atlanta, described as the largest in the state's history. The principal target of the rally, Joseph E. Brown, Georgia's Governor under the Confederacy, who became a Republican and a delegate to the Chicago convention that had nominated Union general Ulysses S. Grant for president, declared that although the state, reluctantly, had given Blacks the vote, as they were not citizens the state's constitution did not allow them to hold office. In September, white Republicans joined with the Democrats in expelling the Black senators and Black representatives in the lower house from the General Assembly. While Governor Bullock gave the figure of 28, the monument "Expelled Because of Their Color", on the grounds of the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta, identifies 33.
A week later, in the southwest Georgia town of Camilla, white residents attacked a black Republican rally, killing twelve people in the Camilla massacre.
These developments led to calls for Georgia's return to military rule, which increased after Georgia was one of only two ex-Confederate states to vote against Grant in the election of 1868. (Louisiana was the other; Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia did not vote because they had not yet been readmitted to the Union.) The expelled black legislators, led by Rev. Tunis Campbell and Henry McNeill Turner, lobbied in Washington for federal intervention. In March 1869 Governor Bullock, hoping to prolong Reconstruction, "engineered" Georgia's refusal to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave Blacks the vote. The same month the U.S. Congress once again barred Georgia's representatives from their seats, causing military rule to resume in December 1869. In January 1870, Gen. Alfred H. Terry, the final commanding general of the Third District, purged the General Assembly's ex-Confederates, replaced them with the Republican runners-up, and reinstated the expelled black legislators, creating a large Republican majority in the legislature. On February 2, 1870, Georgia ratified the Fifteenth Amendment.
Amos T. Akerman.
During the tenure of Amos T. Akerman (1821–1880) as Attorney General of the United States from 1870 to 1871, thousands of indictments were brought against Klansmen in an effort to enforce the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871. Akerman, though born in the North, moved to Georgia after college and owned slaves; he fought for the Confederacy and became a scalawag during Reconstruction, speaking out for civil rights for Blacks. As U.S. Attorney General under President Grant, he became the first ex-Confederate to reach the cabinet. Akerman was unafraid of the Klan and committed to protecting the lives and civil rights of Blacks. To bolster Akerman's investigation, President Grant sent in Secret Service agents from the Justice Department to infiltrate the Klan to gather evidence for prosecution. The investigations revealed that many whites actively participated in Klan activities. With this evidence, Grant issued a Presidential proclamation to disarm and remove the Klan's notorious white robe and hood disguises. When the Klan ignored the proclamation, Grant sent Federal troops to nine South Carolina counties to put down the violent activities of the Klan. Grant teamed Akerman up with another reformer in 1870, a native Kentuckian, the first Solicitor General Benjamin Bristow, and the duo went on to prosecute thousands of Klan members and brought a brief quiet period of two years (1870–1872) in the turbulent Reconstruction era.
End of Reconstruction.
Georgia Democrats despised the 'Carpetbagger' administration of Rufus Bullock, accusing two of his friends, Foster Blodgett, superintendent of the state's Western and Atlantic Railroad, and Hannibal I. Kimball, owner of the Atlanta opera house where the state legislature met, of embezzling state funds. His efforts to prolong military rule caused considerable divisions in the states party, while black politicians complained that they did not receive an adequate share of patronage. In February 1870 the newly constituted legislature ratified the Fifteenth Amendment and chose new Senators to send to Washington. On July 15, Georgia became the last former Confederate state readmitted into the Union. The Democrats subsequently won commanding majorities in both houses of the General Assembly. Governor Rufus Bullock fled the state in order to avoid impeachment. With the voting restrictions against former Confederates removed, Democrat and ex-Confederate Colonel James Milton Smith was elected to complete Bullock's term. By January 1872 Georgia was fully under the control of the Redeemers, the state's resurgent white conservative Democrats.
The so-called Redeemers used terrorism to strengthen their rule. The expelled African American legislators were particular targets for their violence. African American legislator Abram Colby was pulled out of his home by a mob and given 100 lashes with a whip. His colleague Abram Turner was murdered. Other African American lawmakers were threatened and attacked.
Notes.
Georgia was re-admitted to the Union twice


Gray Goose Laws

The Gray (Grey) Goose Laws () are a collection of laws from the Icelandic Commonwealth period. The term "Grágás" was originally used in a medieval source to refer to a collection of Norwegian laws and was probably mistakenly used to describe the existing collection of Icelandic law during the sixteenth century. The Grágás laws in Iceland were presumably in use until 1262–1264 when Iceland was taken over by the Norwegian crown.
Origins of Icelandic Law.
According to Ari Thorgilsson, the earliest Icelandic laws were modeled on those from the Norwegian west-coast law-province, Gulathing. These were introduced to Iceland by an immigrant from Norway named Úlfljótr, sometime during the 920's. Following several years of modification and revision, Úlfljótr's laws were approved by an initial assembly. Out of this meeting, the annual general assembly known as the Althing was established. Each following summer, Icelanders would convene at Thingvellir for legislative and judicial meetings which would be supervised by the Lawspeaker.
Etymology.
The term "Gray Goose Laws", used to describe the laws of the Icelandic Commonwealth by the 16th century, may refer to the following:
Manuscripts.
The existing Icelandic Commonwealth laws that now exist as the "Grágás" never actually existed in one complete volume during medieval times. The "Grágás" does not contain a unified body of law, as arguably one never existed in the Icelandic Commonwealth. Instead, the "Grágás" was derived from two smaller, fragmentary volumes known as the "Konungsbók" (Copenhagen, Royal Library, GKS 1157 fol), apparently written around 1260, and "Staðarhólsbók" (Reykjavík, Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, AM 334 fol), apparently written in 1280. The ornate detail and appearance of the volumes suggests that they were created for a wealthy, literate man, though scholars cannot be certain. Because the "Grágás" laws originally existed in two different forms, each has a unique written account of the law. Sometimes the "Konungsbók" and "Staðarhólsbók" present different information, sometimes complementary information, and sometimes contradictory information. This could represent the way in which the law was interpreted differently by different scribes or by different citizens.
According to the "Grágás", one third of the Icelandic laws were recited by the Law Speaker at the Icelandic national parliament, the Alþingi, each year over a three-year period. In 1117 the Alþingi decided that all the laws should be written down and this was accomplished at Hafliði Másson’s farm over that winter and published the following year.
These laws remained in force until 1271–1273 at which time the Ironside Laws—based on Norwegian laws—were adopted. There is scholarly disagreement, however, about how representative the Grágás are regarding the legal tradition that existed during Viking age Iceland. Arguably, the codification of oral law in the "Grágás" better represents Icelandic legal tradition post-Christianity, thus after the year 1000.
Contents.
The sections of law contained within the Grágás are:


Walter Czollek

Walter Czollek (8 April 1907 - 23 April 1972) was the head of the East German publishing house between 1954 and 1972.
In 1929, as a young man, he joined the Communist Party. He was detained in a succession of prisons and concentration camps between 1933 and 1939, at which point he was deprived of his citizenship. By 1939 it was no longer so easy as it had been earlier in the decade for Germany's political refugees to find refuge elsewhere in Europe, but he was able to emigrate to China where he supported himself with journalistic and translation work between 1939 and 1947.
Life.
Walter Czollek was born in the Charlottenburg quarter of Berlin into a German-Jewish family. His father was a businessman. He had a conventional schooling, attending a Gymnasium (secondary school) locally and successfully completing his School final exams ("Abitur"). However, instead of progressing directly to university, in 1924 he embarked on a commercial apprenticeship, mastering the production and processing of artificial silk fabrics. He continued to work in the business till 1933.
Between 1928 and 1930 he also undertook a study course in at the German Academy of Politics in Berlin-Schöneberg. It was during this time, in 1929, that he joined the Communist Party. He worked secretly in the party's quasi-military "M-Apparat" ("Militärpolitischen Apparat" / "Military-political structure") between 1929 and 1933.
Régime change in January 1933, followed by the Reichstag fire in February 1933, signalled a rapid transition to one-party dictatorship. Those who were or had been active Communist Party members found themselves at the top of the government's target list, and many escaped arrest only by fleeing abroad, mostly (in the early years) to Prague, Paris and Moscow. During 1933/34 Walter Czollek was arrested twice. In 1934 he was sentenced to two years in prison. He served his sentence at the penitentiaries in Berlin's Prince Albrecht Street and Luckau, before being transferred, in 1936, to Lichtenburg concentration camp. He was moved to Dachau concentration camp in 1937, and in 1938 to Buchenwald concentration camp where he was held, mostly, in isolation and subjected to serious mistreatment.
He was eventually released and expelled from Germany in May 1939. He arrived in Shanghai on 17 July 1939, and met by Max Lewinsohn and Alfred Dreifuss. Czollek was found a room in an apartment in Ward Road. Through Dreifuss he was introduced to who operated what amounted to a "political salon" at the heart of a small but committed community of exiled German communists. Between 1939 and 1941 he headed up an illegal radio station on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, also carrying out tasks for a Soviet news and information service, while also supporting himself by working in various chemicals companies. Up till 1945 he was passing military information to various news agencies. Between 1939 and 1947 he also worked as a translator and radio presenter for the German language TASS station "Voice of the Soviet Union in Shanghai" ("Stimme der Sowjetunion in Shanghai"). Czollek was a co-founder and later a leader of the Communist Party of Germany exile group in China, and after the war in Europe ended, in November 1945 he was a co-founder of the "Residents Association of Democratic Germans" in Shanghai.
In August 1947 Walter Czollek returned from Shanghai to the part of Germany which, since May 1945, had been administered as the Soviet occupation zone of what had previously been Germany. He took a job with the "Treuhandverwaltung", responsible for administering confiscated and sequestered property in the Soviet (eastern) part of Berlin. In 1948/49 he took a senior position with the personnel office of the Berlin Chamber of Industry and Commerce.. During this time, in October 1949, the Soviet occupation zone was relaunched as the German Democratic Republic, a new kind of German one-party dictatorship, sponsored by the Soviet Union, and with its defining social and political structures modelled on those of the Soviet Union itself. Between 1950 and 1952 he was employed by the (publishing house) as a reader on the then crucially important subject of contemporary history.
During 1952 he attended a course at the party's , after which he became deputy head of the . In 1954 he succeeded Bruno Peterson as head ("Verlagsleiter") of the operation, a position he retained for eighteen years till his death in 1972.
Family.
Walter Czollek's grandson, Max Czollek, has achieved a certain notability as a lyricist and stage performer.


Flixton House

Flixton House was built in 1806 by the Wright family, who had become wealthy land owners in Flixton.
Flixton House would probably have been quite unremarkable in a national context had Ralph Wright in 1826 not closed several footpaths across his estate, footpaths that the public had until then been allowed access to.
In response to the closure of those footpaths the people of Flixton initiated and funded a court case against Ralph Wright, one of the first footpath battles in England.
The people of Flixton won their case, and their success led to the creation of the Manchester Association for the Preservation of Ancient Footpaths in 1826.
Subsequent history.
The Wright family continued to hold the house and land until the death of Samuel Worthington-Wright in 1934, following which Urmston Urban District Council acquired Flixton House and its of land for £69,793.
The park was officially opened to the public in 1935. The house and park are now owned by Trafford Council.
Flixton House along with its surrounding buildings was designated a Grade II listed building in 1981.
Event Space.
This Grade II listed building has been a wedding and events venue in Trafford for many years and is now owned and managed by Trafford Council.
In 2018 Flixton House recently underwent a drastic refurbishment. The venue has been updated with modern décor and furnishings whilst retaining many features from the early 19th century.


Battle of Champions

The Battle of Champions was a trial by combat fought in 1478 or 1464 between two Scottish clans, Clan Gunn and Clan Keith. It took place at the chapel of St Tears (St Tayre) on the coast north of Wick in Caithness, between Ackergill Tower and Girnigoe Castle. It was arranged to settle a dispute with a battle between twelve men on horseback on either side. However, the Keiths arrived with two men on each of their twelve horses, and massacred the 12 Gunns. The clans finally signed a treaty of friendship in 1978, ending the feud after 500 years.
Background.
It is recorded that the feud began when Dugald, Chieftain of the Keiths, abducted Helen of Braemore, daughter of Lachlan Gunn, when he discovered that she was betrothed to Alexander Gunn. The attack occurred on the night before the wedding, and Alexander was one of those slain by the Keiths. Helen subsequently committed suicide by throwing herself off Ackergill Tower. Subsequent conflicts between the two clans were for the most part indecisive, and losses were numerous on both sides. After long quarreling between the Keiths and Gunns it was decided that a "battle of champions" would be fought between twelve men on horseback on either side but the Keiths arrived with two men on each horse.
Battle.
Conflicts of the Clans.
An account of the battle was written in the book "Conflicts of the Clans", published by the Foulis Press in 1764, written from a manuscript from the time of King James VI of Scotland (1566–1625):
"About the year of God 1478, there was some dissention in Caithness betwixt the Keiths and the Clan Gunn. A meeting was appointed for their reconciliation, at the Chapel of St. Tayre, in Caithness, hard by Girnigo, with twelve horse on either side. The Crowner (chieftain of Clan Gunn) with the most part of his sons and chief kinsmen came to the chapel, to the number of twelve; and, as they were within the chapel at their prayers, the Laird of Inverugie and Ackergill arrived there with twelve horse, and two men upon every horse; thinking it no breach of trust to come with twenty-four men, seeing they had but twelve horses as was appointed."
"So the twenty-four gentlemen rushed in at the door of the chapel, and invaded the Crowner and his company unawares; who, nevertheless, made great resistance. In the end eight the Clan Gunn were slain, with the most of the Keiths. Their blood may be seen to this day upon the walls within the Chapel at St. Tyre, where they were slain. Afterwards William Mackames (the Crowner's grandchild) in revenge of his grandfather, killed George Keith of Ackergill and his son, with ten of their men, at Drummuny in Sutherland, as they were travelling from Inverugie into Caithness."
Robert Mackay.
Robert Mackay wrote an account of the battle in his book the "History of the House and Clan of the Name Mackay" (1829), quoting from historian Sir Robert Gordon (1580–1656):
"After long quarreling between the Keiths and Guns, it was agreed that riders on twelve horses each side should meet at the Chapel of St Tayr, near Ackergill, to adjust all their differences. At the time appointed the chieften of the Guns with eleven men of his tribe attended; and as the Keiths had not arrived, they employed the intermediate time in devotion. At length the Keiths appeared on twelve horses, but with double riders on each, and immediately set upon the Guns, and killed ever man of them, but with the loss of the greater part of their own number. Sir Robert who relates to the tragedy, says their blood was seen on the walls of the chapel in his time.The chieften or coroner's son, James Gunn, then left Caithness with his clan, and settled in Sutherland, where they became wardens of that district. William, son of this James, and a number of his tribe, afterwards intercepted George Keith of Ackergill, accompanied by his son and twelve of their followers, on their journey from Inverguey to Caithness, and killed them all in revenge of the above massacre. This William was surnamed Mackamish, i.e. son of James; and thenceforward the chieften of the clan Gunn has always been titled Mackamissh."
Treaty ending the Keith/Gunn feud.
By the 1970s, with North American members of both clans on friendly terms, the feud between them was no longer an issue. At the urging of their clan members, the Chief of Clan Keith, Sir James Ian Keith, Earl of Kintore, and the Commander of Clan Gunn, Ian Alexander Gunn of Banniskirk, signed a "Bond and Covenant of Friendship" on 28 July 1978, at the site of St. Tears on the 500th anniversary of the battle there. The treaty has since been celebrated by some members of both clans at Highland games and other common gatherings.


John Topcliffe

John Topcliffe (died 1513) was an English born judge who spent much of his career in Ireland, where he held office as Chief Justice of each of the three courts of common law in turn.
Background.
His family took their name from Topcliffe, North Yorkshire, a locality with which he retained close links all his life. It was probably John who built Topcliffe Hall, a substantial manor house which had largely disappeared by the nineteenth century, and probably died there.
Career.
He qualified as a proctor (i.e. a lawyer qualified to practice in the ecclesiastical courts), but little more is known of his legal career until 1494, when he was sent to Ireland as Chief Justice of the Irish Common Pleas. Two years later he served briefly as Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer before becoming Lord Chief Justice of Ireland later the same year. His patent was renewed several times by Henry VII and he was continued in office by Henry VIII, which suggests that the Crown had great confidence in his ability. Henry VII, who was as a rule exceptionally parsimonious, ordered that his arrears of salary be paid in 1504, and Henry VIII made him a gift of £40. He was also appointed Master of the Irish Mint, and an officer of the royal household.
In 1498, following the enactment of Poynings' Law, Topcliffe was sent to England to seek leave for the holding of an Irish Parliament, which was duly granted.
Letter to Henry VIII.
In 1512 he wrote to Henry VIII about the affairs of Selskar Abbey, a house of Augustinian canons in Wexford. Elrington Ball thought that the letter was worth quoting in detail, both because of the glimpse it gives us of Topcliffe's personality, and because few other private papers of the Irish judiciary from this time have survived.
Topcliffe explained that since the Abbey's foundation the canons had chosen their own prior. After the last election however, the Abbot had expelled the "good blessed religious father and prior" who had been the choice of the canons and had the approval of the town authorities also. Topcliffe argued that such defiance of the wishes of the community could not be permitted, or, he warned, "the service of God will not continue". It is unknown whether or not the King replied to this letter. He certainly had no particular affection for Selskar Abbey, which was suppressed in 1542 as part of the wider Dissolution of the Monasteries.
Death and memorial.
Topcliffe died in 1513, apparently at Topcliffe, since he was buried in the nearby church of St. Mary's, Woodkirk. His tombstone recorded his name, offices and date of death. It was still clearly visible in 1830, but the local historian William Smith, writing in 1888, noted that renovations (which were described as "sheer vandalism" by critics) had largely obliterated it.
He was married, though little appears to be known about his wife. They had one daughter and heiress Rose, who in 1512 married Richard Bunny of Wakefield (died 1535), and had issue., including the younger Richard Bunny MP (died 1584), who was a political figure of some importance in the north of England in the reign of Elizabeth I.
Character.
Local historian William Smith regarded Topcliffe as "a notable personality", and there is no doubt that he enjoyed the confidence of two successive Kings of England. By contrast Elrington Ball, who admittedly was depending almost entire;y on the evidence of the judge's letter to Henry VIII, thought him a simple and pious man of no great legal ability or strength of character.


Trial of residence

A juicio de residencia (literally, "judgment of residence") was a judicial procedure of Castilian law and the Laws of the Indies. It consisted of this: at the termination of a public functionary's term, his performance in office was subject to review, and those with grievances against him were entitled to a hearing. This was largely an automatic procedure, and did not imply prior suspicion of misconduct.
The official was not allowed to leave the place where he exercised his authority, nor to assume another office, until the conclusion of this judicial inquiry. Generally, the person charged with directing the inquiry, called the "juez de residencia" (residence judge), was that individual already named to succeed to the position. The penalties for conviction varied, but generally consisted of fines.
The "juicio de residencia" took on great importance in the administration of the Indies, perhaps because of the great distances involved and the difficulty of direct supervision by the Crown. It extended from the viceroys and the presidents of the "Audiencia" to the alcaldes and the "alguaciles" (judicial officials, sometimes translated as "sheriffs"). With the entrance into force of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, the procedure no longer applied.
Originally, every viceroy had to pass his "juicio de residencia" before his successor could take office. But in the eighteenth century viceregal "juicios" were conducted after the outgoing viceroy had returned to Spain. During the lengthy process (up to six months), the degree of the viceroy's compliance with his instructions was analyzed, his job performance was reviewed, and many testimonies were collected from different parties.
Another formula the Crown used to control its officials, including the viceroy in his capacity as president of the "Audiencia", was the "visitador" who collected "visitas". The "visitador" was an inspector named at the pleasure of the king to investigate a particular administration. Like the "juicio", this institution had the aim of discovering abuses committed by the authorities, and proposing necessary reforms.


Ordinance of Marine

The Great Ordinance of Marine of August 1681, (French: "grande ordonnance de la marine d'août 1681") also called the marine code, is a royal ordinance drafted under the reign of Louis XIV, which comprehensively codifies practices in maritime transport (shipping). Inspired by the customs and statutes of the United Provinces (Amsterdam and Antwerp), it was established under the administration of Colbert.
The order is divided into five books, themselves divided into several parts and chapters:
There is also an order of the navy in April 1689 for the navy and naval arsenals.


Real Audiencia of Santiago

The Royal "Audiencia" of Santiago () was an "Audiencia Real" or royal law court that functioned in Santiago de Chile during the Spanish colonial period. This body heard both civil and criminal cases. It was founded during the 17th century and abolished in 1818.
Structure.
Law XII (Audiencia y Chancillería Real de Santiago de Chile) of Title XV (De las Audiencias y Chancillerias Reales de las Indias) of Book II of the "Recopilación de Leyes de las Indias" of 1680—which reproduces Philip IV's decree of February 17, 1609—describes the limits and functions of the Audiencia.
In the city of Santiago de Chile shall reside another Royal "Audiencia" and Chancellery of ours, with a president-governor-captain general; four judges of civil cases ["oidores"], who shall also be judges of criminal cases ["alcaldes del crimen"]; a crown attorney ["fiscal"]; a bailiff ["alguacil mayor"]; a lieutenant of the Gran Chancellor; and the other necessary ministers and officials, which will have for district all of said Kingdom of Chile, with the cities, towns, places and lands, which are included in the government of those provinces, including what is now pacified and populated, as well as what shall be subdued, populated and pacified inside and outside the Straits of Magellan and inland to the Cuyo Province, inclusive. And we order that said president-governor-captain general govern and administer its government ("gobernación") in all matters and by all means, and that said "Audiencia", nor any other minister interfere in this, except our Viceroy of Peru, in the cases, which comply with the laws in this book and as permitted by our orders, and that said president do not intervene in matters of justice, and leave the "oidores" to decree in them freely, and that all sign that which they decree, sentence or dispatch.
The Province of Cuyo was transferred to the Audiencia of Buenos Aires, when the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata was created in the late eighteenth century.
Independence.
The "Audiencia" continued to function after the establishment of the First Government Junta of the Kingdom of Chile on September 18, 1810, until the Figueroa mutiny of April 1, 1811. In fact, its Regent, Fernando Márquez de la Plata, was elected as one of the junta's members. The Figueroa uprising provided a reason to dissolve the "Audiencia", seen by many as a bastion of royalism, and it was replaced by a "Tribunal de Apelaciones" or Appeals Court.
With the temporary return of royalists to power after the Battle of Rancagua, the body was reconstituted by the new Governor-Captain General, Mariano Osorio. It functioned until 1818, when it was finally shut down by the independent government of Bernardo O'Higgins, again replaced by a new appeals court, this time called the "Cámara de Apelaciones". This was in turn the ancestor of today's Chilean Appeals Court in Santiago.


Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd

Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the protection of trade secrets in Canada. It also describes the difference between trade secrets and patents under Canadian law.
Background.
In 1969, a new cocktail known as the Bloody Caesar was created in Calgary, Alberta. The main ingredients of a Bloody Caesar are tomato juice, clam broth and vodka. Shortly thereafter, Duffy-Mott, an American juice manufacturer, began to produce and market a mixture of tomato juice, clam broth and spices under the name "Clamato". The Bloody Caesar became one of the most popular cocktails in Canada, greatly increasing sales of Clamato in Canada along the way.
In 1977, Duffy-Mott decided to license the manufacturing and marketing of Clamato to British Columbian company, Caesar Canning. Duffy-Mott gave Caesar Canning information about how to manufacture Clamato. Caesar Canning used this information, along with spice packs (also received from Duffy-Mott), to produce Clamato.
Caesar Canning was able to successfully increase the market share of Clamato in Canada. With consent from Duffy-Mott, Caesar Canning entered into a sublicensing agreement with FBI Foods Ltd., which produced Clamato for the Eastern Canadian market.
In 1982, Cadbury-Schweppes purchased Duffy-Mott and only a few months later, they informed Caesar Canning they would be terminating the Clamato licensing agreement. As part of the licensing agreement, Caesar Canning had an industry-standard no-compete-type agreement, which stated that, after the licence's termination, Caesar Canning would not produce, manufacture or distribute any product "which includes amongst its ingredients, clam juice and tomato juice" for a period of five years or any product with a name ending with the letters "-MATO".
In response to the loss of the licence, Caesar Canning used the formula for Clamato (which it had received from Duffy-Mott) to create a new type of mixing-juice. In order to avoid breaching the licensing agreement, the product contained tomato juice, but "no" clam juice. With the help of FBI Foods Ltd., Caesar Canning was able to market this juice across Canada, under various trade names. In the court reports, judges referred to all of these products collectively as "Caesar Cocktail".
While the product successfully gained market share from Clamato, Caesar Canning did not survive as an independent company and declared bankruptcy in 1985.
In 1986, FBI Foods Ltd. purchased Caesar Canning's assets and continued to sell Caesar Cocktail.
Cadbury-Schweppes did not take immediate action against FBI Foods Ltd. or Caesar Canning because they believed neither company had breached the licensing agreement, given that "no" clam juice was used to produce Caesar Cocktail.
However, in 1986, Cadbury-Schweppes realized they might, in fact, have a case against FBI Foods Ltd. for breach of confidence. They sued FBI Foods Ltd. for having knowingly and improperly used confidential information which Cadbury-Schweppes' predecessor, Duffy-Mott had given to Caesar Canning "solely" for the purpose of producing Clamato under licence, not for producing its own competing product.
Case History.
Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The case was first heard by Justice Carol Huddart of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Justice Huddart ruled in favour of Cadbury Schweppes after applying the test for whether confidential information had been misused that was laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd.. In that case, it was ruled that a plaintiff can recover for misuse of confidential information when the following three conditions are satisfied
In this case, Justice Huddart ruled that the Clamato recipe was confidential information and therefore worthy of protection because Duffy-Mott used time, money and effort to produce it. She then ruled that Caesar Canning and FBI Foods Ltd. had an obligation of confidence based on the licensing contract between Duffy-Mott and Caesar Canning, the common understanding in the food industry that recipes not widely known should be kept confidential and because the recipe had been communicated to Caesar Canning for the limited purpose of producing Clamato under licence. Finally, Justice Huddart ruled that Caesar Canning and FBI Foods Ltd. had misused the information because they used it to produce Caesar Cocktail, a purpose for which they had not been given the information.
Justice Huddart ruled that FBI Foods Ltd. and Caesar Canning should be liable for their misuse of Duffy-Mott's Clamato recipe. She ruled that, because Cadbury-Schweppes could not prove they had lost money due to the competition, FBI Foods, Ltd. should only be required to compensate Cadbury-Schweppes for money Caesar Canning saved by not having to develop its own recipe for Caesar Cocktail. This amount was later judged to be $29761.20. Justice Huddart did not order FBI Foods Ltd. to give all of the profits it made from Caesar Cocktail to Cadbury-Schweppes because Cadbury-Schweppes had not requested such a remedy until after she had ruled that FBI Foods Ltd. and Caesar Canning had misused their recipe. She also refused to prohibit FBI Foods, Ltd. from continuing to use the recipe on the basis that FBI Foods could have figured out how to replicate the recipe on its own and because Cadbury-Schweppes's four-year delay in bringing suit would make it unfair to require FBI Foods to discontinue producing a product that it had been producing for years.
British Columbia Court of Appeal.
Both parties appealed the order of Justice Huddart to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Cadbury-Schweppes believed that Justice Huddart should have awarded them higher damages as well as an injunction. FBI Foods Ltd. appealed Justice Huddart's ruling, arguing that the contract did not prohibit them from using the confidential recipe, only from using a recipe including both clam juice and tomato juice. They also argued that the parties did not intend the recipe to be kept confidential "for all time", and thus they should not be found liable for using it.
Justice Mary Newbury, speaking for the B.C. Court of Appeal, dismissed FBI Foods Ltd.'s appeal. She ruled that the duty of confidentiality arose outside of the written terms of the contract. Instead, it arose from the relationship between the parties when the contract was made. She also determined that, in this case, neither Caesar Canning nor FBI Foods Ltd. was ever to use the recipe to produce a copy of Clamato. If either wished to produce its own tomato juice cocktail, they should have created their own recipe.
Justice Newbury agreed with Cadbury-Schweppes and therefore ordered FBI Foods Ltd. to pay a higher level of damages and enjoined them from using the recipe to produce Caesar Cocktail.
Justice Newbury ruled that the fact that Cadbury-Schweppes did not request an accounting of FBI Foods Ltd.'s profits was because both parties had agreed to delay the determination of damages until after the determination of liability. She also ruled that forcing FBI Foods Ltd. to pay $29761.20 was insufficient, given that Cadbury-Schweppes would not have sold their recipe to FBI Foods Ltd. for this price. To allow FBI Foods Ltd. to essentially "buy" the recipe at such a low price would damage future confidential business relationships. She ruled that damages should be assessed based on the profits that Cadbury-Schweppes would have made had all sales of Caesar Cocktail for the first 12 months after it entered the market been made by Cadbury-Schweppes and not Caesar Canning.
Justice Newbury found that Caesar Canning was more blameworthy for intentionally using the recipe to copy Clamato juice than Cadbury-Schweppes was for not acting against FBI-Foods Ltd. or Caesar Canning until several years had passed, given that Cadbury-Schweppes had not realized that a remedy was available. She therefore ruled that an injunction was appropriate because a court should not countenance a "forced sale" of confidential information from one party to another.
Supreme Court of Canada.
FBI Foods Ltd. appealed the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the injunction and award of the first 12 months of profits from Caesar Cocktail overcompensated Cadbury-Schweppes. They claimed that any losses suffered by Cadbury-Schweppes were due to Cadbury-Schweppes's own cancellation of the licensing agreement, not from competition from Caesar Cocktail, and that therefore they should not have to provide any compensation. Cadbury-Schweppes cross-appealed, arguing that Caesar Canning and FBI Foods Ltd. had effectively "pirated" their secret recipe and that they should therefore be compensated for the full market value of the recipe, as if it had been patented.
The decision of the whole Supreme Court of Canada was written by Justice Ian Binnie. Justice Binnie agreed with the trial judge and the British Columbia Court of Appeal that FBI Foods Ltd. had misused Cadbury-Schweppes's confidential information, and that the only thing for the Supreme Court to consider was the remedy to grant Cadbury-Schweppes. He felt that it would first be necessary to examine the special nature of the misuse of confidential information as a cause of action.
Justice Binnie noted that there was no uniform way to examine the wrong done by a party that misuses the confidential information of another party. The victim of the misuse may have a claim to an equitable remedy against the misuser, as well as a cause of action under property law, contract law and tort law. The remedies available for each of these types of wrongs could differ. Rather than let every case for misuse of confidential information turn on how best to characterize a plaintiff's harm, Justice Binnie thought it best to consider misuse of confidential information as its own sui generis claim and to provide remedies based on what is most just given the particular facts of a case.
In this case, Justice Binnie felt that, for several reasons, it would not be just to impose an injunction on FBI Foods Ltd. preventing them from producing Caesar Cocktail using the recipe based on the Clamato recipe. First, he agreed with Huddart J. that Cadbury-Schweppes's delay in seeking an injunction until after FBI Foods Ltd. had invested considerably in the production of Caesar Cocktail would make an injunction unfair. Second, he felt that there was "nothing very special" about the Clamato recipe, given that any skilled juice-maker could have made a juice that tastes substantially similar to Clamato within 12 months (as he said in the judgment "Juice formulation is not rocket science"). He ruled that it would be unfair to prohibit FBI Foods Ltd. from using a recipe they could easily have re-created. Finally, he ruled that, because Cadbury-Schweppes could be adequately compensated by a monetary award, an injunction would be unnecessary.
In determining the value of the monetary award that Cadbury-Schweppes should receive, Justice Binnie rejected Cadbury-Schweppes's request to be compensated for the market value of their secret recipe for Clamato. He ruled that treating the recipe as if it were patented would be wrong, given that Cadbury-Schweppes had not fulfilled their side of the patent "bargain". If Cadbury-Schweppes had wanted patent protection, they should have made their recipe public and accepted the time-limited monopoly that a patent grants.
Justice Binnie felt that the fairest remedy would be to compensate Cadbury-Schweppes for the lost opportunity they suffered as a result of FBI Foods Ltd.'s and Caesar Canning's misuse of their recipe. Had the recipe not been misused, Cadbury-Schweppes would have had the opportunity to market Clamato in Canada without competition until Caesar Canning or FBI Foods Ltd. could figure out how to create a juice similar to Clamato. Justice Binnie agreed with the trial court that this period should be limited to 12 months. He ruled that FBI Foods Ltd. should have to compensate Cadbury-Schweppes for any profits lost due to this competition. Given that not everyone who purchased Caesar Cocktail during the 12-month period would have purchased Clamato instead, had Caesar Cocktail not been on the market, he ruled that this amount should not be based solely on the amount of Caesar Cocktail sold in the 12-month period. He directed a referee to determine an appropriate amount of damages based on Cadbury-Schweppes lost opportunity, but noted that "[m]athematical exactitude is neither required nor obtainable."
Aftermath.
FBI Foods Ltd. settled the outstanding judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada with Cadbury for $300,000.
Academic Response.
In an article entitled "'Juice Formulation is Not Rocket Science' and Other Observations: Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd.". Leonard Rotman, then a law professor at the University of Windsor, criticized the Supreme Court's decision in "Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd". He felt that the Supreme Court had deviated from the established principle in "Brickenden v. London Loan & Savings Co. of Canada". In "Brickenden", the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (whose decisions were binding on Canada at the time of Brickenden) dealt with a situation where party in a fiduciary situation failed in its duty to disclose material facts, causing his principal to incur losses. The Council in Brickenden ruled that the fiduciary should not be able to avoid liability for those losses by arguing that, in the hypothetical case that the material facts had been disclosed, the losses would have happened anyway.
Rotman thought that the rule in Brickenden should apply to cases where someone misuses information that they received in the context of a fiduciary relationship. Had the rule in Brickenden been applied in Cadbury Schweppes, FBI Foods Ltd. would not have been able to reduce its liability by arguing that, in the hypothetical situation where FBI Foods Ltd. or Caesar Canning had formulated their own recipe for Clamato, they would have been able to do so in 12 months. By eliminating the ability of someone who breaches a duty to rely on speculative hypotheticals, Rotman felt that the following the approach in Brickenden would better deter wrongdoing than the approach used Cadbury Schweppes.


Heinz Kapelle

Heinz Kapelle (17 September 1913 in Berlin – 1 July 1941 in Berlin) was a leader of the Young Communist League of Germany ("Kommunistischer Jugendverband Deutschlands;" KJVD) in Berlin in the 1930s.
By training he was a book printer, having learnt the craft between 1928 and 1932, but he was thereafter jobless until 1934. During his training, he had joined the KJVD in 1931, which became illegal with the Nazis' seizure of power in 1933. Nevertheless, he continued to be a member and used the Alliance to further his anti-fascist goals. He was, for instance, involved in the publication and distribution of anti-fascist literature.
Early in 1934, Kapelle was arrested for the first time and sentenced to two years' imprisonment on 20 September 1934 by the "Berliner Kammergericht" for "conspiracy to commit high treason". Once released, he quickly returned to anti-régime activities. He in effect led an illegal youth resistance group of about 60 members against the Nazis. The leaflets that he wrote he sometimes even distributed himself, by scattering them in the streets of Berlin's working-class neighbourhoods at night from his motorcycle.
He was arrested many times, but in the end, he and five other group members were arrested by the Gestapo on 16 October 1939. Kapelle was tortured, but never betrayed the other members of his group. The court sentenced Heinz Kapelle to death on 21 February 1941 for "furthering the enemy's cause and conspiracy to commit high treason". On 1 July of that year, he was put to death at Plötzensee Prison in Berlin. He is honoured today as a hero by the Communist Youth Movement. A street in the Berlin neighbourhood Prenzlauer Berg is named "Heinz-Kapelle-Straße" in his honour. Also there is a street close to German Parliament in the very center of Berlin honouring him named "Kapelle-Ufer" (which loosely translates to "Kapelle Bank" or "Kapelle Shore").


Social Security Appeal Tribunal

The Social Security Appeal Tribunal was a tribunal in the United Kingdom which heard appeals from decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs and local authorities regarding entitlement to various forms of social security benefits.
History.
In 1984, supplementary benefit appeal tribunals and National Insurance local tribunals were merged into Social Security Appeal Tribunal.
The Tribunal was abolished in November 2008 and its functions transferred to the First-tier Tribunal.