Ottoman law

The Ottoman Empire was governed by different sets of laws during its existence. The "Kanun", a secular legal system, co-existed with religious law or Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence. Legal administration in the Ottoman Empire was part of a larger scheme of balancing central and local authority. Ottoman power revolved crucially around the administration of the rights to land, which gave a space for the local authority develop the needs of the local millet. The jurisdictional complexity of the Ottoman Empire was aimed to permit the integration of culturally and religiously different groups.
Legal system.
The Ottoman system had three court systems: one for Muslims, one for non-Muslims, involving appointed Jews and Christians ruling over their respective religious communities, and the "trade court". The codified administrative law was known as "kanun" and the "ulema" were permitted to invalidate secular provisions that contradicted the religious laws. In practice, however, the ulema rarely contradicted the "Kanuns" of the Sultan.
These court categories were not, however, wholly exclusive: for instance, the Islamic courts—which were the Empire's primary courts—could also be used to settle a trade conflict or disputes between litigants of differing religions, and Jews and Christians often went to them to obtain a more forceful ruling on an issue. The Ottoman state tended not to interfere with non-Muslim religious law systems, despite legally having a voice to do so through local governors.
The Ottoman Islamic legal system was set up differently from traditional European courts. Presiding over Islamic courts would be a "Qadi", or judge. However, the Ottoman court system lacked an appellate structure, leading to jurisdictional case strategies where plaintiffs could take their disputes from one court system to another until they achieved a ruling that was in their favor.
Throughout the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire adhered to the use of three different codes of criminal law. The first was introduced in 1840, directly following the Edict of Gülhane, an event which started the period of the Tanzimat reforms. In 1851, a second code was introduced. In this one, the laws were nearly the same as the ones in the first code of laws, but included the rulings of the previous eleven years. In 1859, the Ottoman Empire promulgated a last code of law inspired by the 1810 Napoleonic criminal code. Each of these variations of code and legislations represented a new phase in Ottoman legal ideology.
The Ottoman judicial system institutionalized a number of biases against non-Muslims, such as barring non-Muslims from testifying as witnesses against Muslims. At the same time, non-Muslims "did relatively well in adjudicated interfaith disputes", because anticipation of judicial biases prompted them to settle most conflicts out of court.
Kanun.
The "Kanun" was a secular legal system, used along with religious law. Its use originates from the difficulty to address certain matters (such as taxation, administration, financial matters, or penal law) by Sharia alone, which led the Ottoman rulers to use the Kanun to supplement, and sometimes supplant, religious law. It also offered a way to overcome the problems posed by the extent to which Sharia depended on the interpretation of sources by the ulema, which had made legal standardisation problematic.
The Ottoman Kanun first began to be codified towards the end of the 15th century, after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The expansion of the empire led to a desire to centralise decisions, and the Kanun allowed the sultan to become an unchallenged ruler, by granting him the power he needed to exercise his authority to the full.
The early "Kanun-name" (literally: "book of law") were related to financial and fiscal matters, and based on custom (örf), they tried to reconcile previously existing practices with the priorities and needs of the Ottoman state. Kanun-names were also granted to individual provinces following their conquest; these provincial books of law would typically maintain most of the taxes and dues existing under the previous rule, and simply adapt them to an Ottoman standard.
The use of Kanun redefined Ottoman society in a two-tiered hierarchy, with the "askeri" (or military) consisting of a tax-exempt ruling class which included the "men of the sword", the "men of the book", and the "men of the pen", while the rest of the population, labeled as the "reaya" ("flock") was at the bottom, with the duty to produce and pay taxes.
One example of Kanun was the "law of fratricide", which required the new sultan to kill all his brothers upon ascending the throne, and had been enacted for fear of a repetition of the fratricidal conflicts that had plagued early successions.
In Turkish, Suleiman the Magnificent is known as "Kanuni", the "Lawgiver", for his contribution to the formulation of Ottoman secular law.
Reform efforts.
In the late 19th century, the Ottoman legal system saw substantial reform. This process of legal modernization began with the Edict of Gülhane of 1839. These series of law reforms (also referred to as Tanzimât Fermânı) began a new period of modernity in the Ottoman Empire that would pave the way for new Western ideas of politics and social ideology. These reforms included the "fair and public trial[s] of all accused regardless of religion", the creation of a system of "separate competences, religious and civil", and the validation of testimony of non-Muslims. Specific land codes (1858), civil codes (1869–1876), and a code of civil procedure also were enacted.
This reformation of the Ottoman legal system is attributed to the growing presence of Western ideology within Ottoman society. Critical areas of progressive law reform such as liberalism, constitutionality, and rule of law were all characteristics of the European system and began taking effect within the sectors of law that made up the Ottoman legal system. This ideology began to overtake Sharia law in fields such as commercial law, procedural law, and penal law and through these paths eventually into family law. Areas of life such as inheritance, marriage, divorce, and child custody were undergoing progressive transformation as European influence continued its growth.
These reforms were also put in place at the insistence of the Great Powers of Europe as well as a response to them. The Europeans had begun to chip away at the edges of the Empire, and their power was growing in the region. After the Greek War of Independence, nationalism was on the rise in Europe, and Westerners thought they had a humanitarian duty to intervene on behalf of the Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire whom they saw as being unfairly treated. The British especially gained more power with the Treaty of Balta Liman in 1838, that required the Ottomans to abolish Ottoman monopolies and allow British merchants full access to Ottoman markets, as well as taxing them equally. Overall, the Ottoman Empire was feeling the threat of the Western powers' growing influence over the Empire in general, as well as the Jews and Christians living within the Empire. The Tanzimat reforms came about as a response to this as well as from an Ottoman desire to modernize to compete with the growing European powers.
Opposition to these legal changes can be found throughout historical accounts and historians believe that this reform was not due to popular demand of Ottoman citizens but rather to those who held power and influence within the empire.
These reforms also cultivated the version of Ottoman nationalism commonly referred to as Ottomanism. Influenced by European versions of a shared national identity, the Ottomans thought that creating an Ottoman Nationalism system where the state controlled all levels of government and social life, as opposed to the previous system where people were organized by individual community and reputation, that they could stave off the encroaching European influence over the Empire.
These reforms were based heavily on French models, as indicated by the adoption of a three-tiered court system. Referred to as Nizamiye, this system was extended to the local magistrate level with the final promulgation of the Mecelle, a code of Islamic law covering all areas of civil law and procedure except family law. In an attempt to clarify the division of judicial competences, an administrative council laid down that religious matters were to be handled by religious courts, and statute matters were to be handled by the Nizamiye courts. Family law was codified in 1917, with the promulgation of the Ottoman Law of Family Rights.
Copyright.
As the Mecelle had no copyright codes, the empire's first code was the "Author's Rights Act of 1910" (Hakk-ı Telif Kanunu, 2 Düstor 273 (1910), 12 Jamad ul Awal 1328 or 22 May 1910), which only protected domestic works. The empire was not a part of the Bern Convention.


Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle

Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a criminal case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States, which considered whether Puerto Rico and the federal government of the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the US Constitution.
In essence, the clause establishes that an individual cannot be tried for the same offense twice under the same sovereignty.
The petitioner claimed that Puerto Rico has a different sovereignty because of its political status while others claimed that it does not, including the respondent, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, and the Solicitor General of the United States.
In a 6-2 decision, the Court affirmed that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars Puerto Rico and the United States from successively prosecuting the same person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws.
The decision was affirmed 6-2 in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 9, 2016. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
Political implications.
The argument appears to diminish the constitutional stature that the Puerto Rican government thought that it had had since the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1950 and subsequent ratification of the Constitution of Puerto Rico in 1952.


Charles Kendal Bushe

Charles Kendal Bushe (1767 – 10 July 1843), was an Irish lawyer and judge. Known as "silver-tongued Bushe" because of his eloquence, he was Solicitor-General for Ireland from 1805 to 1822 and Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench for Ireland from 1822 to 1841.
Background and education.
Bushe was born at Kilmurry House, near Thomastown, County Kilkenny, the only son of the Reverend Thomas Bushe, rector of Mitchelstown, and his wife Katherine Doyle, daughter of Charles Doyle of Bramblestown. Kilmurry House had been built by the Bushe family in the 1690s; his father was forced to sell it to pay his debts, but Charles was able to repurchase it in 1814. He went to the celebrated Quaker academy, Shackleton's School in Ballitore, County Kildare, then graduated from the University of Dublin, where his eloquence
had made him a star of the College Historical Society, and was called to the Bar in 1790.
Legal and judicial career.
Bushe was a member of the Irish Parliament for Callan from 1796 to 1799, and for Donegal Borough from 1799 to 1800. He was vehemently opposed to the Act of Union 1800, referring emotionally to Britain's subjection of Ireland as "six hundred years of uniform oppression and injustice", a phrase which quickly became a proverb.Although he had refused
an offer of a place on the Bench
as a bribe for supporting the
Union, cynics noted that his staunch opposition to the Union did not prevent him accepting high office under the British Crown afterwards. He was appointed Solicitor-General for Ireland in 1805 and held the office for 17 years until in 1822 he was appointed Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench for Ireland (although only after William Saurin, the equally long-serving Attorney-General, had refused the position). He retired in 1841.
As an advocate "silver-tongued Bushe" was legendary for his eloquence, and as a politician he was admired by his English contemporaries like Sir Robert Peel and Lord Brougham. As a judge, according to Elrington Ball, he did not live up to expectations, although, if not an outstanding judge, he was an impressive and dignified one. As a statesman he was often accused of double-dealing: having opposed the Act of Union, he had few scruples about accepting office under the new regime; and while himself supporting Catholic Emancipation, he prosecuted members of the Catholic Association for sedition, merely for advocating a cause with which he personally sympathised.
In Dublin, he was a member of Daly's Club.
Family.
Bushe in 1793 married Anne (Nancy) Crampton (died 1857), daughter of John Crampton of Dublin and Anne Verner, and sister of Sir Philip Crampton, 1st Baronet, President of the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland. They had six children: John, Charles, Arthur, Charlotte, Anna Maria and Henrietta.
His daughter Charlotte married John Plunket, 3rd Baron Plunket and was the mother of William Plunket, 4th Baron Plunket, Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, and David Plunket, 1st Baron Rathmore.
His son John Bushe married Louisa Hare, daughter of William Hare, 1st Earl of Listowel, and his 1st wife, Mary, only daughter of Henry Wrixon.
His son Charles, a Church of Ireland clergyman who became rector of Castlehaven was by his second wife Emmeline Coghill the father of another eminent barrister, Seymour Bushe.
His daughter Anna Maria was the second wife of Sir Josiah Coghill, 3rd Baronet: her stepdaughter Emmeline married
Anna Maria's brother Charles as his second wife.
Later descendants.
Dunbar Plunket Barton, a leading Irish High Court judge of the early 1900s, was descended from Bushe.
Seymour Bushe (1853-1922) was a leading barrister whose career in Ireland was almost destroyed by his role as co-respondent in a much publicised criminal conversation case, "Brooke v Brooke" in 1886, and thereafter largely confined his legal practice to England. He was the judge's grandson, his parents being Reverend Charles Bushe and his second wife Emmeline Coghill, daughter of Sir Josiah Coghill, 3rd Baronet of the Coghill Baronets and his first wife Sophia Dodson.


Court of piepowders

A court of piepowders was a special tribunal in England organized by a borough on the occasion of a fair or market. These courts had unlimited jurisdiction over personal actions for events taking place in the market, including disputes between merchants, theft, and acts of violence. In the Middle Ages, there were many hundreds of such courts, and a small number continued to exist even into modern times. Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in 1768 described them as "the lowest, and at the same time the most expeditious, court of justice known to the law of England".
Trial and procedure.
A piepowder court was held in front of the mayor and bailiffs of the borough (or the steward, if the market or fair was held by a lord). The number of justiciars often varied but was usually limited to three or four men. Punishments typically included fines and the possibility of being held in a pillory or being drawn in a tumbrel (a two-wheeled cart) in order to humiliate the offender. More serious crimes would often be reserved for the royal justices, but sometimes the jurisdiction was still held by a piepowder court.
When the time came for the trial, both parties would be summoned; typically, the defendants would be summoned an hour earlier. Here, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff with documents and witnesses often being provided as evidence. After the plaintiff made his case, the defendant then had the right to respond to the accusation and counter with evidence of his own. This method of proof was actually rather advanced for its time. When it came to evidence in other European courts, things such as compurgation (the defendant taking an oath over his stance and getting around twelve others to swear that they believe him) were still used in many cases.
Trials at courts of piepowders were short, quick and informal. In 12th century England and Scotland, a decision had to be made within a day and a half (before the third tide) of the accusation. If the court ruled against the defendant and the defendant could not pay the decided amount, his property could be seized, appraised, and sold to cover the costs.
Decline.
Courts of piepowders existed because of the necessity for speedy justice over people who were not permanent residents of the place where the market was held. By the seventeenth century, most of their powers had effectively been transferred to the regular court system, for practical reasons rather than as a result of legislation, the standard district courts being well established. The most recent sitting of a piepowder court was in 1898, in Hemel Hempstead.
The last "active" court of piepowders, at the Stag and Hounds Public House in Bristol, was abolished by the Courts Act 1971. It had not actually sat since 1870, but a proclamation was still read in the marketplace each year. All other courts had their jurisdiction removed by the Administration of Justice Act 1977, though they may technically continue to exist even in the absence of officers, cases, or premises.
Origin of the name.
There is no one standard spelling of "piepowder": the most common variant is perhaps "pie poudre" (as in Bristol). In the past, variations included "pipoulder" in the sixteenth century, "pepowder" in the fifteenth, and "pipoudre" in the fourteenth. "Piepowder" is a modern respelling of the term based on more familiar English words. Originally, it referred to the dusty feet (in French, "pieds poudrés") of travellers and vagabonds, and was only later applied to the courts who might have dealings with such people. Also, since the members of courts of "piepowder", were not sitting on a bench, but walking around in fairs, they would often get their feet dusty. This can be another explanation of the name that is given by some common law history teachers. In modern French, the word "pieds-poudreux" is still occasionally used for travelling beggars; it occurs, for example, in the works of Victor Hugo. Another literary reference is Ben Jonson's "Bartholomew Fair", in which Justice Adam Overdo patrols the fair in disguise, saying (Act 2, Scene 1):


Benjamin Kent

Benjamin Kent (1708–1788) was Massachusetts Attorney General (1776-1777) and then acting Attorney General during much of Robert Treat Paine's tenure (1777-1785). He was appointed seven successive terms. Prior to the American Revolution, Kent was notable for his representation of slaves suing their masters for their freedom, which contributed to the demise of slavery in Massachusetts. He was a member of the North End Caucus and prominent member of the Sons of Liberty, which formed to protest the passage of the Stamp Act of 1765. The efforts of the Sons of Liberty created the foundation for the Boston Tea Party. Kent called for independence early in the American Revolution.
Career.
Kent graduated Harvard College in the class of 1727. In 1731, he served as chaplain at Fort George, Maine, and preached to the settlers at Brunswick. He was ordained as minister of the Marlborough Congregational church in 1733, where charges of heresy were soon leveled against him "due to his public questioning of the doctrines of the Trinity, of Absolute Election, and of Infant Damnation." Following his dismissal, Kent successfully sued the Town of Marlborough for the balance of his fees and salary due.
Kent then studied for the bar and began practicing in Boston in 1739, when there were only seven lawyers in the city, among whom he was at first "the Chimney sweeper of the Bar, into whose black dock entered every dirty action.". He lived on the north side of King's Street (present-day State Street, Boston) by the north end of the First Town-House, Boston.
He handled divorces, and represented numerous slaves in their attempts to gain their freedom, including the case of a slave Pompey suing his master Benjamin Faneuil. Kent was the first lawyer in the United States to win a case to free a slave Jenny Slew, in 1766. He also won a trial in the Old County Courthouse for a slave named Watson (1771). Kent also handled Lucy Pernam's divorce and the freedom suits of Rose and Salem Orne.
On 1 April 1776, Kent became Attorney General of Massachusetts.
Kent was occasionally a guest at the Old Colony Club, whose members included John Adams. Kent has been described as one of Adams's "role-models in the elite of the Boston bar."
American Revolution.
Kent was a senior member of the Sons of Liberty in Boston and maintained correspondence with John Wilkes. On the eve of the American Revolution he was reported to be a member of more town committees than any other Bostonian. After the Siege of Boston, Kent urged Adams to create the Declaration of Independence:
In response, Adams assured Kent that the "'Declarations in Words' of What is every day manifested in Deeds of the most determined Nature" was forthcoming.
On August 4, 1776, Kent wrote Samuel Adams, "It is GOD's doing the bringing about his truly astonishing and unparalled'd "union" the declaration of Independence."
The loyalist Sampson Salter Blowers married Kent's daughter Elizabeth. When the Revolutionary War began, as Attorney General, Kent was forced to briefly to hold his son-in-law Blowers in jail for being a loyalist. In 1782, Kent's daughter Elizabeth fell ill in New York and he petitioned to have her return to Boston. The petition was refused and she departed for Nova Scotia.
Governor Thomas Cushing sent Kent to Halifax to retrieve the probate records for Suffolk County, Massachusetts after the Revolution in 1784. The records had been taken by the son of Edward Winslow (scholar) and given to the loyalist judge Foster Hutchinson, who had left Boston on the eve of the Revolution (1776). Nova Scotia Governor John Parr facilitated the negotiations with Foster, which led to Cushing returning to Massachuetts with the legal documents.
Personal life.
Kent was the son of Joseph Kent of Charlestown, and was baptised in June 1708 at First Parish in Cambridge. In 1740 he married Elizabeth Watts in Chelsea, Massachusetts, with whom he had three daughters, Elizabeth, Ann, and Sally. His daughter Sally married Sampson Salter Blowers, who was a loyalist.
When Blowers departed for Halifax after the Revolution, he was joined by Kent's wife and daughters. Kent, at age 78, rejoined them in 1785. He died there three years later and is buried in the Old Burying Ground.
Legacy.
John Adams included Kent in the "long catalogue of illustrious men, who were agents in the Revolution." Benjamin Franklin wrote, upon hearing of Kent's death: "Our poor friend Ben Kent is gone; I hope to the Regions of the Blessed, or at least to some Place where Souls are prepared for those Regions. . . . I found my Hope on this, that tho' not so orthodox as you and I, he was an honest Man, and had his Virtues. If he had any Hypocrisy it was of that inverted kind, with which a Man is not so bad as he seems to be."


George Wilkinson (architect)

George Wilkinson, FRIBA was an English architect, who practised largely in Ireland. He was born at Witney, Oxfordshire in 1814. He was the elder brother of the architect William Wilkinson (1819–1901), who practised in Oxford.
Career.
George Wilkinson won a competition in 1835 to design a workhouse for the Thame Poor Law Union. The building is now a campus of Oxford and Cherwell Valley College. Wilkinson went on to design a total of two dozen workhouses in England, including those at Northleach (1835) Stow-on-the-Wold (1836) and Woodstock (1836–1837), each with wings laid out in an H-plan. Wilkinson built Tenbury workhouse (1837) on a double courtyard plan. For two workhouses, Witney (1835–1836) and Chipping Norton (1836), he used an unusual design of a saltire of four wings radiating from an octagonal central block. For Wolverhampton he adapted this layout to six wings. In 1839 George Wilkinson was invited to Ireland as the architect of the Poor Law Commission.
Wilkinson published a "Practical Geology and Ancient Architecture of Ireland" (1845). He also designed the railway station in Multyfarnham, Co. Westmeath, an Italianate station at Crossdoney in Co. Cavan (c. 1855), the Cavan town terminus (1862) for the Midland Great Western Railway, and Harcourt Street Railway Station, Dublin, (1858–1859) for the Dublin Wicklow and Wexford Railway.
Wilkinson married Mary Clinch in Witney on 18 December 1850. Mary was a daughter of John Williams Clinch (1788–1871) the Witney brewer, banker and landowner. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1878.
Wilkinson retired to England in about 1888, and died at Ryde House, Twickenham on 4 October 1890.


Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, commonly known as Law Lords, were judges appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 to the British House of Lords, as a committee for the house, to exercise its judicial functions, which included acting as the highest court of appeal for most domestic matters. The House of Lords lost its judicial functions upon the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in October 2009. Lords of Appeal in Ordinary then in office automatically became Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and those Supreme Court justices who had seats in the House of Lords lost their right to speak and vote there until after their retirement as justices of the new court.
Background.
The House of Lords historically had jurisdiction to hear appeals from the lower courts. Theoretically, the appeals were to the King (or Queen) in Parliament, but the House of Commons did not participate in judicial matters. The House of Lords did not necessarily include judges, but it was formerly attended by several judges who gave their opinions when the Lords desired. They did not, however, have the power to vote in the House.
In 1856, to permit legally qualified members to exercise the House's appellate functions without allowing their heirs to swell the size of the House, Sir James Parke, a judge, was created a life peer. The House of Lords refused to admit him, so he had to take his seat as a hereditary peer.
In 1873 William Ewart Gladstone's government passed the Judicature Act, which reorganised the court system and abolished the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords in respect of English appeals. In February 1874, before the Act came into force, Gladstone's Liberal Government fell. The Conservative Benjamin Disraeli became Prime Minister. In 1874 and 1875 Acts were passed delaying the coming into force of the Judicature Act 1873. The Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 repealed the provisions rescinding the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. Additionally, the Act provided for the appointment of two persons to be Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who were to sit in the House of Lords under the dignity of baron. Originally, though they held the rank of baron for life, they served in Parliament only while holding judicial office. In 1889, however, an Act was passed allowing Lords of Appeal to continue to sit and vote in Parliament even after retirement from office.
Qualifications and functions.
To be appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary under the 1876 Act, a person was required to have been a practising barrister for a period of fifteen years or to have held a high judicial office—as Lord Chancellor (before 2005) or judge of the Court of Appeal, High Court or Court of Session—for a period of two years. Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were required to retire from judicial office at 70 or 75 years of age, though as barons they continued to serve as members of the House of Lords in its legislative capacity for life.
The statutory retirement age for Lords of Appeal in Ordinary depended on when they were first appointed to judicial office: for those who first became a judge before 31 March 1995, the retirement age is 75 years of age; for those appointed on or after that date, retirement was at 70 years of age (though they were permitted to continue sitting in a part-time capacity as a "Lord of Appeal" until the age of 75 years). There have been recent suggestions that the retirement age for the United Kingdom's most senior judges should revert to 75 years of age.
Number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
The Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 originally provided for the appointment of two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who would continue to serve while holding judicial office, though in 1887, they were permitted to continue to sit in the House of Lords for life, with the style and dignity of baron. The number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary was increased incrementally over the years—to three in 1882, to four in 1891, to six in 1913, to seven in 1919, to nine in 1947, to eleven in 1968 and to twelve in 1994. The Administration of Justice Act 1968 allowed the Sovereign to make a Statutory Instrument, if each House of Parliament passed a resolution approving a draft of the same, increasing the maximum number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
Remuneration.
Only Lords of Appeal in Ordinary received salaries: in 2004, the salary for the Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary was £185,705, and for other Lords of Appeal in Ordinary it was £179,431.
Lords of Appeal.
In exercising the judicial functions of the House of Lords, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were sometimes joined by other Lords of Appeal. Lords of Appeal included holders or former holders of high judicial office who were members of the House of Lords, but not by virtue of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (e.g. life peers under the Life Peerages Act 1958). The Lords of Appeal continue to hold the style for life.
Senior and Second Senior Law Lord.
The two most senior Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were designated the Senior and Second Senior Lords of Appeal in Ordinary respectively. The Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary historically was the Law Lord who was senior by virtue of having served in the House for the longest period. With the appointment of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in 2000, however, it became an appointed position.
The Second Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary became the peer who had served for the longest period. Lord Hope of Craighead succeeded to this position on Lord Hoffmann's retirement on 20 April 2009.


John Moses (Norwegian politician)

John Moses (16 April 1781 – 29 January 1849) was a Norwegian merchant who served as a representative at the Norwegian Constituent Assembly in 1814.
John Moses was born in Kristiansund in Møre og Romsdal, Norway. He belonged to a merchant family of British descent who had settled in Kristiansund to conduct the trade of large-scale fish exports. John Moses was one of Kristiansund's leading businessmen. He ran an export and import business, together with a shipping company. From the 1820s, he was living in London, where he ran the shipping business, conducting trading in a number of European countries.
He represented Kristiansund at the Norwegian Constituent Assembly in 1814. He advocated policies that would benefit the business community. He supported the union party ("Unionspartiet").
John Moses was married to Anna Holck Tordenskjold (1782–1854) with whom he had seven children. He died in the Parish of St Anne's Limehouse, at the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in London, England.


Sixth Seimas of Lithuania

The Sixth Seimas of Lithuania was the first parliament (Seimas) elected in Lithuania after it restored independence on 11 March 1990. Elections took place on 25 October 1992, with the second round on 15 November. In a surprisingly decisive outcome, the elections were won by Democratic Labour Party of Lithuania (LDDP), with 73 seats. The result reflected widespread dissatisfaction with the economic situation and the policies of the ruling Sąjūdis political movement in the preceding Supreme Council of Lithuania.
The Sixth Seimas commenced its work on 25 November 1992 and served a four-year term, with the last session on 19 November 1996. Algirdas Brazauskas, the leader of LDDP, became the Speaker of the Seimas, before assuming the role of the President of Lithuania. He was succeeded as the Speaker by his party colleague Česlovas Juršėnas, who served for the rest of the term.
Three LDDP-led governments changed during the term of the Sixth Seimas. The government of Bronislovas Lubys, an independent business manager, served for a short period before the presidential election in 1993. The government of Adolfas Šleževičius was in power for most of the term, but the Prime Minister was forced out after a financial scandal in December 1995. Laurynas Stankevičius led the government for the rest of the term.
The Sixth Seimas adopted a number of laws, mostly related to agricultural reform, implementation of the Constitution of Lithuania and the introduction of Litas as the national currency. Supervision of financial markets was enhanced after a number of early financial institutions collapsed and other financial scandals came to light in 1994. On the other hand, the slow pace of market reforms, failure to restore the ownership of confiscated private property and weak efforts to fight corruption were criticized by the opposition. The chaotic process of privatization of public assets also came under criticism for allowing well-connected individuals and groups to take control of state enterprises.
Elections.
In the elections in 1992, 70 members of the parliament were elected on proportional party lists and 71 in single member constituencies. Elections took place on 25 October 1992. In those constituencies where no candidate won outright on 25 October, a run-off was held on 15 November.
The main challenger to the ruling Sąjūdis nationalist movement, which had controlled the Supreme Council since February 1990 and spearheaded the move to independence, was the Democratic Labour Party of Lithuania (LDDP). In the run-up to the elections, Sąjūdis portrayed the opposing political groups as communist and reactionary, opposed to independence and democracy. The LDDP declared their commitment to maintaining foreign policy goals, including joining Council of Europe and agreements with other international organizations, while also promising friendlier relations and better trade with Russia.
The result was a victory for the LDDP, which won 73 seats. Analysts attributed the surprisingly decisive victory to support from farmers and the Russian and Polish minorities, as well as widespread dissatisfaction with the economic situation and the policies of the ruling Sąjūdis political movement, which only managed to win 30 seats.
Activities.
The newly elected Sixth Seimas first gathered on 25 November 1992. In what was to become a procedural tradition, the first session was presided over by the oldest member of the parliament – Juozas Bulavas. As the new parliament lacked clear procedures governing its work (the Statute of Seimas was only adopted on 26 February 1994), it was decided to follow the regulations of the preceding Supreme Council of Lithuania.
Algirdas Brazauskas was elected as the first Speaker of the Sixth Seimas, supported by 81 of the parliament members. Brazauskas only acted in this capacity for less than a day – as soon as Seimas adopted the necessary legal framework, he assumed the position of acting President of Lithuania, in accordance with the constitution. His deputy, Česlovas Juršėnas became the acting Speaker of the Parliament. After the presidential election early the following year, Brazauskas became the first post-independence President of Lithuania, resigned from the Seimas and Juršėnas was elected as the Speaker for the remainder of the term.
Algirdas Brazauskas proposed Bronislovas Lubys, the managing director of “Azotas” (later Achema), as the Prime Minister of the fifth government. His candidacy was approved by the parliament with 87 votes in favor. It was understood that the government was to be short-lived, as it would have to return its mandate after the presidential elections early in 1993. The government included only three members of LDDP, while nine ministers retained their positions from the previous Sąjūdis-led government. In late 1992 and early 1993 the Seimas adopted the laws implementing the position of the President of Lithuania and governing the elections.
After the presidential elections, Brazauskas put forward economist and businessman Adolfas Šleževičius as the Prime Minister of the sixth government. His candidacy was approved by the Seimas and the government started their work on 16 March 1993, with the stated priorities of creating the foundations for competitive market economy and improving social safety net.
In order to secure monetary stability and control the inflation, Litas was introduced as the national currency of Lithuania, with the circulation starting on 25 June 1993. In 1994, it was pegged to the US Dollar at the rate of 4:1. The introduction of the currency did not soften the growing tensions between the Government, the Seimas and the Bank of Lithuania, which was criticized for its commercial activities and poor supervision of commercial banks. On 10 March 1993, the parliament accepted the resignation of bank's chairman, Vilius Baldišius, replacing him with Romualdas Visokavičius two weeks later. After the Commission for Investigating Financial Crimes, established by the Seimas, uncovered irregularities and illegal transactions in the bank, the Seimas expressed no-confidence in Visokavičius on 19 October 1993, forcing him out and replacing him with Kazimieras Ratkevičius.
Failure to supervise the financial sector, at that point dominated by weak banks and outright financial pyramids that wiped out the savings of a substantial part of the population, was cited by the opposition as one of the reasons for its proposal to express no-confidence in the Government in June 1994, the first such proposal in post-independence Lithuania. Nevertheless, the government survived this and another interpellation on 31 October 1995. The situation changed after the collapse of two commercial banks in December 1995. It emerged that Prime Minister Šleževičius had withdrawn his savings from one of the two banks just days before its collapse. After refusing to resign, he was forced out by the Seimas in a secret-ballot vote on 19 December 1995, with 94 members supporting his ousting. Laurynas Stankevičius, a minister in the Šleževičius cabinet, was approved by the Seimas on 15 February 1996 as the Prime Minister of the seventh government and served until the end of the term of the Seimas.
Almost half of all the laws adopted during the period of the Sixth Seimas were related to agricultural reform, implementation of the Constitution of Lithuania and the introduction of Litas as the national currency. Among other important decisions, the Seimas adopted a structural reform of the judiciary and set up the Constitutional Court. The taxation system was reformed, partly in response to budget deficits that the Sixth Seimas never managed to close, and the Value Added Tax introduced. Dual-layered local government was introduced, with municipal and county administrations sharing the responsibility. On the other hand, the opposition criticized the successive governments and the ruling majority for the slow pace of market reforms, failure to restore the ownership of confiscated private property and weak efforts to fight corruption.
The privatization program, which had been started already in 1990, was initially criticized by the newly elected parliamentary majority, but soon continued. In a chaotic process, the laws governing privatization were reviewed and changed constantly, but still had loopholes in them that allowed well-connected individuals and financial groups to assume control of government property at fire-sale prices. The second stage of privatization started in July 1995 with Seimas adopting the new Law on Privatization of Government and Municipal Property. The new law attempted to eliminate many of the weaknesses in the privatization process – assets could now be sold only for cash, discounts for employees were eliminated and equal participation rights were granted to local and foreign investors. However, the new law did not meet the expectations and the privatization process remained inefficient and prone to corruption.
The two largest powers in the Sixth Seimas had vastly different views on how the land reform should take place. Sąjūdis (and Homeland Union that emerged from it) focused on returning the agricultural land to those that had lost it in the waves of Soviet collectivization and implemented it as a policy when in power before 1992. LDDP, on the other hand, prioritized maintaining the existing levels of production, which meant ensuring that the land stays in the hands of those who would work it most efficiently. Once in power, LDDP introduced changes to the Law on Land Reform, slowing down the process of restitution and limiting its scope.
In foreign policy, the Sixth Seimas maintained a pro-European stance, despite Sąjūdis warning the electorate that the success of LDDP would inevitably orient Lithuania towards Russia. Instead, the LDDP-led Sixth Seimas proclaimed the continuity of the previous foreign policy. The last of Russian military forces left Lithuania in 1993. Lithuania soon joined the Council of Europe, while maintaining its long-term goals of joining NATO and European Union.
Composition.
Leadership.
The board of the Seimas consisted of the Speaker of the Seimas, his deputies and the chancellor of the Seimas. The functions assigned to these positions and the procedures for their appointment evolved during the term.
Parliamentary groups.
On the second day of the term, 26 November 1992, the following parliamentary groups were registered: Christian Democrats, Sąjūdis, Citizen Charter, Democratic Labour Party of Lithuania, Social Democrats of Lithuania. While politically aligned, Christian Democrats, Sąjūdis and Citizen Charter formed three separate political groups in the Seimas in order to secure more seats in parliamentary committees. Nevertheless, the alignment fractured, as the Political Prisoners and Deportees and the Democratic Party left the political group of Christian Democrats, while only 23 of the 30 members of Sąjūdis and Citizen Charter joined the parliamentary group of Homeland Union-Lithuanian Conservatives.
The opposition to the government in the Sixth Seimas was twofold: Homeland Union-Lithuanian Conservatives led the radical opposition, relentlessly criticizing the government, while the Social Democrats and the Centre Union formed the moderate opposition. During the term there were several cases of departures or expulsions from both the ruling political group of the Democratic Labour Party and the opposition political groups. However, due to the vast gulf between the ruling and opposition parties, there were few defections across ideological borders.
The following parliamentary groups were active at the end of the term.
Committees.
Parliamentary committees are formed to consider draft legislation and can explore and clarify other issues in their area of competence. Eleven committees were active during the Sixth Seimas.
Commissions.
Permanent of temporary parliamentary commissions are formed to work on a particular question or issue assigned to them by the Seimas.
Permanent commission active during the term of the Sixth Seimas were Ethics, Administration and Petition commissions. Of particular interest in the Sixth Seimas was the Commission for Investigating Financial Crimes, established by the Seimas in 1993 and headed by parliament member Virgilijus Vladislovas Bulovas (later - by Vytautas Juškus). The commission worked to identify loopholes in existing laws that allowed officials and well-connected individuals to take possession of government property and investigated corruption by government officials. The commission also dealt with numerous financial scandals that took place during the term, particularly the failure of several commercial banks at the end of 1995.
Temporary commissions were created to investigate ad-hoc questions. During the term of the Sixth Seimas these questions included the activities of commercial banks, the activities of the House of Signatories, and the decisions of the previous government of Gediminas Vagnorius.
Members.
A total of 147 members served on the Sixth Seimas, including 137 men and 10 women. The vast majority of Seimas members were ethnic Lithuanians. Russian and Polish ethnic minorities, each constituting around 6% of the population in Lithuania, were represented by 3 and 6 members, respectively.


Statute of York

The Statute of York was a 1322 Act of the Parliament of England that repealed the Ordinances of 1311 and prevented any similar provisions from being established. Academics argue over the actual impact of the bill, but general consensus is that it made the idea that the House of Commons should be consulted on all matters of general interest. The Statute is seen as "the end of a period of revolutionary experiments in English government", with no Ordinances ever attempted again.
Background.
The Ordinances of 1311 were provisions imposed upon King Edward II by the peerage and clergy of the Kingdom of England to restrict the power of the king. Edward's victory against his political opposition at the Battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322, and the execution of the Earl of Lancaster 6 days later, gave him a large amount of freedom, and Parliament was summoned to meet at York on 2 May 1322 with a writ backdated to 2 days before Boroughbridge. Edward's first matter was "the statute on the repeal of the ordinances", though with the proviso of "putting of the good points of the Ordinances into a statute". Draft copies discovered in the Public Record Office indicate that the Statute was originally only meant to repeal the Ordinances of 1311, with no additional provisions. The second draft, however, completely vindicated the idea of the royal prerogative, and prevented any similar Ordinances from being enacted, saying that "the Matters which are to be established for the Estate of our Lord the King and of his Heirs and for the Estate of the Realm and the People shall be treated accorded and established in Parliaments ... according as it hath been heretofore accustomed". As a result of the Statute, the Ordinances were repealed, and no attempt was ever made to reintroduce them; this has been seen as "the end of a period of revolutionary experiments in English government".
Constitutional implications.
The House of Lords committee that discussed the Statute concluded that it meant to formalise what had previously been custom in regards to the rights of peers and the monarch, and that any previous statute made without regard for this was void. Henry Hallam concluded that, although seeming to advance the rights of the people by confirming previous custom (which included requiring the Monarch to consult the House of Commons when passing a Statute), the enactment "seems rather to limit than to enhance the supreme power of parliament, if it were meant to prohibit any future enactment of the kind by its sole authority", since the Lords Ordainers had been elected by the people; nonetheless, most historians believe it extended the Commons' rights. Those historians who do agree that it recognised the right of the Commons do not agree what it recognised; some say that it required the consent of the Commons when significant constitutional changes were to be made, some that it merely recognised the right of the Commons to be consulted in financial matters, and some that it recognised the right of the Commons to be consulted on all matters of general interest; the third theory is the most commonly accepted one. As stated, "the matters to be established for the estate of the king and of his heirs, and for the estate of the realm and of the people, should be treated, accorded, and established in parliament, by the king, and by the assent of the prelates, earls, and barons, and the commonalty of the realm, according as had been before accustomed"
Further remedies.
While the Ordinances themselves had been repealed, many of the administrative points they had contained - regarding in particular sheriffs, the Statute of Merchants, and two grievances over legal appeals (Ordinances 17, 33, 35 and 36) - were taken over almost word for word in the new legislation, being known collectively as the six "Good Clauses".


James Dowdall (Chief Justice)

Sir James Dowdall (died 1584) was an Irish judge of the Elizabethan era who briefly held office as Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. He should not be confused with James Dowdall, the Catholic martyr, who was his cousin.
Early career.
He was born in County Louth, son of Christopher Dowdall, and nephew of George Dowdall (died 1558), Archbishop of Armagh. His mother was Thomasine Cusack, daughter of John Cusack of Cussington and his first wife Alison de Wellesley, and sister of Sir Thomas Cusack, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. James was something of a favourite of his uncle Thomas, who is said to have encouraged him to pursue a legal career. The Dowdall family, originally called Dovedale, came to Ireland from the valley
of Dovedale in Derbyshire. Their main estates were at Newtown, County Louth and Termonfeckin. Other notable family members included Sir Robert Dowdall, Chief Justice of the Irish Common Pleas in the previous century, and Robert's son Thomas Dowdall, Master of the Rolls in Ireland.
James entered Lincoln's Inn before 1549; an entry in the Inn's books survives from 1554 ordering him to shave his beard.
Mary I appointed him Principal Solicitor for Ireland in 1554 and Elizabeth I confirmed him in office and later gave him an annuity for his diligence in attending the Court of Castle Chamber (the Irish equivalent of Star Chamber). He resided mainly at Knock in County Louth.
Family.
He married Elizabeth Thunder, member of a prominent Dublin merchant family (their unusual surname is thought to derive from the French "Tonnerre"). They had one daughter Ellen, who married John Barnewall. Elizabeth was still alive in 1587, when Sir Henry Colley sued her as the executrix of her husband's estate, for debts he had allegedly incurred by standing surety for his brother Patrick.
Later career.
He was appointed a justice of the Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) in 1565 and was transferred to the Court of Common Pleas (Ireland) in 1577; he was also appointed Chief Justice of Munster, and sat on the Royal Commission to establish the government of that province. He was chosen for several diplomatic missions over the years, and conducted negotiations on behalf of the English Crown with Shane O'Neill and with the Earl of Desmond.
In 1583 he was knighted and appointed Lord Chief Justice, but died the following year. According to Elrington Ball he was highly esteemed by his colleagues, and exercised a powerful political influence, especially in Ulster.


Habsburg Law

The Habsburg Law ("Habsburgergesetz" (in full, the Law concerning the Expulsion and the Takeover of the Assets of the House Habsburg-Lorraine) "Gesetz vom 3. April 1919 betreffend die Landesverweisung und die Übernahme des Vermögens des Hauses Habsburg-Lothringen") was a law originally passed by the Constitutional Assembly ("Konstituierende Nationalversammlung") of German Austria, one of the successor states of dismantled Austria-Hungary, on 3 April 1919. The law legally dethroned the House of Habsburg-Lorraine as rulers of the country which had declared itself a republic on 12 November 1918, exiled them and confiscated their property. The Habsburg Law was repealed in 1935 and the Habsburg family was given back its property. However, in 1938, following the Anschluss, the Nazis reintroduced the Habsburg Law, and it was retained when Austria regained its independence after World War II.
The law has been found to violate human rights, and for this reason, Austria was forced to repeal large parts of it, notably the ban on members of the Habsburg family entering Austria, before being admitted into the European Union in the 1990s. After a report by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) criticized the prohibition against members of the Habsburg family running for the Austrian presidency, this provision was also withdrawn in June 2011 by the Austrian parliament. Although the law still remains in force, it is considered largely obsolete, with the notable exception of the confiscation of the family's property in force since 1938.
First Republic.
On 11 November 1918, Emperor Charles I, counseled by ministers of his last Imperial Royal government as well as by ministers of German Austria, issued a proclamation relinquishing his right to take part in Austrian affairs of state. He also released the officials in the western (Austrian) half of the Habsburg realm from their oath of loyalty to him. On the following day, the Provisional National Assembly (Provisorische Nationalversammlung) of German-Austria, which claimed authority over the German-speaking portions of the western Habsburg lands (mostly the Danubian and Alpine provinces) proclaimed German-Austria a republic and announced its union with the German republic.
In the night after his proclamation Charles I and his family left Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna and moved to Schloss Eckartsau east of the city, then belonging to the Habsburg Family Funds. There he was visited by a Hungarian delegation and on 13 November signed a similar proclamation for the Kingdom of Hungary.
Although these proclamations have sometimes been interpreted as abdications, Charles did not formally abdicate, intending to retain his freedom of action in case the people of either nation recalled him. The new republican government of Austria, uncomfortable with this situation, gave Charles three options: (1) abdicate formally and remain in Austria as a private citizen, (2) leave the country or (3) be interned.
With the help of Lieutenant Colonel Edward Lisle Strutt, a British officer sent by George V of the United Kingdom, who was shocked by the fate of his Russian relatives, on 23 March Charles and his family departed from Eckartsau for Switzerland in the former Imperial train, Charles wearing a field marshal's uniform. Before crossing the border on the morning of 24 March 1919, and changing into civilian clothes, he issued the "Feldkircher Manifest," reiterating his claims to sovereignty and stating that any decision by the German-Austrian national assembly relating to the issue was "null and void for me and my House." Officials of the new republican government were angered that Charles had left Austria without explicitly abdicating. Accordingly, on 3 April, the German-Austrian parliament, on the initiative of Chancellor Karl Renner, passed the Habsburg Law.
The law stripped the Habsburgs of their sovereign rights and banished all Habsburgs from Austrian territory. Charles was barred from ever returning to Austria again. Other Habsburgs were only allowed to return if they renounced all dynastic claims and accepted status as private citizens. Those assets of the state that had been under the administration of the imperial court, the so-called "Hofärar", were placed under the government's management. The private funds and family funds of the House of Habsburg, common family property administered by the respective head of the house, were expropriated and transferred to the state property. Personal private property was preserved.
Also on 3 April, nobility was abolished in German Austria, with the Law on the Abolition of Nobility.
The family demanded that various endowments and funds be placed at their disposal as personal private property; in response to this, and to clear up ambiguities related to this, the Habsburg Law was amended on 30 October 1919, retroactively from 3 April, expressly recording which of the claimed funds or endowments in particular were to count as expropriated.
When the Austrian Constitution came into force in 1920, the Habsburg Law was made a constitutional law. However, the provisions of the Habsburg Law concerning expropriation were expressly not brought into force in Burgenland in 1922 (as well as the Law on the Abolition of Nobility) when it became part of Austria. This was intended to turn the Burgenland aristocrats (who included members of the Habsburg family) more pro-Austrian, for pragmatic reasons. The oddity of a constitutional rule not applying to the whole republic was only "repaired" in 2008, when a federal constitutional law declared that by 1 January 2008 the Habsburg Law in total is valid wherever in Austria.
The state of Austria and the National Socialist era.
The Habsburg Law was downgraded under Federal Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg on 13 July 1935 at the time of the Austrofascist "Ständestaat" (State of estates) from the status of constitutional law to that of normal law; the ban on certain Habsburgs from entering the country was lifted. The "Family-Provision Fund" of the Habsburg family was restored, and substantial property was returned to the fund.
After the "Anschluss", "Reichsstatthalter" Arthur Seyss-Inquart, head of the "Austrian State Government", enacted the "Law on the cancellation of the transfer of property to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine", on 14 March 1939, on the grounds of a personal Führer decree; thus, the property passed without compensation to the ""Land" Austria", part of the Third Reich.
Second Republic.
In 1945, the Second Republic brought into force again the Constitution of 1920/1929 according to its version as of 1933, and with it also the Habsburg Law of 1919. With the Constitution Transition Law, all constitutional laws enacted between 1933 and 1945, and all laws which were not compatible with the constitution that was in force until 1933, were repealed. Thus, the legal situation of the First Republic was restored.
In 1955, at the explicit request of the USSR the Habsburg law became part of the Austrian State Treaty.
From 1960, many members of the House Habsburg-Lorraine signed the waiver. In 1961, it was also signed by Archduke Otto von Habsburg, Charles' son, who had succeeded his father as head of the house upon his father's death in 1922. His entry was delayed until 1966 by the Habsburg crisis, in which the legal validity of his declaration was questioned. In this connection the National Council decided to interpret the Habsburg Law authentically, with a majority of the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) and the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ). Permission to enter was granted to the last empress, Zita of Bourbon-Parma, without a waiver, in 1982, because she was a Habsburg only by marriage and could therefore make no claim to the imperial throne.
Members of the Habsburg family and other families, "that have ruled before", have according to article 60, paragraph 3 of the federal constitution, the same rights and possibilities as any other Austrians, except from being unable to serve as Federal President. In 2010, Ulrich Habsburg-Lothringen, living in Carinthia, unsuccessfully tried to be accepted as a candidate at the federal president's elections.
The Arbitration Panel of the General Settlement Fund for Victims of National Socialism (decisions 5/2004, 6/2004, 7/2004) has declared that it lacks jurisdiction over applications of the Habsburg family, for reasons of constitutional and international law. In a subsequent complaint of the Habsburg family concerning decisions of the Arbitration Panel, the Austrian constitutional court has declared that it lacks jurisdiction.


Leon Pasternak

Leon Pasternak (12 August 1910, Lemberg, Austro-Hungarian Empire (soon became Lwow, Poland, now Lviv, Ukraine) - 14 November 1969 Warsaw, Poland) was a Polish poet and satirist. His Jewish family came to Poland in the 1880s from the town of Tula, Russia, which was outside the Jewish Pale of Settlement, where Jews usually were not allowed to reside.
The Tula Pasternaks belonged to a class of "Jewish Landed Gentry" that resided in the manors of the gentile aristocracy, and managed their agricultural estates. In the case of the Pasternaks the estates were in the vicinity of Yasnaya Polyana, Leo Tolstoy's estate. Tolstoy invited Leonid Pasternak, a member of the Odessa branch of the family,
to illustrate his books. Leonid's son, Boris Pasternak who became years later a famous poet, wrote the novel "Letters from Tula", maybe in tribute to his relatives. The Tula Pasternaks were very much assimilated - one of Leon's aunts was called Marie, a Christian name that no "proper" Jew would have given a daughter of his. Leon's faith was not religious but a universal humanitarian one.
In the 1920s Leon was a young idealist and committed communist. As a result of his political activities — writing satirical verses for socialist revolutionary periodicals, and spreading communist propaganda in any possible way — Leon had to leave Lwow for Warsaw. There his works quickly became popular, but soon the "literary cabaret" which he founded in collaboration with Stanislaw Lec (referred to as the Theater of Boys by some and as the Five Kopeck Theater by others), was closed by the authorities, after only eight performances.
In 1934, Leon then a young man of 24, was imprisoned in the Bereza Kartuska prison, the first concentration camp in Poland in which political prisoners were held without trial by the Polish regime. His relatives traveled from Lwow with parcels of warm clothing and food to help him sustain the harsh conditions of jail. Meanwhile across the border in the Soviet Union, Leon's relative Boris Pasternak escaped a similar fate of ideological imprisonment: Boris became disillusioned with communist ideals, and was about to be arrested. Supposedly Stalin himself had crossed Boris's name off an arrest list during the Great Purge. After one year in prison, Leon Pasternak was released.
In the beginning of World War II, he fled to the USSR. He joined the 1st Tadeusz Kościuszko Infantry Division that fought against the Nazis to liberate Poland. He wrote for the divisional newspaper "Żołnierz Wolności" and was the director of the divisional theater. The theater subsequently became the First Polish Army theater and became the first theater in the Polish People's Republic. He was the author of the famous marching song "Oka".
After the war was over, he resumed the satirical weekly "Szpilki" with Stanisław Jerzy Lec and Jerzy Zaruba, which they edited together at first, and became the vice-chairman of the Polish Writers' Union. Pasternak was married to the Polish actress Ryszarda Hanin.
"Leon Pasternak was idealistic till the end, faithful till his last breath" said Ryszard Marek Gronski the well known Polish author and poet.


Pearsall Plan

The Pearsall Plan to Save Our Schools, known colloquially as the Pearsall Plan, was North Carolina's 1956 attempt at a moderate approach to integrate their public schools after racial segregation of schools was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court ruling "Brown v. Board of Education" (1954). Many southern states were challenged by the Brown ruling as they faced opposition to integration from residents.
North Carolina decided to highlight moderation, acknowledging that school integration was inevitable, rather than promoting active resistance like Alabama, Virginia, and other southern states. To find a creative solution, the North Carolina Advisory Committee on Education established the Pearsall Committee, named after its chairman, Thomas J. Pearsall, a landholder and notable public figure from Rocky Mount. The Pearsall Committee created the Pearsall Plan, which was intended to gradually integrate the North Carolina public school system. Some observers believe this scheme hindered the fight for equality for students across the state for years. Others believe that the resulting legislation helped the society adapt to the drastic social changes related to school integration.
Terms of the Pearsall Plan.
Rather than having the North Carolina State Board of Education direct the pace of integration, the Pearsall Plan decentralized decisionmaking to the individual local school boards, which were dominated by whites, as most blacks were still disenfranchised, dating from a 1900 suffrage amendment, and were prevented from running for office or voting. The Pupil Assignment Act, which preceded the Pearsall Plan, provided for parents to receive a monetary grant if a child was placed into a mixed school against their wishes.
Under the Pearsall Plan, many school districts maintained segregated schools and denied the transfer applications of black students to white schools. It also provided that any child not accepted to a private school, and who was placed into a mixed public school, would not be forced to attend school. The community could evaluate schools and shut down any it considered "intolerable" by a vote. Thus, a predominantly white neighborhood could vote to shut down a mixed school if they felt it unfit for their children to share its classrooms.
According to the Pearsall Committee, their proposition was, "the building of a new school system on a new foundation – a foundation of no racial segregation by law, but assignment according to natural racial preference and the administrative determination of what is best for the child." The Committee believed that segregation of schools was natural and students could continue to prosper without the aid of laws. (The lack of African-American representation in the state legislature and local offices resulted in the continual underfunding of black schools and other facilities, showing that white students "could continue to prosper".) The struggle for unified schools in North Carolina continued for the next two decades, ultimately resulting in the integration of schools.
Defiance of the government.
Many critics cite the wording of the Pearsall Plan as evidence of it expressing defiance of the Supreme Court rather than being an effort to accomplish desegregation. They consider the title of "the Pearsall Plan to Save our Schools" as implying the Court was destroying the public school system by its ruling. They suggest that the document is intended to question the ruling of the Supreme Court, rather than implement its direction. Suggesting that integration will lead to situations in which schools become "intolerable" seems to show that the Pearsall Plan was intended to halt rather than moderate integration. The question and answer section of the Plan states that the legislative action was not a defiance of the US Supreme Court's decision; rather, it was "an attempt to stay within that decision, even though a great majority of our citizens disapprove of the Supreme Court's ruling." Persuaded that the ruling was not what the "community" wanted, the Pearsall Committee developed a plan that minimized the ruling's effects. The "answer" section claims that the Supreme Court abused its power by ruling on public education, believed to belong to the states. Some opponents were bitter about states rights arguments.
Necessity of the Plan.
The Pearsall Committee recognized that the integration of schools was inevitable and would result in social changes. The Pearsall Committee, especially Thomas Pearsall, believed they needed to prepare a plan to help the state prepare for change. Pearsall's son, Mack, said his father had anticipated, "a very tension filled environment – a major change in lifestyles and folkways and mores." The committee tried to create a plan that would enable only as much action as the people of North Carolina wanted. They believed rushing into wholesale change would result in chaos. That was avoided, but, by allowing communities not to make any changes, in many places, there were multiple years of stagnancy after the release of the Pearsall Plan, during which nothing was accomplished. The Committee had tried to find the right balance between action and chaos.
Political implications.
Strategically, the Pearsall Plan decentralized decision making to the school boards, which also enabled elected politicians to get out of the middle of the fight. Handing responsibility to the school boards enabled politicians to escape the spotlight and maintain an ostensibly neutral stance on school desegregation. According to one resident, the state's decision to let the local town boards decide was to "make it clear that the state itself, from Raleigh, is not masterminding or trying to assure a particular result." By doing this, the state school board also escaped having to make a controversial decision, which would likely be criticized from either or both sides.
Criticisms of the Plan.
The African-American community criticized the amendments because they appeared to help whites and provide few or no benefits to African-American students. Critics criticized the unequal representation of the races on the Pearsall Committee as the primary reason for the unbalanced plan. They believed that a committee with sixteen white and three black citizens could not fairly represent society. Regulations related to the Plan proved a barrier to black students and some whites. A student wishing to challenge their assignment had to contact their school board directly; no independent bodies were keeping track of complaints to evaluate the performance of school boards as a whole. The appeals process required submission of materials related to distinct and detailed clauses that were difficult for uneducated and under-educated parents to fill out. If students' appeals were not correctly submitted, the boards would reject their requests. As a result of these factors, "most school boards denied every request filed by a black student to transfer from an assigned black school to a white school" until the early 1960s. Only one family was granted a monetary voucher for being placed into an integrated school. North Carolina lagged behind Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia in terms of the pace of enrolling black students in integrated schools. Many African Americans in North Carolina were dismayed by the lack of progress, as they had been hopeful about the Brown ruling being a catalyst for school integration.
Reaction toward the Plan.
Though many people supported the integration of schools in principle, they were wary about the implications of quick social change. The Pearsall Plan seemed to reject any social change. A poll released in February 1956 stated that forty-seven percent of African Americans in the South did not support the Brown ruling because they feared their children would be spurned and not afforded a truly fair education from white teachers. At the same time, they did not support the Pearsall Plan because it had the potential to halt the trend toward change altogether. Benjamin L. Smith, the white superintendent of Greensboro schools wrote, "After careful deliberation it is my opinion that desegregation is an idea whose hour has arrived." He believed that North Carolina and the US were ready for desegregation to begin. He cautioned against moving too fast, saying, "Three hundred years of social distinctions have established customs and traditions that cannot and ought not be overthrown over night."
Impact on Charlotte.
Though in general, the sentiments regarding the Pearsall Plan were similar throughout North Carolina, the results of school integration would have a wider ranging effect on the city of Charlotte. Since the beginning of the 20th century, Charlotte was completely segregated, both in schools and in the entire culture of the city. There was even a divide between the parts of town where the blacks lived and where the whites lived. Thus, when Brown was passed, the effort to desegregate in Charlotte revolved around a complete culture revolution rather than just a change in the education system. The NAACP was integral in helping to advocate for black students in their attempts to attend the predominantly white schools, which had better resources for their students. However, despite this backing, there was harsh criticism of the idea that schools could simply be integrated because there was such a massive difference in the cultures of the students. The vast majority of the applicants that attempted to switch into the better funded schools were rejected and segregation in the city continued. Finally, during the summer of 1957, the Charlotte School Board agreed to enact voluntary desegregation to avoid further national or state-ordered mandates. The effort turned out to be relatively unsuccessful as the protesters at Harry Harding High School received national attention for their protest of the enrollment of Dorothy Counts, embarrassing the city leaders. They crowded around the doors to the school in an attempt to prevent Dorothy from entering, resulting in two arrests. This misconduct, however, would fuel a series of successful and peaceful desegregation efforts as blacks and whites worked together to reform the city's reputation and end segregation throughout the city.
Thomas Pearsall's regret.
Thomas J. Pearsall, who is most credited for the Pearsall Plan, would later regret leading such an important and controversial decision in the integration of schools. After falling ill with lymphoma, Pearsall reflected on how the actions of the committee had affected everyone. His wife noted that in his waning days, Pearsall's interactions with black people became more strained as he felt that he had done wrong to them. He was quoted saying, "I don't want to go to my grave feeling that I haven't done the best I could for the blacks." Though others reassured him that he did in fact, do everything possible to appease everyone, evidence shows he, himself, did not believe this to be completely true. This is perhaps due to the fact that at the time of his death, in 1981, the majority of the schools in North Carolina had been forced to integrate, often ending in clashes between the races. However, despite the tremendous guilt he experienced, Pearsall's reputation remained relatively clean. He is highly regarded for his work with the Pearsall Plan despite setting back the integration of North Carolina schools a number of years. This is an indication that people did not blame Pearsall but rather the local prejudices that ultimately would hinder the ability for everyone to access equal opportunities. His son, Mack Pearsall, noted that his father dedicated a portion of his life working towards equality for all people and struggled when producing the Pearsall Plan because he feared he would go down in history as an enemy of the black community. Though Pearsall stalled the ability of blacks to gain equal educational opportunities, many people still claim that his actions were necessary in preventing the chaos from erupting from the Brown v. Board of Education result.


Henri Young

Henri Theodore Young (born June 20, 1911 – disappeared 1972) was a convicted bank robber and murderer who, while serving one of a series of prison terms, attempted a 1939 escape from Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary with four other inmates. During the escape attempt two inmates were shot, and one died of his wounds. All surviving were quickly recaptured. Two of the men, Young and Rufus McCain, received sentences of solitary confinement and served them at Alcatraz for a period of three years (until autumn of 1942). Eleven days after re-entering the Alcatraz general prison population, Young murdered fellow escapee McCain. No apparent motive was ever disclosed. Young's defense put Alcatraz and the penal system on trial, leading to questions about how the prison was run. In 1948, Young was transferred from Alcatraz to the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri. He was later transferred to Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla upon completion of his federal sentence to begin a life sentence for the 1933 murder conviction.
Young "jumped parole" in 1972 after release from Walla Walla, with his stated whereabouts reported as "unknown". Young is perhaps best known in relation to the fictionalized character of the same name appearing in the 1995 film "Murder in the First", in which he was portrayed by Kevin Bacon. The story of Henri Young is also the subject of the song "Behind the Eyes of Henri Young" featured on the 2017 album "Dragonfly", by Australian singer Kasey Chambers.
Life.
Young was born in Kansas City, Missouri on June 20, 1911. He became a bank robber and was known for aggressively taking hostages. In 1933, he was convicted of murder. After spending time in prisons in Washington state and Montana, he was sent to the federal prison on Alcatraz Island. On the night of January 13, 1939, Young, with prisoners Rufus McCain, Arthur Barker, Dale Stamphill, and William Martin, attempted to escape. Martin, Young, and McCain surrendered, while Barker and Stamphill refused to surrender and were subsequently shot. Barker eventually died from his injuries.
At his trial for McCain's murder, Young and his attorney argued that the harsh system at Alcatraz had brutalized and dehumanized him. According to the "San Francisco Examiner", "Emphasis which [the defense] repeatedly laid on the fact that Young was in isolation or solitary confinement for more than three years—and that he drove his knife into McCain's abdomen just eleven days after release from such confinement, made it clear that the defense hopes to show not only that Young was 'punch drunk' but that the punches were administered by the Alcatraz 'system'."
Describing conditions in solitary confinement, Young stated:
In 1954 Young was transferred to the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla to begin a life sentence for the murder conviction in 1933. He was released from Washington State Penitentiary in 1972, at age 61; he "jumped parole and, according to Washington State authorities, his whereabouts are unknown." Thus, there are no further records from Young.
Historicity of film adaptation.
The film "Murder in the First" (1995) inaccurately presents Young as being arrested for stealing $5 in order to feed himself and his younger sister. It depicts that he was tortured after his escape attempt, that he killed McCain in the cafeteria immediately after his return to the general population, and that he was found dead in his prison cell in 1942 just before his appeal with the word "victory" on the wall. As noted above, Young had a prior murder conviction before arriving at Alcatraz (and indeed went on to leave Alcatraz, to serve the remainder of that murder sentence later in life).


Clarence Harrison

Clarence Harrison (born 1959) was wrongly convicted in 1987 for the kidnapping, rape and robbery of a 25-year-old-woman in Decatur, Georgia. He is the first person exonerated through the work of the Georgia Innocence Project.
In the pre-dawn hours of October 25, 1986, a woman was attacked as she walked in the rain to a bus stop. The assailant hit her, dragged her to an embankment and raped her three times before she was able to get away and notify the police. During the incident, the assailant also stole her watch. Harrison became a suspect based upon a prior conviction for robbery and a tip that someone at his house was trying to sell a watch, although the victim's watch was never found. Both the rape victim and the person providing the tip picked Harrison from a photo lineup. It was largely on this identification that Harrison was convicted on March 18, 1987, and sentenced to life in prison.
In February 2003, Harrison sent a hand-written letter to the newly opened Georgia Innocence Project. "Dear sirs, my name is Clarence Harrison. I am presently being held falsely accused of crimes I could not have committed," he wrote. "I am seeking to vindicate myself by the only means I know how." Interns from Georgia State University College of Law and Emory University School of Law saw the letter as worthy of further investigation. After finding slides from the rape kit previously thought to have been destroyed, modern DNA testing proved that Harrison was not the rapist.
On August 31, 2004, DeKalb Superior Court Judge Cynthia J. Becker granted the DeKalb County District Attorney's motion for a new trial and request that Harrison be released immediately. All charges were dismissed.
Three weeks after his release, Harrison married a woman who befriended him while he was in prison. Since his release, Harrison has worked to keep a positive attitude and help deter young people from crime.
The Georgia General Assembly compensated Harrison with a one million dollar sum payable as an annuity over twenty years. In March 2015 Harrison was bankrupt. He sold $735,000 in future annuity payments to Seneca One for just $272,000, not knowing he had to pay income taxes.


R v Ewanchuk

R v Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 SCR 330 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case concerning the defence of consent to a charge of sexual assault. The Court held that there was no defence of implied consent. The case is also notable for the controversy that arose between Justice John McClung and Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé.
Background.
Steve Ewanchuk brought a 17-year-old girl into his van for a job interview. After the interview, Ewanchuk invited the woman to his trailer in behind. He took her into his trailer and began to make a series of advances. Each time she would say "no" to his advance and he would stop but, after the passing of some time would then renew his sexual advances. She testified at trial that during her time in the trailer she was very afraid and that is why she did not take further action to stop the sexual conduct such as leaving or attempting to physically resist the man. Before she left, Ewanchuk paid her $100.00 so she could help pay for childcare.
At trial, Ewanchuk successfully argued that, although the woman had initially said "no" to his sexual touching because he had continued and she had failed to object further this constituted "implied consent". The acquittal was upheld on appeal. In the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, Justice John McClung commented that "it must be pointed out that the complainant did not present herself to Ewanchuk or enter his trailer in a bonnet and crinolines" and that Ewanchuk's conduct was "less criminal than hormonal".
The issue before the Supreme Court was "whether the trial judge erred in his understanding of consent in sexual assault and whether his conclusion that the defence of 'implied consent' exists in Canadian law was correct".
Reasons of the court.
Justice Major, for the majority, held there was no defence of "implied consent" to sexual assault and overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal.
The accused, Major explained, must raise a reasonable doubt that there was consent. Consent can be shown in one of two ways. Either where the "complainant in her mind wanted the sexual touching to take place" or, in the case of establishing a mistaken belief of consent, where "the complainant had affirmatively communicated by words or conduct her agreement to engage in sexual activity with the accused".
L'Heureux-Dubé held that the defence could not be used unless the accused took sufficient steps to ascertain consent. Here, the accused did not make any attempt to ensure that the accused had consent when he moved from a massage to sexual touching.
She also castigated McClung J's opinion severely, arguing that it reposed on myths and stereotypes about women and sexual assault.
Aftermath.
In response to L'Heureux-Dubé's criticism, McClung wrote a letter to the "National Post" criticizing her and claiming she let her personal beliefs get in the way of her judgment. He also made the comment that her judgments contributed to a rise in male suicides in Quebec. He soon published an apology for the comment, saying he was unaware that L'Heureux-Dubé's husband had committed suicide.