Cardinal Laws

The Cardinal Laws () were a quasi-constitution enacted in Warsaw, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, by the Repnin Sejm of 1767–68. Enshrining most of the conservative laws responsible for the inefficient functioning of the Commonwealth, and passed under foreign duress, they have been seen rather negatively by the historians.
Origin.
The Cardinal Laws were imposed on the Commonwealth by Russia's Empress Catherine the Great with Russian forces commanded by Prince Nicholas Repnin at the so-called Repnin Sejm of 1767–68.
Features and significance.
Ostensibly the Cardinal Laws were intended to ensure the "Golden Liberty" of the Polish-Lithuanian nobility, as demanded by nobles united in the Radom Confederation. In fact, the Cardinal Laws made it certain that the political system of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth would remain ineffectual and easily controllable by its neighbors.
The Cardinal Laws' key features included the "liberum veto", the free election of Poland's king, "Neminem captivabimus", and the right to form confederations and to raise "rokosz"es—all, privileges of the nobility that had made the Commonwealth's political system of "Golden Liberty" ungovernable. They also confirmed the lifelong term of the Commonwealth office holders, a similar confirmation of a lifelong possession of "królewszczyzna" (crown lands). The laws confirmed superior position of nobility over the peasantry, with the exception of the right of death penalty.
In a more positive view, the cardinal laws can be seen as a form of constitution (Bardach uses the term "ustawa zasadnicza"), attempting to organize elements of the law of Poland, and also attempting to guarantee the stability of Commonwealth borders.
Aftermath.
In 1768 Russia issued a "guarantee" to the Polish nobility, promising to defend the cardinal laws, and at the Partition Sejm of 1775 this guarantee was joined by the Kingdom of Prussia and the Austrian Empire.
Russian intervention was unsuccessfully challenged by the Bar Confederation, whose failure led to the First Partition of Poland (1772).
The Cardinal Laws were annulled by the Constitution of 3 May passed by the Great Sejm of 1788–92 but reinstituted by the Grodno Sejm following Poland's defeat in the 1792 War in Defense of the Constitution. In fact it was the abolition of many of the cardinal laws that was used by the Targowica Confederation magnates as a reason to ask the Russians to intervene.
The Cardinal Laws remained in effect for the last three years of the Commonwealth's existence, until the final, Third Partition of Poland.


Foreign relations of the Holy See

The Holy See has long been recognised as a subject of international law and as an active participant in international relations. One observer has stated that its interaction with the world has, in the period since World War II, been at its highest level ever. It is distinct from the city-state of the Vatican City, over which the Holy See has "full ownership, exclusive dominion, and sovereign authority and jurisdiction".
The diplomatic activities of the Holy See are directed by the Secretariat of State (headed by the Cardinal Secretary of State), through the Section for Relations with States.
The Holy See recognizes all UN member states, except for the People's Republic of China (as the Holy See only recognizes the Republic of China) and North Korea (as the Holy See only has relations with South Korea). The Holy See also recognizes the State of Palestine, the only other non-UN member it recognizes besides Taiwan (ROC).
The term "Vatican Diplomatic Corps", by contrast with the diplomatic service of the Holy See, properly refers to all those diplomats "accredited to the Holy See", not those who represent its interests to other nations and international bodies. Since 1961, Vatican diplomats also enjoy diplomatic immunity.
History.
Since medieval times the episcopal see of Rome has been recognized as a sovereign entity. Earlier, there were papal representatives ("apocrisiarii") to the Emperors of Constantinople, beginning in 453, but they were not thought of as ambassadors. In the eleventh century the sending of papal representatives to princes, on a temporary or permanent mission, became frequent. In the fifteenth century it became customary for states to accredit permanent resident ambassadors to the Pope in Rome. The first permanent papal nunciature was established in 1500 in Venice. Their number grew in the course of the sixteenth century to thirteen, while internuncios (representatives of second rank) were sent to less-powerful states. After enjoying a brilliant period in the first half of the seventeenth century, papal diplomacy declined after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, being assailed especially by royalists and Gallicans, and the number of functioning nuncios was reduced to two in the time of Napoleon, although in the same period, in 1805, Prussia became the first Protestant state to send an ambassador to Rome. There was a revival after the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which, while laying down that, in general, the order of precedence between ambassadors would be determined by the date of their arrival, allowed special precedence to be given to the nuncio, by which he would always be the dean of the diplomatic corps.
In spite of the extinction of the Papal States in 1870, and the consequent loss of territorial sovereignty, and in spite of some uncertainty among jurists as to whether it could continue to act as an independent personality in international matters, the Holy See continued in fact to exercise the right to send and receive diplomatic representatives, maintaining relations with states that included the major powers of Russia, Prussia, and Austria-Hungary. Countries continued to receive nuncios as diplomatic representatives of full rank, and where, in accordance with the decision of the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the Nuncio was not only a member of the Diplomatic Corps but its dean, this arrangement continued to be accepted by the other ambassadors.
With the First World War and its aftermath the number of states with diplomatic relations with the Holy See increased. For the first time since relations were broken between the Pope and Queen Elizabeth I of England, a British diplomatic mission to the Holy See was opened in 1914. The result was that, instead of diminishing, the number of diplomats accredited to the Holy See grew from sixteen in 1871 to twenty-seven in 1929, even before it again acquired territorial sovereignty with the founding of the State of Vatican City.
In the same period, the Holy See concluded a total of twenty-nine concordats and other agreements with states, including Austro-Hungary in 1881, Russia in 1882 and 1907, France in 1886 and 1923. Two of these concordats were registered at the League of Nations at the request of the countries involved.
While bereft of territorial sovereignty, the Holy See also accepted requests to act as arbitrator between countries, including a dispute between Germany and Spain over the Caroline Islands.
The Lateran Treaty of 1929 and the founding of the Vatican City State was not followed by any great immediate increase in the number of states with which the Holy See had official relations. This came later, especially after the Second World War.
The Vienna Convention of April 18, 1961 also established diplomatic immunity for the Vatican's foreign diplomats. Such immunity can only be revoked by the Holy See.
Bilateral relations.
The Holy See, as a non-state sovereign entity and full subject of international law, started establishing diplomatic relations with sovereign states in the 15th century. It had the territory of the States of the Church under its direct sovereign rule since centuries before that time. Currently it has the territory of the State of the Vatican City under its direct sovereign rule. In the period of 1870–1929 between the annexation of Rome by the Kingdom of Italy and the ratification of the Lateran Treaty establishing the current Vatican City State, the Holy See was devoid of territory. In this period some states suspended their diplomatic relations, but others retained them (or established such relations for the first time or reestablished them after a break), so that the number of states that did have diplomatic relations with the Holy See almost doubled (from 16 to 27) in the period between 1871 and 1929.
The Holy See currently has diplomatic relations with 183 sovereign states (including the partially internationally recognized Republic of China) and, in addition, with the sovereign entity Order of Malta and the supranational union European Union. The Holy See also has established official diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine.
By agreement with the government of Vietnam, it has a non-resident papal representative to that country. It has official formal contacts, without establishing diplomatic relations, with: Afghanistan, Brunei, Somalia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.
The Holy See additionally maintains some apostolic delegates to local Catholic Church communities which are not accredited to the governments of the respective states and work only in an unofficial, non-diplomatic capacity. The regions and states where such non-diplomatic delegates operate are: Brunei, Comoros, Laos, Somalia, Vietnam, Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories (Palestine), Pacific Ocean (Tuvalu, dependent territories), Arabian Peninsula (Oman, foreigners in Saudi Arabia), Antilles (dependent territories), apostolic delegate to Kosovo (Republic of Kosovo) and the apostolic prefecture of Western Sahara (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic).
The Holy See has no relations of any kind with the following states:
89 embassies to the Holy See are based in Rome.
The Holy See is the only European subject of international law to have diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan), although there have been reports of informal talks between the Holy See and the government of the People's Republic of China on establishing diplomatic relations, restoring the situation that existed when the papal representative, Antonio Riberi, was part of the diplomatic corps that accepted the Communist government military victory instead of withdrawing with the Nationalist authorities to Taiwan. He was later expelled, after which the Holy See sent its representative to Taipei instead.
During the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI relations were established with Montenegro (2006), the United Arab Emirates (2007), Botswana (2008), Russia (2009), Malaysia (2011), and South Sudan (2013), and during the pontificate of Pope Francis relations were established with Mauritania (2016) and Myanmar (2017). "Relations of a special nature" had previously been in place with Russia similar to those that continue to exist with the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
Multilateral politics.
Participation in international organizations.
The Holy See is active in international organizations and is a member of the following groups:
The Holy See is also a permanent observer of the following international organizations:
The Holy See is an observer on an informal basis of the following groups:
The Holy See sends a delegate to the Arab League in Cairo. It is also a guest of honour to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Activities of the Holy See within the United Nations system.
Since 6 April 1964, the Holy See has been a "permanent observer state" at the United Nations. In that capacity, the Holy See has since had a standing invitation to attend all the sessions of the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, and the United Nations Economic and Social Council to observe their work, and to maintain a permanent observer mission at the UN headquarters in New York. Accordingly, the Holy See has established a Permanent Observer Mission in New York, has sent representatives to all open meetings of the General Assembly and of its Main Committees, and has been able to influence their decisions and recommendations.
Relationship with Vatican City.
Although the Holy See is closely associated with Vatican City, the independent territory over which the Holy See is sovereign, the two entities are separate and distinct.
The State of the Vatican City was created by the Lateran Treaty in 1929 to "ensure the absolute and visible independence of the Holy See" and "to guarantee to it an indisputable sovereignty in international affairs" (quotations from the treaty). Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Holy See's former Secretary for Relations with States, said that the Vatican City is a "minuscule support-state that guarantees the spiritual freedom of the Pope with the minimum territory."
The Holy See, not Vatican City, maintains diplomatic relations with states, and foreign embassies are accredited to the Holy See, not to Vatican City State. It is the Holy See that establishes treaties and concordats with other sovereign entities and likewise, generally, it is the Holy See that participates in international organizations, with the exception of those dealing with technical matters of clearly territorial character, such as:
Under the terms of the Lateran Treaty, the Holy See has extraterritorial authority over various sites in Rome and two Italian sites outside of Rome, including the Pontifical Palace at Castel Gandolfo. The same authority is extended under international law over the Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See in a foreign country.
Diplomatic representations to the Holy See.
Of the diplomatic missions accredited to the Holy See, 89 are situated in Rome, although those countries, if they also have an embassy to Italy, then have two embassies in the same city, since, by agreement between the Holy See and Italy, the same person cannot at the same time be accredited to both. The United Kingdom recently housed its embassy to the Holy See in the same building as its embassy to the Italian Republic, a move that led to a diplomatic protest from the Holy See. An ambassador accredited to a country other than Italy can be accredited also to the Holy See. For example, the embassy of India, located in Bern, to Switzerland and Liechtenstein is also accredited to the Holy See while the Holy See maintains an Apostolic Nunciature in New Delhi. For reasons of economy, smaller countries accredit to the Holy See a mission situated elsewhere and accredited also to the country of residence and perhaps other countries.
Rejection of ambassadorial candidates.
It has been reported on several occasions that the Holy See will reject ambassadorial candidates whose personal lives are not in accordance with Catholic teachings. In 1973, the Vatican rejected the nomination of Dudley McCarthy as Australia's non-resident ambassador due to his status as a divorcee. According to press accounts in Argentina in January 2008, the country's nominee as ambassador, Alberto Iribarne, a Catholic, was rejected on the grounds that he was living with a woman other than the wife from whom he was divorced. In September 2008, French and Italian press reports likewise claimed that the Holy See had refused the approval of several French ambassadorial candidates, including a divorcee and an openly gay man.
Massimo Franco, author of "Parallel Empires", asserted in April 2009 that the Obama administration had put forward three candidates for consideration for the position of United States Ambassador to the Holy See, but each of them had been deemed insufficiently pro-life by the Vatican. This claim was denied by the Holy See's spokesman Federico Lombardi, and was dismissed by former ambassador Thomas Patrick Melady as being in conflict with diplomatic practice. Vatican sources said that it is not the practice to vet the personal ideas of those who are proposed as ambassadors to the Holy See, though in the case of candidates who are Catholics and who are living with someone, their marital status is taken into account. Divorced people who are not Catholics can in fact be accepted, provided their marriage situation is in accord with the rules of their own religion.
Treaties and Concordats.
Since the Holy See is legally capable of ratifying international treaties, and does ratify them, it has negotiated numerous bilateral treaties with states and it has been invited to participate – on equal footing with States – in the negotiation of most universal International law-making treaties. Traditionally, an agreement on religious matters between the Holy See of the Catholic Church and a sovereign state is called a concordat. This often includes both recognition and privileges for the Catholic Church in a particular country, such as exemptions from certain legal matters and processes, issues such as taxation, as well as the right of a state to influence the selection of bishops within its territory.


Deneys Reitz Inc

Deneys Reitz was a large South African law firm based in Sandton, Johannesburg with offices in Cape Town and Durban. It was one of the "Big Five" law firms in South Africa.
On 1 June 2011 Deneys Reitz Inc joined the Norton Rose Group, simultaneously rebranding as Norton Rose South Africa. At the time of the merger the enlarged Norton Rose Group had 2600 lawyers in 39 offices and was a top 10 global legal practice by number of lawyers


Faculty of Law of Paris

The Faculty of Law of Paris (), called from the late 1950s to 1970 the Faculty of Law and Economics of Paris, is the second-oldest faculty of law in the world and one of the four and eventually five faculties of the University of Paris ("the Sorbonne"), from the 12th century until 1970.
During the Middle Ages, it was, with the faculty of law of the University of Bologna, the oldest one, one of the two most important faculties of law in the world. Pierre Abélard, founder of modern law, was its precursor as a teacher at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame de Paris, Andrea Alciato, founder of legal humanism, was a professor there, and Saint Ivo, patron of the lawyers and "Advocate of the Poors" according to the Catholic Church, has studied there. The prohibition by the Pope of teaching of Roman Law limited, however, its growth, to the benefit of the nearby University of Orléans, where numerous important French people studied law. In 1679, King Louis authorized the teaching of Roman Law. Numerous French intellectuals and revolutionary, like Voltaire, Diderot and d'Alembert, Robespierre, etc. studied there. Between the French Revolution and its dissolution in 1970, numerous important people in France and in the world have taught or studied there, like Victor Hugo, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Tocqueville, and Honoré de Balzac. The faculty of law is also mentioned in classical French literature, in particular in "Les Misérables".
At the dissolution of the Sorbonne in 1970, its two main buildings were "place du Panthéon" and "rue d’Assas". Most of its law professors (88 out of 108) decided to perpetuate the faculty of law and economics choose to perpetuate the faculty by creating and joining a university of law offering the same programs within the same two buildings; therefore, they created the "University of Law, Economics and Social Sciences of Paris", now called Panthéon-Assas University.
History.
c. 1100 – 1223: Law School of Paris.
Pierre Abélard, teacher at the great cathedral school of Notre-Dame de Paris (that would eventually become the Sorbonne), writing with the influence of his wife Héloïse, stressed that subjective intention determines the moral value of human action and therefore that the legal consequence of an action is related to the person that commits it and not merely to the action. With this doctrine, Abelard created in the Middle Ages the idea of the individual subject central to modern law. This gave to School of Notre-Dame de Paris (later the University of Paris) a recognition of its expertise in the area of Law, even before the faculty of Law existed and the school even recognized as an "universitas" and even if Abelard was primarily a logician and a theologian. The law grew afterwards to be a discipline in its own rights (rather than only a subject within theology and philosophy), and a faculty of law was founded.
1223–1679: Faculty of Canon Law.
The Pope forbade Roman law in Paris in 1223 with the decretal "Super Specula". Afterwards, the Paris Law Faculty was called ""Faculté de décret" or "Consultissima decretorum facultas"", meaning Faculty of Canon Law.
During this period, people who wanted to learn civil law (Roman Law) and become lawyers would usually go to the nearby faculty of law of the University of Orléans. Hence, Molière, Calvin, Perrault, Cujas, Rabelais, Fermat, La Boétie and others went to this faculty.
1679–1793: Faculty of civil and canon law.
After the Edict of Saint-Germain of April 1679 by Louis XIV reestablished the teaching of Roman law in Paris , the faculty was known as the "faculty of civil and canon law". It was closed alongside other faculties on September 15, 1793, during the French Revolution.
Louis XIV reformed the programs of the faculty of Law of Paris, also introducing French Customary Law.
1802–1970: Faculty of Law of Paris.
In 1802, the faculty of law was re-opened, and was called "the School of Law of Paris" ("l'École de droit de Paris)". In 1896, the law faculty and the henceforth four other Parisian faculties were grouped together to recreate the University of Paris. In the late 1950s, it became a "faculty of law and economics".
The Code Civil was taught after its creation in 1804. The programs were reformed at the end of the 19th century.
Originally, the faculty of law was not organized around research centers and professors were pursuing their research as part of faculty of law in general. Hence, only newly emerging fields of research would have newly created institutes, whereas traditional subjects such as Roman Law and Legal History, Private Law in general and Public law in general, would not necessarily have ones.
"Doctorate courses" existed in legal studies at that time until they were replaced in 1925 by the "Diplôme d’études supérieures". The Decree of the 2 May 1925 created in each faculty of Law 4 DES: DES in Roman Law and Legal history, DES in Private Law, DES in public Law and DES in Politics and Economics. It required students to obtain two of them undergraduate studies to be able to begin a doctorate (PhD). In 1964, the undergraduate studies took 4 years (4-year "licence", and eventually 3-year "licence" and a one-year "maîtrise") and only one DES was necessary to begin a doctorate. 2 additional DES are created in each faculty: DES in Criminal Law and Politics and Economics are separated in two DES.
1970: Dissolution.
Following the events of May 1968, the faculties of the University of Paris became independent universities
Most law professors (88 out of 108) decided to perpetuate the faculty of law and economics within the same two buiildings (Panthéon and Assas). Therefore, they created the "University of Law, Economics and social sciences of Paris" ("Université de droit, d'économie et de sciences sociales de Paris"), administratively shortened as Paris II, and currently named University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas, which is therefore considered as its direct inheritor. Paris 2 inherited the teaching programs and research centers from the Faculty of Law. Some joined interdisciplinary universities in Paris, like Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Paris Descartes University, Paris-Est Créteil University (these names were formed later), or outside Paris.
Most professors (35 out of 41) in economics (which was a secondary subject at the Faculty of Law and Economics) preferred to join the multidisciplinary university, Paris I, later called Pantheon-Sorbonne University while others joined University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas, Paris-Dauphine University, Paris Descartes University and Paris-Est Créteil University.
Campuses.
In 1680, Louis XIV decided to place the faculty of law at the Royal College.
In 1753, Louis XV decided that a new building would be constructed for the faculty of law on the place du Panthéon. Jacques-Germain Soufflot, alumnus of the faculty who had become the architect of the King designed and supervised the construction. It took place from 1771 to 1773 and the new building opened in 1774.
In the 1950s, a new building was constructed "rue d'Assas" in Paris. It was designed by Charles Lemaresquier, Alain le Normand and François Carpentier to accommodate the growing number of students at the University of Paris. It was built between 1959 and 1963 on the former grounds of "Société Marinoni." At the time of its inauguration, its main lecture theatre was the largest in France, with 1,700 seats
Notable alumni (1100–1679).
The Pope forbade the teaching of Roman law in Paris in 1223 with the decretal "Super Specula". Until the reintroduction of Roman Law (civil law) by Louis XIV, people who wanted to learn civil law (Roman Law) and become lawyers would usually go to the nearby faculty of Law of the University of Orléans. Hence, Molière, Calvin, Perrault, Cujas, Rabelais, Fermat, La Boétie and others went to the latter.
Notable alumni (1802–1970).
Judiciary and lawyers.
Lawyers who are more well-known as politicians are listed in the section about politicians.


Bill C-300


John Gordon Purvis

John Gordon Purvis Jr. (born 1942) is a man who spent nine years in prison for a murder he did not commit.
Early life.
John Purvis was born to John and Emma Jo Purvis in 1942. His father died on February 20, 1945, with the U.S. Marines on Iwo Jima in World War II.
His mother was devastated, and it seemed to have an effect on Purvis, who had physical problems of his own. At six years old, he would cry and become terrified to go to school and hold his mother. At school, he always sat near the teacher, and if fights broke out between students at school he would cry or do his best to avoid them.
As he grew up, he could not keep up with his peers academically and his relationships with girls was shaky at best. A doctor diagnosed him with chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia.
He would spend his time watching television or eating out with his mother and stepbrother Mike Bartlett. Occasionally, Purvis would suffer panic attacks. He was known for his unusual behavior.
The murder of Susan Hamwi.
A woman named Susan Hamwi had moved out to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in July 1983.
She was working on her divorce from her husband Paul Hamwi for his abuse.
Paul Hamwi was a Vietnam veteran, known for his drinking and obnoxiousness.
Susan's friend, Karen Bebee, urged her not to involve herself with him. But Paul and Susan had unprotected sex one night and Susan was pregnant. Paul, in marrying Susan, made her sign a pre-nuptial agreement that required him to pay her nothing upon divorce. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter Shane was born. Upon the divorce proceedings, the pre-nuptial agreement was declared void, since it was made under duress. Paul was then ordered to pay between $150,000 and $180,000 to Susan to support their daughter.
Purvis met Susan Hamwi, hoping to establish friendly contact. He was very unusual, but friendly with her. Hamwi was bothered to some degree with Purvis's behavior, but not to the point of rejecting him altogether.
On November 1, 1983, after a phone call from a friend, Susan was not heard from again. Neighbors began to express concern. On November 8, 1983, the body of Susan Hamwi was found at her home, with part of a knife. She had been stabbed and strangled with a phone cord. Shane Hamwi was also found dead from neglect.
Police detectives Rick Rice and Rich Martin of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department interviewed several people. Under great pressure from the media for a suspect in this gruesome murder, they turned to Johnny Purvis, the town "weirdo". They yelled and intimidated him at his interrogation and his mother heard it. Purvis was very shaken by the experience, and his mother was determined that he would talk to the police no more. But the detectives, undeterred by the fact that their forensic investigations showed Purvis was not at the crime scene, were determined to make Purvis confess. They picked a time when Purvis was not with his mother and Purvis confessed to Hamwi's murder. Represented by attorney Richard Kirsch, at Purvis's trial the taped confession to police was declared inadmissible by Judge Thomas Coker. But the jurors were not convinced of Purvis's innocence and declared him guilty based on the confession to psychiatrist Joel Klass. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
A new investigation.
Although attorney Kirsch lost appeals in the courts and Purvis spent time in prison, an Aspen, Colorado, detective named Gary White put the first crack in the Hamwi murder, when a woman beaten by Robert Wayne Beckett Jr. said that she'd heard him boast that his father, Robert Wayne Beckett Sr., had killed a girl in Florida. White remembered the Hamwi case and had private detective Barbara Barton assist in checking this out.
Surprisingly, Rick Rice and Rich Martin, who had helped get Purvis convicted, weren't interested in this new lead in the Hamwi case. He was imprisoned for several years before two new detectives, Tim Bronson and Bob Williams, were assigned to the homicide section of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. They were looking at some old cases and were shocked when they found that detectives Rice and Martin had not investigated the Robert Beckett Jr. boast of his father killing a girl in Florida, and the Hamwi investigation was on again. Through the painful and sometimes unwilling cooperation of Robert Wayne Beckett Sr., Beckett admitted to the murder of Susan Hamwi and that Paul Serio was the other murderer. The baby, Shane Hamwi, had been left neglected.
He explained that Paul Hamwi had paid the two of them $14,000 to murder Susan.
Release.
Johnny Purvis was released from custody on January 15, 1993. But he had his problems
psychologically and had to undergo extensive psychiatric treatment after his release.
He continues to live in Florida and the treatment has helped him. A lawsuit against the prosecutor for failing to disclose exculpatory information was dismissed on grounds of "prosecutorial immunity."


Walter Klingenbeck

Walter Klingenbeck (30 March 1924, in Munich – 5 August 1943, in Munich-Stadelheim) was a German resistance fighter in the time of the Third Reich. He came from a Catholic family, and was a member of the St. Ludwig Catholic Youth Troop until it was banned and dissolved by the Nazi regime. This experience laid the groundwork for his critical stance towards the regime, which was further strengthened when the young radio enthusiast listened to German-language broadcasts from the BBC, Radio Vatican, and other forbidden broadcasting stations.
Early in 1941, a number of young people with similar political and religious views like Klingenbeck's formed a group under his leadership. They planned to spread leaflets and built a radio transmitter through which they broadcast opposition propaganda, and called for the overthrow of the Nazi regime. In the summer of 1941, an appeal came over the BBC to spread the "V-for-Victory" sign to herald the foreseen Allied victory in the Second World War, whereupon Klingenbeck painted the sign on some forty buildings in Munich with gloss paint.
Klingenbeck told of this exploit, which led to his denunciation and arrest on 26 January 1942. On 24 September 1942, he was sentenced to death by the "Volksgerichtshof", and on 5 August 1943, he was put to death at Stadelheim Prison, aged 19. Two of his friends, Hans Haberl and Daniel von Recklinghausen, were at first also condemned, but on 2 August 1943, their sentences were commuted to eight years at hard labour in a "Zuchthaus".
In January 1998, a formerly unnamed lane in Maxvorstadt, a neighbourhood in the center of Munich, was named for Klingenbeck. A "Realschule" in Taufkirchen is also named after him.


Thomas Bowring

Thomas Bowring (c.1440-1504) was an English-born lawyer and judge in fifteenth-century Ireland, who held office as Lord Chief Justice of Ireland.
He belonged to a prominent landowning family in Devon, who gave their name to the manor of Bowringsleigh. His main estate was at nearby West Alvington, and he also acquired lands in Somerset and Gloucestershire.
He was a member of the Middle Temple, and had the reputation of being a fine lawyer. He served as a commissioner for the peace in his native county between 1481 and 1487.
In 1494 the temporary downfall of Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare, who for many years had been almost all-powerful in Ireland, led to the dismissal "en masse" of the Irish High Court judges, who were regarded by the Crown as being Kildare's puppets, and whose loyalty to the Crown was doubtful (with good reason, as several of them had been pardoned six years earlier for supporting the claim of the pretender Lambert Simnel to the English throne). They were replaced by eminent English lawyers, in whose loyalty the English Crown believed that it could place its trust. Bowring was sent to Ireland as Lord Chief Justice. Two years later he exchanged this place for the less onerous office of Chief Justice of the Irish Common Pleas.
Soon afterwards, the Earl of Kildare was restored to royal favour and was once more allowed to have his "own men" appointed to judicial office. Bowring resigned from the Irish Bench and returned to Devon, where he continued to serve in various official capacities until his death in 1504.
He was married twice, and by his first wife had three children:
His second wife was Agnes Kelloway, widow of Thomas Pomeroy of Berry Pomeroy; she died in 1518.


Expelled Because of Color

Expelled Because of Color is a bronze sculpture, tall, by John Thomas Riddle, Jr. It is located on the grounds of the Georgia State Capitol, 240 State Capitol SW, Atlanta, Georgia. It was commissioned in 1976 by the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus and unveiled on February 16, 1978, the second annual Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials Day.
The statue commemorates the Original 33, the 33 African-American legislators who were expelled from the Georgia legislature in 1868.
A plaque on the sculpture reads: "Expelled Because of Color" [sic] is dedicated to the memory of 33 black state legislators who were expelled from the Georgia House because of their color in 1868. The cinder block forms at the base of the sculpture symbolize the building of black political awareness and self-representation in Georgia. Our enslavement, our role in the Revolutionary War, the black church, our labor and the right to vote are components of the black Georgian's struggle from the slave ship to the State House. John Riddle, sculptor


Verbotzeit

The Verbotzeit ("time of prohibition" [the grammatically correct German term is "Verbotszeit"]) refers to the fifteen-month period between
Background.
On 24 June 1922 the German Foreign Minister, Walther Rathenau, a Jew who was undertaking to carry out Germany's treaty obligations under the Treaty of Versailles, was assassinated by right-wing terrorists in Berlin while on his way to work. In response, the national government in Berlin, acting through the Reichstag and under the direction of Chancellor Joseph Wirth, promulgated a draconian "Law For the Protection of the Republic" (LFPR). This new national law prohibited gatherings and political parties that were deemed "dangerous" to the Republic. A special court in Leipzig—the Supreme Court for the Protection of the Republic (the "Staatsgerichtshof")—was also constituted by the LFPR, and the court was vested with exclusive jurisdiction over violations of the LFPR. The Staatsgerichtshof would consist of nine members who were expressly appointed by the President of the Republic, which would limit the effects of judicial provincialism and particularism. In a move intended to limit the influence of the Republic's conservative (and often monarchical) judiciary, only three of the nine judges were required to be professional jurists; the others could be lay judges.
The Bavarian Landtag, resistant to the central power and jealous of its own "sovereignty," retaliated by enacting a Bavarian law that claimed to suspend the operation of the national law in Bavaria, and to replace the LFPR with its own Bavarian Decree for Protection of the Republic; the Bavarian High Court naturally declared this maneuver to be a legal and effective procedure. The constitutional crisis was resolved by a compromise: the Bavarian Decree was withdrawn, and the national LFPR was amended to provide that a co-equal "southern division" of the new "Staatsgerichtshof" was established, and that three of the lay judges in that division had to be Bavarian.
Sources.
Jablonsky
Toland
Shirer
Kershaw
Large
Morris, "Justice Imperilled"


Willi Gall

Willi Gall (3 October 1908 – 25 July 1941) was a German communist and resistance fighter against Nazism.
Biography.
Gall was born in Falkenstein, Saxony. He worked as a lathe operator and a truck driver, and joined the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in 1929. Active in the local KPD group in Pethau near Zittau, Gall was elected to the local city council in 1932.
After the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, Gall was active in the communist resistance. He emigrated to Czechoslovakia in April 1933, and served as a courier between Zittau and Prague from 1934 until 1938. In 1938, he worked as an instructor in the "Zentrum" leadership department of the underground KPD. In 1938–39, he went to Berlin illegally several times from Czechoslovakia and Denmark, where he produced leaflets, newspapers and held contacts with the workers of various factories and companies.
In December 1939, Gall was arrested along with over 100 resistance members from the Adlershof locality of Berlin. He was sentenced to death by the People's Court on 23 January 1941, and was executed by guillotine on 25 July 1941 in Plötzensee Prison in Berlin.
Today's Weinauparkstadion in Zittau was named Willi-Gall-Stadion from 1955 until 1990. A street in Mittelherwigsdorf outside Zittau is named Willi-Gall-Straße.


Hermann Axen

Hermann Axen (6 March 1916 – 15 February 1992) was a German political activist who became involved in during the twelve Nazi years, most of which he spent in state detention. After the war he became a national politician in the Soviet occupation zone, relaunched in 1949 as the German Democratic Republic / East Germany. He served as a relatively high-profile member of the powerful Politburo of the Central Committee between 1970 and 1989.
In November 1989 he visited Moscow for eye surgery. While he was away the entire Politburo of which he was a member, resigned in 8 November 1989, and he too was excluded from it. On his return in January 1990 he was arrested, suspected of corruption and abuse of public office. This dramatic reversal of fortune came during a period of rapid political change. At the time of his death the arrest warrant had been rescinded and the case against him remained unproven, the necessary investigations having been delayed or suspended in response to his declining health.
Life.
Provenance and early years.
Hermann Axen was born in Leipzig. His father worked as a sales representative. His schooling took him to the which in the eyes of British historian David Childs made him a "grammar school boy". His family background was evidently an intellectual one: a source mentions his father's large private library. The family adhered to the liberal branch of Judaism and he became a Bar Mitzvah. A year later he horrified his parents by renouncing religion. Two years after that (and less than a year before the Nazi take-over), influenced by , he joined the Young Communists.
Nazi Germany.
He was affected by murder by the Gestapo which took place, following torture, at the in Dresden on 23 September 1933. Rolf's body was promptly handed over to his parents following the killing. According to a personal "curriculum vitae" compiled by Axen in 1949 and later found in his "party file", his parents were killed by the Nazis after 1939/40 in "the ghetto" or concentration camp near Lviv/Lemberg. The coming to power of the Nazis at the start of 1933 had been followed by a rapid transition to one-party dictatorship which meant that any political activity outside the Nazi Party, and in particular political activity on behalf of the banned Communist Party, became illegal. Rolf Axen, until his killing, was leader of the underground Communist group in East Saxony. Hermann Axen undertook a course at the Marxist Workers' Academy (""Marxistische Arbeiterschule" / "MASch"") in Leipzig during 1932/33 after which he took on a leadership role in the youth section in the party's Leipzig subdistrict ("Unterbezirk Leipzig"). As a seventeen year old, in Nazi Germany he served, in the words of one admiring source, as an illegal resistance worker, a "party instructor" and a party contact ("Verbindungsmann") in Saxony.
Between March and November 1934 he undertook and completed a commercial apprenticeship with Hoffner, Moses & Co., a fur trading company. By June 1934 he was also responsible for agitation and propaganda ("Agitprop") for the local leadership for Leipzig-West of the underground Young Communists, identified among comrades by the code names "Max" and, subsequently, "Friedrich". In September 1934 he joined the Young Communists' Leipzig region leadership team ("Bezirksleitung"). The group had by this point been effectively destroyed through arrests, and Axen now teamed up with a fellow young communist called Heinz Mißlitz to try and rebuild it.
Hermann Axen was arrested, along with fourteen comrades, on 3 November 1934. He now presented himself as a Polish citizen and a disciple of the "Mosaic religious community". His papers were sufficiently convincing for the arrest to prompt an intervention by the Polish consulate in Leipzig. On 20 June 1935 he faced the district high court in Dresden. The charge was the usual one of "preparing to commit high treason" ("Vorbereitung zum Hochverrat"). He was convicted and sentenced to a three-year jail term which he served in the at Zwickau. He had already served seven months of his sentence while in pre-trial investigatory detention, and he was accordingly released in November 1937. Possibly on account of having presented himself to the authorities as a Polish citizen three years earlier, but possibly simply on account of his Communist activism and his Jewish family provenance, by this time he had been stripped of any residual German citizenship rights, and his release was made conditional on his immediately leaving the country.
French exile.
Now stateless, and with the agreement of the party, he at once headed for Vienna, following a route which involved travelling via Poland. By this time, however, it was no secret that the German leader, backed on this point by widespread popular support in Germany and, more importantly, Austria, saw the independent Austrian state as an anomaly: with "Anschluss" looming ever larger on the horizon, in January 1938 Hermann Axen fled to Paris which since 1933, had served informally as one of two headquarter locations for the German Communist Party in exile. For the next couple of years, till 1940, he took casual work, employed in a support capacity in a range of businesses, while at the same time undertaking courier jobs for members of the illegal German Communist Party leadership. From April 1938 he was taking on "Red Aid" jobs for the (German) Young Communists. He also undertook translation jobs for "German Freedom Radio 29.8" ("Deutsche Freiheitssender 29,8").
From a Paris perspective the Second World War broke out in September 1939, when the German army invaded Poland and the French and British governments reacted by declaring war on Germany, but on the streets of Paris little changed till May 1940 when the Germans rapidly over-ran northern France. The authorities responded (as in England) by summarily identifying a large number of German political and race refugees from Nazism as enemy aliens and interning them, in the first instance, in a large Paris football stadium and subsequently in the Drancy internment camp. Possibly in connection with his legal stateless status, Axen avoided this fate and managed to escape to the southern half of France where a puppet government had been established under the leadership of the World War I hero Philippe Pétain. However, still in May 1940 he was identified as a "stateless communist", arrested and interned in Camp Vernet, a vast holding camp in the mountains to the west of Perpignan, previously used to house returning fighters from the Spanish Civil War. In June 1940 the authorities reassigned the camp which was now to be used to accommodate "all foreigners considered suspect or dangerous to the public order". By the end of May 1940 it is estimated that Axen was one of at least 250 of the Camp Vernet inmates who were German-speaking political exiles, and the two years he spent at the camp afforded significant networking opportunities with men some of whom would become leading members of the political establishment in the German Democratic Republic after 1949.
Concentration camps.
Over the next couple of years the Vichy government was increasingly marginalised, and by 1942 Gestapo officers were a regular sight on the streets of the cities in southern France. Security at Vernet no longer relied simply on its extremely remote location, and the camp was being described as a holding centre for Jewish families awaiting deportation to Nazi labour and extermination camps. In August 1942 Hermann Axen and various other internees picked out as Jewish communists, including Kurt Goldstein were handed over to the Gestapo, sent to the Paris area and placed on "Convoy 18 (12 August 1942)", one of the trains which, since March of that year, had been rolling across to Auschwitz-Birkenau in Silesia. He was held for more than two days at the main Auschwitz-Birkenau camp before being allocated to a sub-camp at Jawischowitz (as it was known to the Germans) where for more than two years he was set to work underground in the coal mines. It is recorded in sources that here he was a leader of the illegal camp committee.
At least one source warns that as Hermann Axen rose in the East German political and media hierarchies, his role during his time in the Nazi concentration camp system was often exaggerated retrospectively. For the fifteenth edition of his "autobiography" a ghost writer presented a scene that involved Axen, armed with a machine pistol, storming an SS watch-tower: this is believed to be fiction. worked closely with Axen during the 1960s and 1970s, and described Axen the concentration camp inmate as "very cool and reserved". "In the concentration camp, as a relatively young comrade, he played no significant role, or at least not a strikingly positive one".
Auschwitz concentration camp was emptied of its internees, as the Red army advanced from the east, in January 1945 and Axen was among the survivors transferred to Buchenwald near Weimar. Sources assert that he was a member of the illegal Communist Party leadership team in the concentration camp. As the war neared its end, in April 1945 it was US troops that liberated Axen from the Buchenwald camp.
Soviet occupation zone.
Although the region of central southern Germany that included both Buchenwald and Axen's home city of Leipzig was liberated by US forces, the victorious allies had already agreed a postwar territorial division of Germany whereby the entire central portion of the country would be administered as the Soviet occupation zone. The Americans pulled their troops back to the agreed lines on their maps in July 1945, and by August 1945 Hermann Axen had been installed as Head of the Youth Committee with the appointed city council of Soviet-administered Leipzig and as a member of the regional leadership team ("Kreisleitung") of the local Communist Party. Between October 1945 and February 1946 he was Head of the Youth Committee for the entire Saxony region. In April 1946 he was one of thousands of Communist Party members who lost no in signing their party membership over to the newly formed Socialist Unity Party ("Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands" / SED). The SED was formed through a contentious merger of the Communist Party and the less Moscow oriented Social Democratic Party. Its promoters may have hoped that the merger would take effect across Germany, but in the event it was only possible obtain the support necessary for it to take effect in the Soviet occupation zone, where the SED quickly emerged as the permanent ruling party in a new kind of German one-party dictatorship. For Hermann Axen 1946 was also the year in which he co-founded the "Anti-Fascist youth committee" ("antifaschistische Jugendausschuß"). Of greater long-term importance was his role as co-founder, together with Paul Verner und Erich Honecker of the Free German Youth ("Freie Deutsche Jugend" / FDJ), which very quickly became, in effect, the youth wing of the ruling SED. Between March 1946 and February 1949 he served as secretary to the FDJ National Council ("Zentralrat").
In 1948 he became of the People's Council (" Deutscher Volksrat"), a precursor parliament set up in the Soviet occupation zone and mandated to develop/endorse a constitution for the new Germany, based on a draft document issued by the ruling SED (party) three years earlier. In 1949/50 the "Volksrat" gave way to the People's Chamber ("Volkskammer"), a form of national parliament: at this point Axen was not a member. In 1954, however, he became a , holding one of the 17 seats allocated for SED members representing the Greater Berlin region. In 1971 he took over from as chair of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee. Hermann Axen remained till 16 November 1989, when his parliamentary mandate was revoked "by a resolution of the party Volkskammer group" ("Mandatsniederlegung nach Fraktionsbeschluss ").
German Democratic Republic.
In October 1949 the Soviet occupation zone was relaunched as the Soviet sponsored German Democratic Republic (East Germany). In practice the new country's constitutional arrangements followed not the written constitution formally proclaimed in October 1949 but a Leninist constitutional model. (A new written constitution, endorsed by referendum in 1968, would in most respects belatedly align the de jure and de facto positions.) Under the highly centralised Leninist constitutional structure, power flowed not from any national parliament nor indeed from government ministries. Power rested with the Central Committee of the ruling party. Key decisions were taken in the Central Committee Politburo which for most purposes was dominated by the First Secretary/General Secretary of the party. The extent to which the Central Committee monopolised political power was blurred to the extent that leading Central Committee members were often also, concurrently or successively, members of the Volkskammer and/or government ministers. Hermann Axen became a member of the Party Executive ("Partei Vorstand") in 1949, and he remained an important member as it quickly evolved into the Central Committee. Reflecting his interests and abilities, from 1949 he was in charge of the Central Committee's agitation and propaganda ("Agitprop") department. Between March 1949 and July 1953 he served as Central Committee Secretary with special responsibility for Mass Agitation and Press matters.
One important task undertaken by the Central Committee's Agitprop chief involved radio transmissions originating in the Soviet occupation zone which he quickly and effectively reconfigured (or, in the words of at least one source, "purged") in 1949, introducing a consistency of editorial focus to ensure that broadcasts followed the ruling party line. A large number of senior managers were dismissed from the broadcasters' offices in Berlin, to be replaced by comrades who could be better trusted to conform. Sources also refer to the presence by 1950, of Central Committee "spies" among broadcasting staff
The June 1953 uprising alarmed the East German leadership more than was apparent at the time. East German news broadcasts played down the wave of violently suppressed strikes and street protests, but many listeners in and close to Berlin were also able to listen to radio reports transmitted from West Berlin and received a different set of reports. The Central Committee's "Agitprop" secretary felt unable to pretend that nothing was happening, but his public response concentrated on the western broadcasts: he was able to deliver a suitably reassuring statement that the Soviet government would intervene with the western powers, and with its agents "roll up the whole West Berlin problem". Within days a major exercise in blame allocation followed, accompanied by sackings and demotions within the government. Those whom Walter Ulbricht mistrusted least tended to be those who, like him, had spent the Nazi years exiled in Moscow. That Hermann Axen had chosen to flee not to Moscow but to Paris back in 1938 had avoided the risk of being caught up in Stalin's purges, but fifteen years later it meant that while the country was led by Walter Ulbricht, Hermann Axen would never be a complete political insider. It was also self-evident that the events of June 1953 had represented a major "Agitprop" failure. Axen shared the responsibility for failing to curb the effectiveness of the ideological counter-offensive and the popularisation of the vernacular of the "Fascist Putsch". Hermann Axen retained his membership of the Central Committee, but he was stripped of his special secretarial responsibilities within it. Perhaps "election" to the Volkskammer in 1954 represented a consolation. He was also appointed, in succession to , Second Secretary to the regional party leadership team ("SED-Bezirksleitung") for Berlin in July 1953. Since Berlin had been the focus of street protests the previous month, it may well have been thought that Axen's "Agitprop" experience would have been of value, but sources nevertheless present this appointment as a significant demotion.
In July 1956 he left his position with the party administration in Berlin as his career moved on. He was now appointed managing editor of Neues Deutschland, the party newspaper, and by far the most widely available daily newspaper in East Germany. He succeeded in the editorial position. Stibli had been in post only since the previous year, but Hermann Axen remained managing editor till 1966. His ten years tenure in charge at the newspaper was the longest of any Neues Deutschland managing editor in the twentieth century. In September 1956 he was awarded the Patriotic Order of Merit, indicating unambiguously that he was back in favour with the party. Further national awards followed over the next ten years. In addition, he served as a Berlin city councillor between 1963 and 1967.
Having never lost his place in the Party Central Committee, in 1966 Hermann Axen was appointed Central Committee secretary for International Relations which made him, according to at least one source, the principal architect of East German foreign policy. His mandate also included matters involving the international communist and labour movements. He had been made a candidate for Politburo membership in January 1963, and in 1970, finally, he was elected to full membership, filling the vacancy arising through the illness and death of . During 1970 politburo members enjoyed a ringside seat in an increasingly frantic power struggle between the country's leader, Walter Ulbricht, and a would-be successor, second party secretary Erich Honecker. Ulbricht, was now in his mid-seventies, and when he dismissed Honecker from his party post he was immediately forced to reverse his position. The younger man enjoyed the backing of the Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev. It was only in May 1971 that the Soviets forced the resignation of Walter Ulbricht, but during 1970 it became increasingly clear that Erich Honecker represented the future. Hermann Axen and Erich Honecker had worked closely together in the later 1940s on the launch of the FDJ). They remained close friends, and during the period 1971-1989, as he exercised his Politburo responsibilities for international relations, Hermann Axen's natural confidence in his intepersonal skills and intellectual abilities was matched by a political confidence that the leadership would always respect and usually follow his judgements, especially during the first decade or so after 1970. To commentators more familiar with western European government structures than with the party-focused model applied in countries under strong Soviet influence, it is noteworthy that in the German Democratic Republic under Honecker, Axen had far more power over East German foreign policy than Otto Winzer or Oskar Fischer, who served as Ministers for Foreign Affairs respectively from 1965 till 1975 and from 1975 till 1990, but neither of whom ever made it to the Politburo. Between November 1976 and 1989 Axen was a member of the politburo's "West Germany Working Group" ("Arbeitsgruppe BRD").
Honecker years.
The relationship with West Germany was particularly important for the East German leadership, partly for reasons of shared history, language and culture, but also on account of shared interests between the two states. There was, in addition, a growing economic interdependency during the later 1980s. Axen was responsible for talks on disarmament that took place between East Germany's ruling SED (party) and West Germany's SPD (party) (which headed up that country's governing coalition between 1969 and 1982). He laid the diplomatic and practical groundwork for Erich Honecker's visits to the west, on which he would accompany his leader. From the standpoint of interested observers, Hermann Axen stood out from the mainstream of East German politicians. In East Germany he was known both for his diminutive (and increasingly plump) form and as an exceptionally able and experienced foreign policy operator. From his days in "Agitprop" and his ten-year editorship of Neues Deutschland he was respected as the "undisputed number one" when it came to thoughtful and effective mass communication. Western intelligence, meanwhile, saw him as "very pleasant", a polite and humorous individual completely unlike most members of the East German politburo. He was fluent not just in Russian, but also in French and English. He came across as something of an intellectual: he liked, on occasion, to quote Shakespeare. Western intelligence also believed that he enjoyed the complete confidence of Erich Honecker, both on questions of foreign policy and in matters of [socialist] ideology and theory. Intelligence analysts speculated that the close relationahip between the two men went back to their shared experiences: they had both served time in prison under the Nazis. They had started their party careers at the birth of the German Democratic Republic with their shared work on creating the FDJ). However, western analysts also received reports from their informants that Axen suffered from an inferiority complex, that he was short and by this time fat, with terrible eye-sight. He suffered from Diabetes and high blood pressure, and had been fitted with a heart pace-maker. There was speculation that this might have been behind reports to the effect that he was particularly considerate in looking after subordinates who were unwell and/or getting on in years.
Axen was in the team that accompanied Erich Honecker to Helsinki in 1975 for the conference that delivered the Helsinki Accords. He served between 1981 and 1989 as a member of the politburo's "Commission for coordinating economic, cultural and technical-scientific relations with the countries of Asia, Africa and the Arabic region. He served on the presidium of the between 1982 and 1989.
Arrest, illness and death.
Hermann Axen was arrested on 16 January 1990 at Berlin airport, as he arrived on a flight from Moscow. He was held on suspicion of corruption and abuse of office. His bank accounts, which he shared with his wife, were blocked. The arrest warrant was rescinded on 31 January 1990, however, because of his failing health. After reunification the Berlin district court rejected an application by the state prosecutor to re-open the case on 27 June 1991. The prosecutor appealed the decision, but the application had still not been heard on 15 February 1992 when Hermann Axen died of heart failure.
Holiday home.
In 1986 Hermann Axen had a holiday home built. In 1993 a determined that the house had been built on land that he did not own and partly paid for from public funds. The subsequent upkeep of the property was paid for out of public funds. Axen had indeed paid rent, but the amount of the rent paid had been nominal.
During the run-up to reunification, which formally took place in October 1990, holders of East German money were able to exchange their money for West German money at unrealistically favourable exchange rates. The arrangement was unpopular with West German central bankers, but was felt by the West German chancellor to be politically necessary. The first 4,000 Marks worth of an individual's savings could be converted at a rate of 1 for 1. Company debts and house loans were converted at the rate of 2 "East Marks" for each (western) Mark, while so-called "speculative money" was converted at a rate of 3:1. It therefore became important to be able to identify where money came from before converting it. During the "conversion period" Hermann Axen applied to convert a quarter of a million East Marks. The provenance of the money was declared to be as "regular income".
In March 1990 East Germany had held its first (and last) free and fair general election. This meant that during the seven months between March 1990 and reunification the East German parliament ("Volkskammer") was no longer the creature of the ruling SED (party). In July 1990 a parliamentary "ad hoc select committee", mandated to provide the necessary oversight, asked Hermann Axen to prove that the money he was seeking to convert had been acquired lawfully. (They asked Erich Honecker to provide similar proof in respect of the slightly smaller amount that he had applied to convert.) In the event the parliamentary committee only investigated conversion applications from senior East German politicians, but a Berlin court subsequently decided that the committee had simply focused on the largest amounts for which application to convert had been submitted: the high value applications were indeed restricted to senior members of the SED (party), but that should not be imputed to political motives on the part of committee members. In September 1990 the select committee, still not persuaded that Axen's savings had been lawfully acquired, ordered the confiscation of the monies in his relevant bank accounts. The committee gave as its reason that Axen had abused his office to benefit himself, applying self-conferred privileges and through transactions that grossly violated moral standards, in order to advantage himself and others, to the detriment of the national budget and other public funds ("...durch Missbrauch seiner Funktionen durch Inanspruchnahme von selbstbestätigten Privilegien und durch Handlungen, die einen gröblichen Verstoss gegen die guten Sitten darstellen, sich und anderen persönliche Vorteile zum Nachteil der Gesellschaft und zu Lasten des Staatshaushalts und anderer gesellschaftlicher Fonds verschafft hat."). The Axens lodged an appeal, but this was heard only in May 1993. The court upheld the judgement of the parliamentary select committee. Sonja Axen appealed that decision on behalf of the family, and in the end the case came to be heard by the European Court of Human Rights, where it was effectively joined with a broadly similar appeal being pursued by Margot Honecker. (Erich Honecker had died of liver cancer in 1994.). The appeals failed, however.
Personal.
Hermann Axen appears to have married his wife, Sonja, in the later 1940s. The year of her birth is given as 1925 and she worked, during the East German period, as a contributing editor with , a monthly publication intended for small children, launched in 1957 and named after its leading character, a teddy bear. There are references to her having been a victim of Nazi persecution, like her husband, but further details are not provided.
Their two daughters were born in 1950 and 1953.


Kirstine Fiil

Kirstine Fiil (23 August 1918 – 25 August 1983) was a convicted member of the Danish resistance as part of the Hvidsten Group, whose husband, father and brother were executed by the German occupying power.
Biography.
Early life.
Kirstine Fiil was born in Hvidsten on 23 August 1918 as the first of five children to proprietor Marius Fiil and 27-year-old wife Gudrun Fiil and baptized Kirstine Nicoline Søvang Fiil in Gassum church on the 17th Sunday after Trinity with her grandfather inn keeper in Hvidsten Niels Pedersen as godfather.
In 1930 she lived in Hvidsten Inn with her 72-year-old grandfather as inn keeper, her parents, younger brother and three sisters and a farm hand, a maid and a manager. She was confirmed in Gassum church in 1932 on the 19th Sunday after Trinity, while living in Hvidsten with her parents who at that time had taken over the inn where her father was born. On 25 April 1939 in Gassum church she married the four years older Peder Bergenhammer Sørensen as housekeeper in Gassum with her father as best man.
World War II.
In 1942 on her birthday she gave birth in Hvidsten to a girl, who on the 19th Sunday after Trinity was baptized Gudrun Fiil Sørensen Møller in Gassum church. Later after her parents had taken over the inn, she worked there and became part of the resistance group named after it. With the group she helped the British Special Operations Executive parachute weapons and supplies into Denmark for distribution to the resistance.
In March 1944 the Gestapo made an "incredible number of arrests" including in the region of Randers herself, her father the "nationally known folklore collector and keeper of Hvidsten inn Marius Fiil", her husband Peter Sørensen, her brother Niels Fiil and her 17-year-old sister Gerda, and Fiil's infant daughter was thus separated from both parents. The following month "De frie Danske" reported on her father again, that he along with other arrestees from Hvidsten had been transferred from Randers to Vestre Fængsel. In June 1944 a court martial gave Fiil a death sentence but then commuted it to life imprisonment. On 29 June 1944 her father, husband and brother and five other members of the Hvidsten group were executed in Ryvangen.
On 15 July 1944 "De frie Danske" reported on the executions, her life sentence and the two-year sentence of her sister Gerda and compared her father to Svend Gønge and Niels Ebbesen. Fiil and her sister were imprisoned separately in Germany, but for some time she was imprisoned there together with Monica Wichfeld. In April 1945 Fiil's mother succeed after several attempts to get a pardon for her and she was evacuated with the White Buses. Upon reaching the Danish border town Padborg she was set free and met by her mother and the sister Gerda, who had previously been pardoned. On 2 July 1945 the remains of her father and brother were found in Ryvangen and transferred to the Department of Forensic Medicine of the university of Copenhagen. The remains of her husband and the five other executed members of the group were found in the same area three days later. The following inquests showed that they had been executed with gunshot wounds to the chest. On 10 July 1945 her executed family members and the five other executed group members were cremated at Bispebjerg Cemetery.
In 1946 in Finderup on the day she turned 28 she married again, to divorced first lieutenant and concentration camp survivor Olaf Møller and she took up the work at Hvidsten Inn again. On 27 February 1949 she gave birth to a girl that died the same day, after the midwife baptized her Kirstine Fiil Møller. The newborn girl was buried Ash Wednesday in Gassum. Kirstine Fiil died in Hvidsten on 25 August 1983, survived by her husband by then a retired colonel.


New York slave codes

The New York slave codes were a series of slave codes passed in the Province of New York to regulate slavery. The first slave code was passed in 1702, with major expansions passing in 1712 and 1730 in response to slave insurrections.
1702 slave code.
The 1702 slave code was a 2-page act with six clauses, which were:


Hans Bernd von Haeften

Hans Bernd von Haeften (18 December 1905 – 15 August 1944) was a German jurist during the Nazi era. A member of the German Resistance against Adolf Hitler, he was arrested and executed in the aftermath of the failed 20 July plot.
Biography.
Haeften was born in Berlin, the son of Hans von Haeften (1870-1937), an army officer and President of the "Reichsarchiv", and his wife the former Agnes von Brauchitsch (1869-1945), a relation of Walther von Brauchitsch. His siblings were Elisabeth (1903-1980) and Werner (1908–1944). He passed his Abitur in 1924 in Berlin-Wilmersdorf and then studied law, which took him as an exchange student to the University of Cambridge.
He married Barbara Curtius (1908–2006), daughter of Julius Curtius, on 2 September 1930. The couple had five children: Jan, Dirk, Verena, Dorothea, and Ulrike.
After University, he worked for the Stresemann Foundation and then in 1933 joined the Foreign Service. He worked mainly for the cultural-political department of the Foreign Office and as a cultural attaché in Copenhagen, Vienna, and Bucharest.
During the rise of the Nazi Party.
In 1940, Haeften became the department's leader, but refused to join the Nazi Party. From 1933, he belonged to the Confessing Church. He had contacts with the Kreisau Circle, especially through Ulrich von Hassell and Adam von Trott zu Solz. He refused on religious and moral grounds to have anything to do with any attempt on Adolf Hitler's life, but supported the attempt to overthrow Hitler and stood ready to take power at the Foreign Ministry for the plotters. In January 1944 he stopped his brother, Lieutenant Werner von Haeften, from shooting Hitler with a pistol with the argument that this would break the Fifth Commandment.
Arrest.
Haeften was arrested on 23 July 1944, three days after the 20 July Plot, the German military's failed assassination attempt against Hitler at the Wolfsschanze in East Prussia. His brother Lieutenant Werner von Haeften, who was the adjutant of Colonel Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, had been summarily shot along with Stauffenberg in the early hours of 21 July at the Bendlerblock. On 15 August, Haeften was brought before the Volksgerichtshof, or People's Court, and accused of treason in connection with the plot. He confessed to the charge, saying "Legally speaking it is treason; actually it is not. For I no longer feel an obligation of loyalty. I see in Hitler the perpetrator of evil in history." He was sentenced to death and hanged the same day at Plötzensee Prison in Berlin.
Aftermath.
In August 1998, the German "Bundestag" cancelled the judgements of the Volksgerichtshofs and special courts with a law, "zur Aufhebung nationalsozialistischer Unrechtsurteile in der Strafrechtspflege" (overturning unjust National Socialist judgments in criminal cases).


R v Cole


Maura Law

The Maura Law may refer to two different decrees named after Don Antonio Maura, the Spanish Minister of Colonies at the time.
Royal Decree of May 19, 1893:
was a law that laid the basic foundations for municipal government in the Philippines. It was put into effect starting in 1895.
The Maura Law established "tribunales", "municipales" and "juntas provinciales", and these foundations laid by the Maura Law were later adopted, revised, and strengthened by the American and Filipino governments that succeeded Spanish rule in the country.
Royal Decree of February 13, 1894:
was promulgated upon its publication in the Gaceta de Manila. The law's preamble stated that the law was intended to "... insure to the natives, in the future, whenever it may be possible, the necessary land for cultivation, in accordance with traditional usages." Article 4, however, provides that "... title to all agricultural lands which were capable of adjustment under the Royal decree of ... 1880, but the adjustment of which has not been sought at the time of promulgation of this decree ... will revert to the State. Any claim to such lands by those who might have applied for adjustment of the same but have not done so at the above-mentioned date, will not avail themselves in any way nor at any time." Those who had pending applications for titles were given one year upon its publication in the Gaceta de Manila (e.g. Volume No. 106 on April 17, 1894) to secure their documentation. No extensions were made, and any paper titles issued after April 17, 1895 were deemed to have no force and effect.
See also.
1895 Philippine municipal elections


Robert Booth (judge)

Sir Robert Booth (1626–1681) was an English-born judge who had a highly successful career in Ireland, where he held the offices of Chief Justice of the Irish Common Pleas and Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in Ireland.
Early life.
He belonged to the wealthy Booth family of Salford; he was the eldest son of Robert Booth, a wealthy landowner, and Anne Mosley, daughter of Oswald Mosley of Ancoats, Manchester, who was also the ancestor of the prominent twentieth-century politician Sir Oswald Mosley, and his wife Anne Lowe. His father died when Robert was about twelve and his mother remarried the noted Presbyterian preacher Thomas Case. Booth himself, though he was a member of the Church of England,
had strong nonconformist leanings. He was educated at Manchester Grammar School and St. John's College, Cambridge, where he matriculated in 1644. He entered Gray's Inn in 1642 and was called to the bar in 1650; he became an ancient of Gray's Inn in 1662.
Career.
He is first heard of in Ireland in the entourage of William Steele, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in 1657, and entered the King's Inns the same year. After the Restoration he had the good fortune to attract the notice of Steele's successor, Sir Maurice Eustace. Eustace, a staunch Royalist, was normally hostile to anyone who had been associated with the Cromwellian regime (although he had made his peace with it himself), but he admired Booth's legal ability and believed (perhaps naively) that his wealth would preserve him from corruption. Booth was appointed a puisne justice of the Court of Common Pleas (Ireland) in 1660 and its Chief Justice in 1670, by which time he had already begun to suffer from the chronic ill-health which plagued his later years. His salary was fixed at £300 a year. He regularly visited England to consult with his medical advisers, and was knighted while on a trip to England in 1668.
In 1679 the Chief Justiceship of the Court of King's Bench (Ireland) became vacant. This occurred at the height of the Popish Plot, which created an uncontrollable atmosphere of anti-Catholic hysteria. At this time several Irish judges had open Roman Catholic sympathies, despite the practice of that faith being (in theory) a bar to public office. Booth had a reputation as a staunch Protestant, and it was probably for that reason that Charles II appointed him Lord Chief Justice, despite objections from James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who thought that Booth was too inclined to Puritanism in his religious views, and also pointed out that he was almost incapacitated by gout and other illnesses, and rarely sat in Court. Ormonde's objections on the second point were fully justified, since Booth died on the early spring of 1681, after little more than a year in office. He was buried at Salford. He left a large fortune, and substantial estates in both England and Ireland.
Personal life.
Booth married firstly Mary Potts, daughter of Spencer Potts of Chalgrave, Bedfordshire, who died in 1660 giving birth of to their only son Benjamin, who died in 1663. He remarried Susanna Oxenden, daughter of Sir Henry Oxenden, 1st Baronet of Deane in Kent and his second wife Elizabeth Meredith of Leeds Abbey,
who died in 1669; they had four daughters. Of their daughters Ann married her distant cousin the Right Reverend Robert Booth, Dean of Bristol and was the mother of the celebrated actor Barton Booth. Her sister Susannah married Sir John Feilding, secretary to the Governor of Jamaica, and had issue. Another sister Elizabeth married John Braithwaite.
His principal residence was at Oxmantown, now near Dublin city centre. Belvedere, his house at Drumcondra, Dublin, is now St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra. The Gore-Booth baronets of Lissadell are related to but not direct descendants of the judge.


Police Convalescent Home

The Police Convalescent Home or Police Convalescent Seaside Home was an institution in Hove, East Sussex housing police officers during their convalescence from illness or injury. These officers were principally from south-east English forces such as the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police and frequently suffered from lung diseases, for which sea air was held to be beneficial.
It opened in March 1890 at 51 Clarendon Villas, which for a time also housed the Southern Counties Police Orphanage A site was soon found at 11 Portland Road for a purpose-built redbrick replacement building with an infirmary and surgery. The Home was largely funded by the Metropolitan and City Police Convalescent Home Fund, some of whose records between 1902 and 1917 are held in the National Archives as MEPO 2/1723
The new building was designed by local architect John George Gibbens, with the foundation stone laid on 29 October 1892 by Princess Christian and opened by the wife of the 4th Earl of Chichester on 21 July the following year. The building was turned into an auxiliary hospital in 1895 during a flu epidemic and into an Auxiliary Military Hospital from 1914 to 1919. It then returned to its original use until 1966, when it moved to a site at 205 Kingsway, though the building at 11 Portland Road is now a privately owned nursing home. The Home was finally renamed the Police Rehabilitation Centre and moved from Kingsway, Hove to Flint House, Goring-on-Thames, Oxfordshire in 1988


Berkemer v. McCarty

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that, in the case of a person stopped for a misdemeanor traffic offense, once they are "in custody", the protections of the Fifth Amendment apply to them pursuant to the decision in "Miranda v. Arizona" 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Previously, some courts had been applying "Miranda" only to serious offenses.
Background.
An officer observed the defendant's car weaving in and out of its traffic lane. The officer stopped defendant and asked him to get out of his car. The officer noticed that the defendant was having difficulty standing. The defendant's speech was slurred and difficult to understand. Defendant could not perform a “balancing test” without falling.
The officer then asked the defendant if he had consumed any intoxicants. Defendant said that he drank two beers and smoked several joints of marijuana shortly before being stopped. The officer then arrested the defendant and took him to the county jail where the defendant took an intoxilyzer test. The test results were negative for the presence of alcohol.
The officer then resumed questioning the defendant. The defendant responded affirmatively when asked if he had been drinking. When asked if he was under the influence of alcohol said "I guess, barely." At no time was the defendant advised of his Miranda rights.
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress his pre and post arrest statements. After exhausting his state appeals, the defendant filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus. The federal district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed holding that “Miranda warnings must be given to all individuals prior to custodial interrogation, whether the offense investigated is a felony or a misdemeanor traffic offense, and that respondent's post-arrest statements, at least, were inadmissible.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider two issues - whether the Miranda rule applies to defendants charged with a misdemeanor and whether an investigative detention is equivalent to Miranda custodial interrogation.
Opinion of Court.
The Miranda rule prohibits the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation unless the police properly advised the defendant of his Fifth Amendment rights and the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights and agreed to talk to the police. The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards are "custody" and "interrogation." Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Unquestionably the defendant in Berkemer was interrogated. In fact, he was interrogated twice - prearrest roadside questioning and post arrest questioning at the jail. In neither case had the officer advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. As for post arrest interrogation, the defendant was in custody since he had been arrested. The issue for the court was whether to create an exception to Miranda for custodial interrogations that related to minor offenses.
The Supreme Court declined to carve out such an exception because to do so would sacrifice the certainty and clarity of the Miranda rule. The pre arrest interrogation raised the issue of whether detention was equivalent to custody for purposes of the Miranda rule. In its opinion, the Court stated:
The Court found that there were two significant differences between interrogation of person taken into custody and detainees. First was the length of the detention. Investigative detentions were brief and usually culminated in the issuance of a citation and release of the defendant. Second, the circumstances attendant to roadside detention were substantially less coercive and compulsive than those typically surrounding custodial interrogation. Specifically the Court noted that during most traffic stops the actions of the officer were "exposed" to public view and that stops typically involved only one or two officers.


2000 Alabama Amendment 2

2000 Alabama Amendment 2, also known as the Alabama Interracial Marriage Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the Alabama Constitution to remove Alabama's ban on interracial marriage. Interracial marriage had already been legalized nationwide 33 years prior in 1967, following "Loving v. Virginia". The amendment was approved with around 60% of the vote, though numerous counties voted against it.
Contents.
The amendment appeared on the ballot as follows:
Results.
The amendment was approved, with about 60% of the vote. Numerous counties with high white populations voted against the amendment, while counties with high black populations voted for it.
Aftermath.
Alabama was the last state to repeal anti-miscegenation laws.
Alabama's miscegenation ban was compared to its gay marriage ban, especially after it was also ruled unconstitutional in "Obergefell v. Hodges". Alabama's gay marriage ban was approved in 2006 with 80% of the vote, passing in every county.


Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom

Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom [1981] ECHR 4 is a UK labour law case, concerning freedom of association and the closed shop. It found that the closed shop was incompatible with the convention, although it does not prevent fair share agreements, or automatic enrollment in union membership with an opt-out.
Facts.
British Rail signed a union membership agreement with unions so that all employees would have to join one union.
Judgment.
A majority of the European Court of Human Rights held that a closed shop could violate the Convention if (1) there was an obligation to make existing and not just new employees union members (2) where membership would violate other ECHR rights, especially article 9 and 10, and where (3) the obligation was underpinned by dismissal from employment. There were situations where article 11(2) could be fulfilled, but this was not one of them.
Mr Sørensen, joined by Mr. Thór Vilhjálmsson and Mr. Lagergren dissented.


Anglo-Thai Non-Aggression Pact

The Anglo-Thai Non-Aggression Pact was concluded in Bangkok on 12 June 1940 between the governments of the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Thailand. It was concluded as part of the British policy, which was to refrain from resisting by force the actions of the Japanese Empire in East Asia, as Thailand was about to become Japan's ally.
Ratifications were exchanged in Bangkok on 31 August 1940, and the pact became effective on the same day. It was designated to remain in force for five years, unless it was extended. The pact was registered in "League of Nations Treaty Series" on 6 June 1941.
In spite of the pact, Thailand declared war on the United Kingdom on 25 January 1942.
Background.
Following the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, British policy in East Asia was in a state of confusion. The British government opposed Japanese expansionist policies, but at this point was not in a position to take up arms against the Japanese actions, especially following the Tientsin Incident. As a result, it developed a policy of not recognizing legally the changes made by Japanese actions, but at the same time refraining from antagonizing the Japanese government by actual resistance. This policy became evident in the so-called Craigie-Arita formula of July 1939, by which the British government refrained from open opposition to Japanese military actions in China.
This situation continued following the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe in September 1939. On 18 July 1940 the British government accepted the Japanese demands for closing the Burma Road for three months to prevent war supplies to China. In addition, the government of Thailand was now becoming aligned with the Japanese Empire. During the battle of France (May–June 1940), the British government became extremely cautious in this policy, and concluded that pact with Bangkok so as not to antagonize Tokyo.
Terms.
Article 1 stipulated the British and Thai governments would not resort to war against each other.
Article 2 provided for the termination of the pact if the British or the Thai governments committed an act of aggression against a third party.
Article 3 annulled any previous obligation by the British or the Thai governments to assist a third party in a war against another.
Article 4 stipulated that nothing in the pact annulled legal obligations that arose from the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Article 5 had the two governments undertake not to disrupt each other's control over its territories.
Article 6 provided for the ratification of the pact.


Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc

Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc, , is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on Canadian copyright law, specifically on the issue of indirect infringement and its application to parallel importation. Kraft Canada sued Euro-Excellence Inc. for copyright infringement due to their importation of Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe into Canada. A majority of the court found that the copyright claim could not succeed, although they split on whether the claim failed due to the rights of an exclusive licensee or due to the scope of copyright law.
Background.
Kraft Canada Inc. was the exclusive Canadian importer and distributor of Toblerone chocolate bars since 1990, and the exclusive Canadian distributor of Côte d’Or chocolate bars since 2001. These agreements were entered into with Kraft Foods Belgium SA and Kraft Foods Schweiz AG of Belgium and Switzerland, respectively.
Euro-Excellence was an authorized distributor of Côte d’Or chocolate bars from 1993 until 2000, and was the exclusive Canadian distributor between 1997 and 2000. Their distribution agreement with Kraft expired in 2000 and was not renewed, although they continued to import and distribute the chocolate bars which they legally acquired in Europe. Beginning in 2001, Euro-Excellence also imported Toblerone bars from Europe without authorization.
On October 25, 2002, Kraft Foods Belgium SA registered three Côte d’Or logos and two Toblerone logos as copyrighted works in Canada, and entered into an agreement with Kraft Canada as the exclusive licensee for production and reproduction of the copyrighted logos. Based on the distribution of logos on the chocolate bars, Kraft Canada Inc. sued Euro-Excellence for copyright infringement.
The Federal Court ruled in favour of Kraft Canada, finding that the logos in question were the proper subject matter for copyright, and that they were reproduced contrary to the "Copyright Act". The court awarded Kraft Canada $300,000 in damages and issued an order "that the product be rendered non-infringing".
The Federal Court of Appeal allowed in the appeal in part and referred the issue of damages back to the trial judge. However, the trial judge confirmed the original order of $300,000 in damages.
Judgment of the Court.
The Supreme Court, in four separate written judgments, considered two legal issues:
A majority of the court decided the case in favour of Euro-Excellence, but there was disagreement on the grounds for why the copyright claim could not succeed.
Sale and distribution of copyrighted works.
Five justices (Rothstein, Binnie, Deschamps, Abella, and McLachlin) held that there was a sale and distribution of a copyrighted work under s. 27 of the "Copyright Act". The copyrighted logos were sold as part of the packaging on the chocolate bars, and therefore constituted an infringing sale of a copyrighted work.
Rothstein J., with whom Binnie and Deschamps JJ. concurred, rejected the "merely incidental" doctrine proposed by Bastarache J.:
I see no statutory authority for the proposition that "incidental" works are not protected by the "Copyright Act", R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42. This Court's holding in "CCH" confirms that all artistic works receive the protection of copyright if they meet the requisite standards of "skill and judgment"
Abella J., writing for herself and McLachlin C.J. agreed with Rothstein's position on the issue of the sale of copyrighted works:
There is nothing in the Act to endorse a restrictive definition of "sell". Section 64(3)(b) of the Act extends copyright protection to trade-marks and labels. When a product is sold, title to its wrapper is also transferred to the purchaser. The Act is indifferent as to whether the sale of the wrapper is important to the consumer.
Bastarache J., with whom LeBel and Charron JJ. concurred, would have struck down Kraft Canada's claim based on his interpretation of the "Copyright Act", which precluded protection for works which were "merely incidental" to the product being sold.
Bastarache based this interpretation largely on the Supreme Court's rulings in "Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers" and "Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc." to differentiate between the protection afforded by copyright law and trademark law. He held that "[t]he protection offered by copyright cannot be leveraged to include protection of economic interests that are only tangentially related to the copyrighted work."
Fish J., writing for himself, concurred with the majority in result, and agreed with Rothstein J. that the issue should be decided on the basis of the licensing issue, but also expressed doubt as to whether copyright would apply to the claim in this case:
"Without so deciding, I express grave doubt whether the law governing the protection of intellectual property rights in Canada can be transformed in this way into an instrument of trade control not contemplated by the "Copyright Act".
Rights granted to exclusive licensees.
In "CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada", the Court held that three elements must be proven to establish secondary infringement:
However, due to s. 27(2)(e) of the "Copyright Act", where a work in question was imported, only "hypothetical infringement" was necessary instead of primary infringement. Rothstein J. noted that this section protected Canadian copyright holders from parallel importation of copyrighted works, because an infringing work in Canada may not necessarily be infringing in the country of its manufacture. Therefore, s. 27(2)(e) requires, for imported goods, only that the plaintiff prove that the work "would infringe copyright if it had been made in Canada by the person who made it."
Because Euro-Excellence was importing legitimate Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe (as opposed to counterfeit goods), Kraft Canada was forced to claim that had Kraft Foods Belgium and Kraft Foods Switzerland manufactured the goods in Canada, they would be infringing the copyright that had been exclusively licensed to Kraft Canada.
The success of this claim depended on whether an exclusive licensee under the "Copyright Act" (in this case Kraft Canada) could sue the owner/licensor of the copyright (in this case the parent companies Kraft Foods Belgium SA and Kraft Foods Schweiz AG).
Section 2.7 of the "Copyright Act" defined an "exclusive licensee":
2.7 For the purposes of this Act, an exclusive license is an authorization to do any act that is subject to copyright to the exclusion of all others including the copyright owner, whether the authorization is granted by the owner or an exclusive licensee claiming under the owner.
Five of the justices (Bastarache, LeBel, Charron, Abella, and McLachlin) interpreted s. 2.7 in the "Copyright Act" to mean that exclusive licensees had the same rights of the owner of a copyright, and that the right to sue the owner was granted in an exclusive license.
The remaining justices (Rothstein, Binnie, Deschamps, and Fish) focused on the distinction between an "assignee", a "non-exclusive licensee", and an "exclusive licensee", interpreting the different categories listed in the "Copyright Act" to mean that only an assignee could sue the original author or owner for copyright infringement, and that an exclusive licensee could sue all third parties for copyright infringement but not the owner-licensor.
Result.
Although the plaintiffs Kraft Canada Inc. won the legal argument for both issues (whether they were within their rights to sue as an exclusive licensee and whether there was a sale of a copyrighted work), they lost the case due to vote splitting.
Five justices decided that there was a sale of a copyrighted work (Rothstein, Binnie, Deschamps, Abella, and McLachlin), and five justices (Bastarache, LeBel, Charron, Abella, and McLachin) decided that an exclusive licensee could sue the licensor on the basis of hypothetical infringement. However, seven of the nine justices agreed that the copyright claim could not succeed - Rothstein, Binnie, Deschamps, and Fish allowed the appeal on the licensing issue while Bastarache, LeBel, and Charron allowed the appeal on the sale issue. Only Abella and McLachin would have found copyright infringement by finding in favour of the plaintiff on both the licensing and sale requirements.
Aftermath.
In response to the Supreme Court decision, Kraft Foods Belgium and Kraft Foods Switzerland assigned the copyrights in question to Kraft Canada. Their theory of the case was that an outright assignment of copyright instead of an exclusive license would enable them to succeed against Euro-Excellence in a second case.
A second claim was served against Euro-Excellence on December 3, 2007. On January 8, 2009, Kraft Canada and Euro-Excellence reached an agreement to settle the dispute. Euro-Excellence agreed to stop imports of Côte d’Or chocolate bars without Kraft Canada's consent, and signed a distribution agreement to distribute Côte d’Or chocolates in Quebec on behalf of Kraft Canada.


Franz Xaver Josef von Unertl

Franz Xaver Josef Baron von Unertl (21 February 1675 – 22 January 1750) was a Bavarian politician.
Unertl was born in Munich. He served as Electoral Bavarian Privy Council Chancellor and Conference Minister. His role under the Austrian occupation during the Spanish Succession War remains dubious. He died in his home town of Munich.
His sister Maria Johanna was married to the important salt merchant Johann Baptista Ruffini.


Railway and Canal Commission

The Railway and Canal Commission was a British court of record, established by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888 and abolished by the Railway and Canal Commission (Abolition) Act 1949.
The Regulation of Railways Act 1873 established the Railway Commissioners, created to carry into effect the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854. When the 1873 Act expired, Parliament established Railway and Canal Commission in 1888. It originally consisted of five commissioners.
The jurisdiction of the Commission having been progressively whittled down, it was abolished in 1949. Its last member, Sir Francis Taylor, was elevated to the peerage as Baron Maenan shortly before its abolition.


Court of Exchequer Chamber

The Court of Exchequer Chamber was an English appellate court for common law civil actions before the reforms of the Judicature Acts of 1873–1875. It originated in the fourteenth century, established in its final form by a statute of 1585.
The Court heard references from the King's Bench, the Court of Exchequer and, from 1830, directly rather than indirectly from the Court of Common Pleas. It was constituted from four judges belonging to the two courts that had been uninvolved at first instance. In cases of exceptional importance such as the "Case of Mines" (1568) and "R v Hampden" (1637) twelve common law judges, four from each division below, sitting in Exchequer Chamber, might be asked to determine a point of law, the matter being referred by the Court hearing the case rather than the parties.
Though further appeal to the House of Lords was possible, this was rare before the nineteenth century. As a rule, a judgment of the Exchequer Chamber was considered the definitive statement of the law. Certain judgments like "Hampden" (the case of Ship Money) caused political controversy.
It was superseded by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.