History.

Foundation of the party and first divisions.

The party was founded in 1951, when the Indochinese Communist Party (ICP) was divided into separate Cambodian, Lao and Vietnamese communist parties. The decision to form a separate Cambodian communist party had been taken at the ICP congress in February the same year. Different sources claim different dates for the exact founding and the first congress of the party. Son Ngoc Minh was appointed as Acting Chairman of the party. The party congress did not elect a full Central Committee, but instead appointed a Party Propagation and Formation Committee. At the time of its formation, the Cambodian party was called Khmer People's Revolutionary Party (KPRP). The ICP had been heavily dominated by Vietnamese and the KPRP was actively supported by the Vietnamese party during its initial phase of existence. Due to the reliance on Vietnamese support in the joint struggle against French colonial rule, the history of the party would later be rewritten, stating 1960 as the year of foundation of the party.  According to Democratic Kampuchea's version of party history, the Viet Minh's failure to negotiate a political role for the KPRP at the 1954 Geneva Conference represented a betrayal of the Cambodian movement, which still controlled large areas of the countryside and which commanded at least 5,000 armed men. Following the conference, about 1,000 members of the KPRP, including Son Ngoc Minh, made a Long March into North Vietnam, where they remained in exile. In late 1954, those who stayed in Cambodia founded a legal political party, the Krom Pracheachon, which participated in the 1955 and the 1958 National Assembly elections. In the September 1955 election, it won about 4% of the vote, but did not secure a seat in the legislature. Members of the Pracheachon were subject to constant harassment and to arrests because the party remained outside Prince Norodom Sihanouk's Sangkum. Government attacks prevented it from participating in the 1962 election and drove it underground. It is speculated that the decision of Pracheachon to file candidates for the election had not been approved by the now renamed Workers Party of Kampuchea (WPK). Sihanouk habitually labeled local leftists the Khmer Rouge, a term that later came to signify the party and the state.  During the mid-1950s, two KPRP factions, the "urban committee" (headed by Tou Samouth) and the "rural committee" (headed by Sieu Heng), emerged. In very general terms, these groups espoused divergent revolutionary lines. The prevalent "urban" line endorsed by North Vietnam recognized that Sihanouk by virtue of his success in winning independence from the French was a genuine national leader whose neutralism and deep distrust of the United States made him a valuable asset in Hanoi's struggle to "liberate" South Vietnam. Champions of this line hoped that the prince could be persuaded to distance himself from the right-wing and to adopt leftist policies. The other line, supported for the most part by rural cadres who were familiar with the harsh realities of the countryside, advocated an immediate struggle to overthrow the "feudalist" Sihanouk. In 1959, Sieu Heng defected to the government and provided the security forces with information that enabled them to destroy as much as 90% of the party's rural apparatus. Although communist networks in Phnom Penh and in other towns under Tou Samouth's jurisdiction fared better, only a few hundred communists remained active in the country by 1960.

Paris students' group.

During the 1950s, Khmer students in Paris organized their own communist movement which had little, if any, connection to the hard-pressed party in their homeland. From their ranks came the men and women who returned home and took command of the party apparatus during the 1960s, led an effective insurgency against Sihanouk and Lon Nol from 1968 until 1975 and established the regime of Democratic Kampuchea.  Pol Pot, who rose to the leadership of the communist movement in the 1960s, was born in 1928 (some sources say in 1925) in Kampong Thum Province, northeast of Phnom Penh. He attended a technical high school in the capital and then went to Paris in 1949 to study radio electronics (other sources say he attended a school for printers and typesetters and also studied civil engineering). Ieng Sary was a Chinese-Khmer born in 1930 in South Vietnam, he attended the elite Lycée Sisowath in Phnom Penh before beginning courses in commerce and politics at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (more widely known as Sciences Po) in France. Khieu Samphan, considered "one of the most brilliant intellects of his generation", was born in 1931 and specialized in economics and politics during his time in Paris. In talent, he was rivaled by Hou Yuon (born in 1930), who studied economics and law. Son Sen (born in 1930) studied education and literature while Hu Nim (born in 1932) studied law.  Most members of the Paris student group came from landowner or civil servant families. Three of the Paris group forged a bond that survived years of revolutionary struggle and intraparty strife, Pol Pot and Ieng Sary married Khieu Ponnary and Khieu Thirith (also known as Ieng Thirith), purportedly relatives of Khieu Samphan. These two well-educated women also played a central role in the regime of Democratic Kampuchea.  At some time between 1949 and 1951, Pol Pot and Ieng Sary joined the French Communist Party. In 1951, the two men went to East Berlin to participate in a youth festival. This experience is considered to have been a turning point in their ideological development. Meeting with Khmers who were fighting with the Viet Minh (and whom they subsequently judged to be too subservient to the Vietnamese), they became convinced that only a tightly disciplined party organization and a readiness for armed struggle could achieve revolution. They transformed the Khmer Students' Association (KSA), to which most of the 200 or so Khmer students in Paris belonged, into an organization for nationalist and leftist ideas. Inside the KSA and its successor organizations was a secret organization known as the Cercle Marxiste. The organization was composed of cells of three to six members with most members knowing nothing about the overall structure of the organization. In 1952, Pol Pot, Hou Yuon, Ieng Sary and other leftists gained notoriety by sending an open letter to Sihanouk calling him the "strangler of infant democracy". A year later, the French authorities closed down the KSA, but Hou Yuon and Khieu Samphan helped to establish in 1956 a new group, the Khmer Students' Union. Inside, the group was still run by the Cercle Marxiste.  The doctoral dissertations written by Hou Yuon and Khieu Samphan express basic themes that were later to become the cornerstones of the policy adopted by Democratic Kampuchea. The central role of the peasants in national development was espoused by Hou Yuon in his 1955 thesis, "The Cambodian Peasants and Their Prospects for Modernization" which challenged the conventional view that urbanization and industrialization are necessary precursors of development. The major argument in Khieu Samphan's 1959 thesis, "Cambodia's Economy and Industrial Development", was that the country had to become self-reliant and end its economic dependency on the developed world. In its general contours, Khieu's work reflected the influence of a branch of the "dependency theory" school, which blamed lack of development in the Third World on the economic domination of the industrialized nations.

Clandestine existence in Phnom Penh.

After returning to Cambodia in 1953, Pol Pot threw himself into party work. At first, he went to join with forces allied to the Viet Minh operating in the rural areas of Kampong Cham Province (Kompong Cham). After the end of the war, he moved to Phnom Penh under Tou Samouth's "urban committee", where he became an important point of contact between above-ground parties of the left and the underground secret communist movement. His comrades Ieng Sary and Hou Yuon became teachers at a new private high school, the Lycée Kambuboth, which Hou Yuon helped to establish. Khieu Samphan returned from Paris in 1959, taught as a member of the law faculty of the University of Phnom Penh and started a left-wing French-language publication, "L'Observateur". The paper soon acquired a reputation in Phnom Penh's small academic circle. The following year, the government closed the paper and Sihanouk's police publicly humiliated Khieu by beating, undressing and photographing him in public—as Shawcross notes, "not the sort of humiliation that men forgive or forget". Yet the experience did not prevent Khieu from advocating cooperation with Sihanouk in order to promote a united front against United States activities in South Vietnam. As mentioned, Khieu Samphan, Hou Yuon and Hu Nim were forced to "work through the system" by joining the Sangkum and by accepting posts in the prince's government.  From 28–30 September 1960, twenty-one leaders of the KPRP held a secret congress in a vacant room of the Phnom Penh railroad station. It is estimated that 14 delegates represented the 'rural' faction and seven the 'urban' faction. This pivotal event remains shrouded in mystery because its outcome has become an object of contention (and considerable historical rewriting) between pro-Vietnamese and anti-Vietnamese Khmer communist factions. At the meeting, the party was renamed as the Workers Party of Kampuchea. The question of cooperation with, or resistance to, Sihanouk was thoroughly discussed. A new party structure was adopted and for the first time a permanent Central Committee was appointed with Tou Samouth (who advocated a policy of cooperation) as the general secretary of the party. His ally Nuon Chea, also known as Long Reth, became deputy general secretary while Pol Pot and Ieng Sary were named to the Central Committee to occupy the third and the fifth highest positions in the party hierarchy. Another committee member was veteran communist Keo Meas. In Democratic Kampuchea, this meeting would later be projected as the founding date of the party, consciously downplaying the history of the party prior to Pol Pot's ascent to leadership.  On 20 July 1962, Tou Samouth was murdered by the Cambodian government. At the WPK's second congress in February 1963, Pol Pot was chosen to succeed Tou Samouth as the party's general secretary. Tou's allies Nuon Chea and Keo Meas were removed from the Central Committee and replaced by Son Sen and Vorn Vet. From then on, Pol Pot and loyal comrades from his Paris student days controlled the party center, edging out older veterans whom they considered excessively pro-Vietnamese.

Insurgency in rural Cambodia.

In July 1963, Pol Pot and most of the central committee left Phnom Penh to establish an insurgent base in Ratanakiri Province in the northeast. Pol Pot had shortly before been put on a list of thirty-four leftists who were summoned by Sihanouk to join the government and sign statements saying Sihanouk was the only possible leader for the country. Pol Pot and Chou Chet were the only people on the list who escaped. All the others agreed to cooperate with the government and were afterward under 24-hour watch by the police.  In the mid-1960s, the United States Department of State estimated the party membership to be approximately 100.  The region Pol Pot and the others moved to was inhabited by tribal minorities, the Khmer Loeu, whose rough treatment (including resettlement and forced assimilation) at the hands of the central government made them willing recruits for a guerrilla struggle. In 1965, Pol Pot made a visit of several months to North Vietnam and China. He probably received some training in China, which must have enhanced his prestige when he returned to the WPK's liberated areas. Despite friendly relations between Sihanouk and the Chinese, the latter kept Pol Pot's visit a secret from Sihanouk. In 1971, the party changed its name to the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). The party statutes, published in mid-1970s, claims that the name change was approved by the party congress in 1971. The change in the name of the party was a closely guarded secret. Lower ranking members of the party and even the Vietnamese were not told of it and neither was the membership until many years later. The party leadership endorsed armed struggle against the government, then led by Sihanouk. In 1967, several small-scale attempts at insurgency were made by the CPK but they met with little success.  In 1968, the Khmer Rouge launched a national insurgency across Cambodia. Though North Vietnam had not been informed of the decision, its forces provided shelter and weapons to the Khmer Rouge after the insurgency started. The guerrilla forces of the party were baptized as the Kampuchean Revolutionary Army. Vietnamese support for the insurgency made it impossible for the ineffective and poorly motivated Royal Cambodian Army to effectively counter it.

Rise to power.

The political appeal of the Khmer Rouge was increased as a result of the situation created by the removal of Sihanouk as head of state in 1970. Premier Lon Nol, with the support of the National Assembly, deposed Sihanouk. Sihanouk, in exile in Beijing, made an alliance with the Kampuchean Communist Party and became the nominal head of a Khmer Rouge-dominated government-in-exile (known by its French acronym GRUNK) backed by the People's Republic of China. Sihanouk's popular support in rural Cambodia allowed the Khmer Rouge to extend its power and influence to the point that by 1973 it exercised "de facto" control over the majority of Cambodian territory, although only a minority of its population.  The relationship between the massive carpet bombing of Cambodia by the United States and the growth of the Khmer Rouge, in terms of recruitment and popular support, has been a matter of interest to historians. Some historians, including Michael Ignatieff, Adam Jones and Greg Grandin, have cited the United States intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965–1973) as a significant factor which lead to increased support for the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry. According to Ben Kiernan, the Khmer Rouge "would not have won power without U.S. economic and military destabilization of Cambodia.... It used the bombing's devastation and massacre of civilians as recruitment propaganda and as an excuse for its brutal, radical policies and its purge of moderate communists and Sihanoukists." Pol Pot biographer David P. Chandler writes that the bombing "had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh", but it also accelerated the collapse of rural society and increased social polarization. Peter Rodman and Michael Lind claimed that the United States intervention saved the Lon Nol regime from collapse in 1970 and 1973. Craig Etcheson acknowledged that U.S. intervention increased recruitment for the Khmer Rouge but disputed that it was a primary cause of the Khmer Rouge victory. William Shawcross wrote that the United States bombing and ground incursion plunged Cambodia into the chaos that Sihanouk had worked for years to avoid.  By 1973, Vietnamese support of the Khmer Rouge had largely disappeared. China "armed and trained" the Khmer Rouge both during the civil war and the years afterward.  When the United States Congress suspended military aid to the Lon Nol government in 1973, the Khmer Rouge made sweeping gains in the country, completely overwhelming the Khmer National Armed Forces. On 17 April 1975, the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh and overthrew the Khmer Republic, executing all its officers.

Khmer Rouge in power.

The leadership of the Khmer Rouge was largely unchanged between the 1960s and the mid-1990s. The Khmer Rouge leaders were mostly from middle-class families and had been educated at French universities.  The Standing Committee of the Khmer Rouge's Central Committee (Party Center) during its period of power consisted of the following:  In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to reform professional and urban Cambodians, or "New People" through agricultural labor under the supervision of the untainted rural "Old People". The goal was develop an economy based on the export of rice in order to later develop industry. The party adopted the slogan: "If we have rice, we can have everything". These actions and policies resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness and starvation.  In Phnom Penh and other cities, the Khmer Rouge told residents that they would be moved only about "two or three kilometers" outside the city and would return in "two or three days". Some witnesses say they were told that the evacuation was because of the "threat of American bombing" and that they did not have to lock their houses since the Khmer Rouge would "take care of everything" until they returned. These were not the first evacuations of civilian populations by the Khmer Rouge. Similar evacuations of populations without possessions had been occurring on a smaller scale since the early 1970s.  The Khmer Rouge attempted to turn Cambodia into a classless society by depopulating cities and forcing the urban population into agricultural communes through brutal totalitarian methods. The entire population was forced to become farmers in labour camps. During their four years in power, the Khmer Rouge overworked and starved the population while at the same time executing selected groups who had the potential to undermine the new state (including intellectuals) and killing many others for even minor breaches of rules.  Through the 1970s and especially after mid-1975, the party became increasingly paranoid, blaming failures caused by its agricultural policies on external enemies (usually the CIA and Vietnam) and domestic traitors. The resultant purges reached a crest in 1977 and 1978 when thousands, including some important CPK leaders, were executed. The older generation of CPK members, suspected of having links with or sympathies for Vietnam, were targeted by the Pol Pot leadership.

Angkar.

For roughly two years after the CPK took power, it referred to itself as the Angkar (; pronounced ahngkah; meaning The Organization). However, Pol Pot publicly declared on 29 September 1977 the existence of the CPK in a five-hour-long speech. He revealed the true character of the supreme authority in Cambodia, an obscure ruling body that had been kept in seclusion.  The CPK had been extremely secretive throughout its existence. Before 1975, the secrecy was needed for the party's survival and Pol Pot and his closest associates had relied on continuing the extreme secrecy in order to consolidate their position against those they perceived as internal enemies during their first two years of power. The revelation of the CPK's existence shortly before Pol Pot was due to travel to Peking resulted from pressure from China on the Khmer Rouge leaders to acknowledge their true political identity at a time that they increasingly depended on China's assistance against the threats from Vietnam. Accordingly, Pol Pot in his speech claimed that the CPK's foundation had been in 1960 and emphasized its separate identity from the Communist Party of Vietnam. This secrecy continued even after the CPK took power. Unlike most totalitarian dictators, Pol Pot was not the object of an open personality cult. It would be almost a year before it was confirmed that he was Saloth Sar, the man long cited as the CPK's general secretary.

Fall of the Khmer Rouge.

Because of several years of border conflict and the flood of refugees fleeing Cambodia, relations between Cambodia and Vietnam deteriorated by December 1978. Fearing a Vietnamese attack, Pol Pot ordered a pre-emptive invasion of Vietnam on 18 April 1978. His Cambodian forces crossed the border and looted nearby villages. Despite Chinese aid, these Cambodian forces were repulsed by the Vietnamese.  In early 1979, a pro-Vietnamese group of CPK dissidents led by Pen Sovan held a congress (which they saw as the third party congress, therefore not recognizing the 1963, 1975 and 1978 party congresses as legitimate) near the Vietnamese border. Along with Heng Samrin, Pen Sovan was one of the foremost founding members of the Kampuchean United Front for National Salvation (KUFNS or FUNSK), after becoming disillusioned with the Khmer Rouge. Effectively, the CPK was then divided into two, with the Pen Sovan-led group constituting a separate party, the Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party (now the Cambodian People's Party).  The Vietnamese forces invaded Cambodia along with the KUFNS, capturing Phnom Penh on 7 January 1979. The Pen Sovan-led party was installed as the governing party of the new People's Republic of Kampuchea. The CPK led by Pol Pot withdrew its forces westwards to an area near the Thai border. With unofficial protection from elements of the Thai Army, it began guerrilla warfare against the PRK government. The party founded the Patriotic and Democratic Front of the Great National Union of Kampuchea as a united front in September 1979 to fight the PRK and the Vietnamese. The front was led by Khieu Samphan. In December 1979, the armed forces under the command of the party, what remained of the erstwhile People's National Liberation Armed Forces of Kampuchea, were renamed National Army of Democratic Kampuchea. In 1981, the party was dissolved and substituted by the Party of Democratic Kampuchea.

The Communist Party of Kampuchea ( or ; CPK, ), also known as the Khmer Communist Party was a communist party in Cambodia. Its leader was Pol Pot and its followers were generally known as Khmer Rouge (Red Khmers). Originally founded in 1951, the party was split into pro-Chinese and pro-Soviet factions in 1962. As such, it claimed 30 September 1960 as its founding date. The party was underground for most of its existence and took power in the country in April 1975 and established the state known as Democratic Kampuchea. The party lost power in 1979 with the establishment of the People's Republic of Kampuchea by leftists who were dissatisfied by the Pol Pot regime and by the intervention of Vietnamese military forces after a period of mass killing. The party was officially dissolved in 1981, with the Party of Democratic Kampuchea claiming its legacy.

Die Kommunistische Partei Kampucheas, auch Kommunistische Partei der Khmer (khm. កុម្មុយនីស្ត កម្ពុជា oder បក្ស កុ ម្មុ យ នី ស កម្ពុជា; engl. "Communist Party of Kampuchea", CPK; frz. "Parti communiste du Kampuchéa", PCK) war eine kommunistische Partei in Kambodscha. Ihr Anführer war Pol Pot, ihre Anhänger wurden allgemein als Rote Khmer bekannt. Die Partei wirkte während des größten Teils ihres Bestehens im Untergrund. Sie übernahm 1975 die Macht im Land und gründete den Staat Demokratisches Kampuchea. Nach einer Zeit des Massenmordes verlor die Partei 1979 die Macht nach der Invasion der vietnamesischen Streitkräfte und der Gründung der Volksrepublik Kampuchea durch ehemalige Rote Khmer, die sich vom Pol-Pot-Regime losgesagt hatten. Die Partei wurde offiziell 1981 aufgelöst, wonach die "Partei des Demokratischen Kampuchea" ihre Nachfolge antrat. Die Partei nannte sich zuerst "Khmer People’s Revolutionary Party" (KPRP), ab 1960 "Workers Party of Kampuchea" (WPK) und erst ab 1971, zunächst geheim, "Communist Party of Kampuchea" (CPK).


Early years.

Ingram was born and raised in Hamlet, North Carolina. He attended Richmond Senior High School in Rockingham, North Carolina. As a senior linebacker, he recorded 87 tackles and 2.5 sacks.

College career.

Ingram attended the University of South Carolina, where he played for coach Steve Spurrier's South Carolina Gamecocks football team from 2007 to 2011. He played linebacker for the Gamecocks before switching to defensive end. As a junior in 2010, he led the team with nine sacks.  In 2011, Ingram registered 10 sacks, 15 tackles for loss, and two interceptions. He also scored three touchdowns. Two of his touchdowns came against Georgia in a 45–42 victory in Athens, including a 68-yard fake-punt for a touchdown. Ingram's strong senior campaign helped propel the Gamecocks defense to a final #4 national poll ranking, and he was a first-team All-Southeastern Conference (SEC) selection, and was recognized as a consensus All-American.

Professional career.

Ingram was selected by the San Diego Chargers with the 18th overall pick in the 1st round of the 2012 NFL Draft.  In his rookie campaign, Ingram racked up 18 quarterback pressures, tied for second-most on the squad, along with 12 special teams tackles, which tied for the team lead. He played in all 16 games, with two starts.  On May 14, 2013, Ingram tore his anterior cruciate ligament during the Chargers' organized team activities and was expected to miss the entire 2013 season. On August 26, 2013, he was placed on the Reserve/Physically Unable to Perform (PUP) list. On December 7, 2013, Ingram was activated off the PUP list prior to Week 14. In Week 16, Ingram sacked Raiders quarterback Matt McGloin while forcing a fumble. In the wild card game against the Cincinnati Bengals, Ingram picked off Quarterback Andy Dalton for his first postseason Interception. On October 4, 2015, Ingram strip-sacked Josh McCown and recovered the fumble.  On February 27, 2017, the Chargers placed the franchise tag on Ingram. On June 11, 2017, Ingram signed a four-year, $66 million contract with $42 million guaranteed with the Chargers.  Ingram earned the AFC Defensive Player of the Month for September 2017 after recording 5.5 sacks, including a three-sack game against the Chiefs in Week 3. He finished the season with 56 combined tackles and 10.5 sacks. Ingram was selected to his first career Pro Bowl after the 2017 season, replacing teammate Joey Bosa. He was ranked 76th by his peers on the NFL Top 100 Players of 2018.  Prior to the start of the 2018 NFL season, Ingram predicted that the Chargers would win Super Bowl LIII and he said that "We're ready. We've got to bring a Super Bowl to the city." He also said that "I was taught you've got to speak stuff into existence. If you want to do something, you've got to say you're going to do it and then you've got to go do it." In the end, Ingram and the Chargers failed to make it to the Super Bowl when they lost to the eventual Super Bowl champion New England Patriots by a score of 41-28 in the divisional round of the playoffs.  On June 17, 2019, Ingram predicted that the Chargers would win Super Bowl LIV and stated that “We’re the team to beat in the NFL, not just the AFC West, it’s the NFL. We feel like when we’re going against our offense that we need to beat them because they’re the best. They need to beat us because we’re the best. That’s how we’re going to get better.” In the end, the 2019 Chargers not only failed to go to the Super Bowl, but missed the playoffs entirely after posting a disappointing 5-11 record.

Melvin Ingram III (born April 26, 1989) is an American football defensive end for the Los Angeles Chargers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for the University of South Carolina, and earned All-American honors. He was selected by the Chargers in the first round with the 18th overall pick of the 2012 NFL Draft.

Melvin Ingram (* 26. April 1989 in Hamlet, North Carolina) ist ein US-amerikanischer American-Football-Spieler auf der Position des Defensive Ends. Er spielt derzeit für die Los Angeles Chargers in der National Football League.


Early life and education.

Rizzotto was born on 18 July 1994 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. She has a brother named Lucas. Her father is a Brazilian of Latvian descent, with his mother being born in Liepāja and raised in Riga, and his father Domenico Rizzotto was a Belluno-born teacher who emigrated to Brazil in the early 19th century. Her mother is of Portuguese descent.  Rizzotto and her family moved to the United States in 2005, and settled in Edina, Minnesota. She spent her childhood between Rio de Janeiro and the United States. After high school, she began attending Berklee College of Music in Boston.  In 2013, Rizzotto moved to Los Angeles to attend the California Institute of the Arts, graduating with a degree in musical arts. Afterwards, she moved to New York City and received a master's degree in music from Columbia University in 2017.

Career.

Rizzotto began her professional music career in 2009 and signed with Universal Music Brazil the following year. She went on to release her debut studio album "Made in Rio" in 2011, which featured production by Eumir Deodato.  In 2012, Rizzotto performed as the opening act for Demi Lovato during her "A Special Night with Demi Lovato" performances in Brazil. In 2014, she self-released her second studio album "Reason to Stay".  From 2016 to 2017, she worked as the Portuguese language coach for Jennifer Lopez after being hired by Sony Music. In 2017, Rizzotto self-released "RUBY", the first EP of an intended series titled "Precious Stones". The second installment "AMBER" will be released in 2018 as a tribute to her Latvian roots.  In December 2017, Rizzotto was announced as one of the competitors in "Supernova 2018", the Latvian national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, in Lisbon, Portugal, with the song "Funny Girl". She advanced to the televised rounds after being selected from both an online vote and live audition. Rizzotto competed in the third semi-final on 17 February 2018, and became one of the two qualifiers to advance to the final on 24 February. On 24 February, she was chosen as the winner of the competition.

Laura de Carvalho Rizzotto (; born 18 July 1994) is a Latvian-Brazilian singer, songwriter, pianist and guitarist. She released her debut studio album "Made in Rio" in 2011 through Universal Music Brazil, which included the single "Friend in Me".

Laura Rizzotto (* 18. Juli 1994 in Rio de Janeiro) ist eine brasilianische Sängerin, Songwriterin und Musikerin mit lettischen Wurzeln.


Exhibits.

Canadian soldiers are represented by mannequins in military uniform of the appropriate eras manning fixed communications posts, heavily sandbagged underground dugouts and military vehicles while operating military communications equipment. The history of Canadian electronic military signals dates from 1903, when the militia-based Canadian Signal Corps was established as the first of its kind in the Commonwealth. Exhibits are arranged chronologically from the World War I era to the recent International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan.  Artefacts of the Great War include a cable wagon restored by local signallers, a switchboard from the first deployments of telephone communications in directing artillery, Morse code equipment and gas masks which signallers would have had to keep at the ready in the event of chemical attack.  The use of encryption, signals intelligence and counterintelligence is also documented, particularly in the World War II era where a break in the Enigma machine cipher by Allied forces would prove to be of decisive strategic value.  Two of the radar antennas from CFS Ramore were donated to the Military Communications and Electronics Museum in Kingston upon Ramore’s closure. The museum also displays a complete, working radioamateur station as a gateway in the Canadian Forces Affiliate Radio System (CFARS); the station's callsigns are CIW64 (CFARS), CIW964 (CFARS gateway) and VE3RCS (radioamateur service).  A war memorial "Canada mourning her fallen sons" is part of the museum and incorporates three plaster models created by sculptor Walter Allward during the design of the Vimy Memorial in France.  A book "Semaphore to Satellite" covering the history of the Canadian Forces Communications and Electronics Branch and its founding elements (Canadian Signalling Corps, Canada Naval Supplementary Radio System and Royal Canadian Air Force Telecommunication Branch) was published in 2013.

The Military Communications and Electronics Museum (Musée de l'électronique et des communications militaires) is a military signals museum on Ontario Highway 2 at CFB Kingston in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. A member organisation of the Organization of Military Museums of Canada, the communications museum was established at the base in 1961 and moved to its current purpose-built building in 1996.

Das Military Communications and Electronics Museum (, ) ist eines der größten Museen der kanadischen Stadt Kingston. Als Militärmuseum gehört es zur dortigen "Canadian Forces Base" („Stützpunkt der kanadischen Streitkräfte“) und präsentiert Geschichte, Ausrüstung und Technik insbesondere der kanadischen Fernmeldetruppen ab 1903 bis in die Moderne.


Case summary.

In the case,, the non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA" (pronounced "bik-ruh"). Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United

Background.

Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain–Feingold Act) modified the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, to prohibit corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate in any context) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. During the 2004 presidential campaign, Citizens United, a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11", a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary

In the District Court.

In December 2007, Citizens United filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of several statutory provisions governing "electioneering communications". It asked the court to declare that the prohibition on corporate and union funding were facially unconstitutional, and also as applied to "Hillary: The Movie," and to enjoin the Federal Election Commission from enforcing its regulations. Citizens United also argued that the Commission's disclosure and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutional as applied to the movie pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in "Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.". It also sought to enjoin funding, disclosure and disclaimer requirements as applied to Citizens United's intended ads for the movie.  In accordance with special rules in section 403 of the BCRA, a three-judge court was convened to hear the case. On January 15,

Before the Supreme Court.

During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under "Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce", the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under "Austin" the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book.  According to a 2012 article in "The New Yorker" by Jeffrey Toobin, the Court expected after oral argument to rule on the narrow question that had originally been presented—Can Citizens United show the film? At the subsequent conference among the justices after oral argument, the vote was 5–4 in favor of Citizens United being allowed to show the film. The justices voted the same as they had in "Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.", a similar 2007 case, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito in the majority.  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the initial opinion of the Court, holding that the BCRA allowed the showing of the film. A draft concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy argued that the court could and should have

Decision.

On January 21, 2010, the Court issued a 5–4 decision in favor of Citizens United that struck down the BCRA's restrictions on independent expenditures from corporate treasures as violations of the First Amendment.

Opinion of the Court.

Five justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Court found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."  Justice Kennedy's opinion also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, the BCRA restrictions improperly allowed Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs. The Court overruled "Austin", which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support

Concurrences.

Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Alito joined, wrote separately "to address the important principles of judicial restraint and "stare decisis" implicated in this case".  Roberts wrote to further explain and defend the Court's statement that "there is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication." Roberts explained why the Court must sometimes overrule prior decisions. Had prior Courts never gone against "stare decisis" (that is, against precedent), for example, "segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants". Roberts's concurrence recited a plethora of case law in which the court had ruled against precedent. Ultimately, Roberts argued that ""stare decisis"... counsels deference to past mistakes, but provides no justification for making new ones".  Justice Scalia joined the opinion of the Court, and wrote a concurring opinion which Justice Alito joined in full and Justice Thomas joined in part. Scalia addressed Justice Stevens' dissent, specifically with regard to the original understanding of the First Amendment. Scalia wrote that Stevens's dissent was "in splendid

Dissent.

A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. To emphasize his unhappiness with the majority, Stevens read part of his 90-page dissent from the bench. Stevens concurred in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions but dissented from the principal holding of the Court. He argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage

Corruption concerns.

Stevens argued that the Court had long recognized that to deny Congress the power to safeguard against "the improper use of money to influence the result [of an election] is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection". After recognizing that in "Buckley v. Valeo" the Court had struck down portions of a broad prohibition of independent expenditures from any sources, Stevens argued that nevertheless "Buckley" recognized the legitimacy of "prophylactic" measures for limiting campaign spending and found the prevention of "corruption" to be a reasonable goal for legislation. Consequently, Stevens argued that "Buckley" left the door open for carefully tailored future regulation. Although the majority echoed many of the arguments in "First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti", Stevens argued that the majority opinion contradicted the reasoning of other campaign finance cases—in particular, "Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce" and "McConnell v. Federal Election Commission"—and found it telling that the majority, when citing such cases, referenced mainly dissenting opinions.  Stevens argued that the majority failed to recognize the

The appearance of corruption.

Second, Stevens argued that the majority did not place enough emphasis on the need to prevent the "appearance of corruption" in elections. Earlier cases, including "Buckley" and "Bellotti", recognized the

Corporations as part of the political process.

Third, Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize the dangers of the corporate form. "Austin" held that the prevention of corruption, including the distorting influence of a dominant funding source, was a sufficient reason for regulating corporate independent expenditures. In defending "Austin", Stevens argued that the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he

Freedom of speech concerns.

Stevens critiqued the majority's main argument: the prohibition of spending guards free speech and allows the general public to receive all available information. Citing "Austin", Stevens argued

Media censorship concerns.

Fifth, Stevens criticized the majority's fear that the government could use BCRA §203 to censor the media. The focus placed on this hypothetical fear made no sense to him because it did not relate to the facts of this case—if the government actually attempted to apply BCRA §203 to the media (and assuming that Citizens United could not constitute media), the Court could deal with the problem at that time. Stevens described the majority's supposed protection of the media as nothing more than posturing. According to him, it was the majority's new rule in this case, that prohibited a law from distinguishing between speakers or funding sources. This new rule would be the only reason why media corporations could not be exempted from BCRA §203.  Stevens recognizes that "[t]he press plays a unique

Losing faith in our democracy.

Sixth, Stevens claimed that the majority failed to give proper deference to the legislature. Stevens predicted that this ruling would restrict the ability of the states to experiment with different methods for decreasing corruption in elections. According to Stevens, this

Shareholders rights.

Seventh, Stevens argued that the majority opinion ignored the rights of shareholders. A series of cases protects individuals from legally compelled payment of union dues to support political speech. Because shareholders invest money in corporations, Stevens argued that the law should likewise help to protect shareholders from funding speech that they oppose. The majority, however, argued that ownership of corporate stock was voluntary and that unhappy shareholders could simply sell off their shares if they did not agree with the corporation's speech. Stevens also argued that Political Action Committees (PACs), which allow individual members of a corporation to invest money in a separate fund, are an adequate substitute for general corporate speech and better protect shareholder rights. The majority, by contrast, had argued that most

Conclusion.

Stevens concluded his dissent by writing:

Subsequent developments.

The decision was highly controversial and remains a subject of widespread public discussion. There was a wide range of reactions to the case from politicians, academics, attorneys, advocacy groups and journalists.

Support.

Politicians.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a plaintiff in the earlier related decision "McConnell v. FEC",

Advocacy groups.

Citizens United, the group filing the lawsuit, said, "Today's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Citizens United to air its documentary films and advertisements is a tremendous victory, not only for Citizens United but for every American who desires to participate in the political process." During litigation, Citizens United had support from the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association.  Campaign finance attorney Cleta Mitchell, who had filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of two advocacy organizations opposing the ban, wrote that "The Supreme Court has correctly eliminated a constitutionally flawed system that allowed media corporations (e.g., The Washington Post Co.) to freely disseminate their opinions about candidates using corporate treasury funds, while denying that constitutional privilege to Susie's Flower Shop Inc.... The real victims of the corporate expenditure ban have been nonprofit advocacy

Academics and attorneys.

Bradley A. Smith, professor of law at Capital University Law School, former chairman of the FEC, founder of the Center for Competitive Politics and a leading proponent of deregulation of campaign finance, wrote that the major opponents of political free speech are "incumbent politicians" who "are keen to maintain a chokehold on such speech". Empowering "small and midsize corporations—and every incorporated mom-and-pop falafel joint, local firefighters' union, and environmental group—to make its voice heard" frightens them. In response to statements by President Obama and others that the ruling

Journalists.

The Editorial Board of the "San Antonio Express-News" criticized McCain–Feingold's exception for media corporations from the ban on corporate electioneering, writing that it "makes no sense" that the paper could make endorsements up until the day of the election but advocacy groups could not. "While the influence of money on the political process is troubling and sometimes corrupting, abridging political speech is the wrong way to counterbalance that influence."  Anthony Dick in "National Review" countered a number of arguments against the decision, asking rhetorically, "is there something uniquely harmful and/or unworthy of protection about political messages that come from corporations and unions, as opposed to, say, rich individuals, persuasive writers, or charismatic demagogues?" He

Opposition.

Politicians.

President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington—while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates". Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest". On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American

International.

Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, speaking for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (which has overseen over 150 elections) said the

Academics and attorneys.

The constitutional law scholar Laurence H. Tribe wrote that the decision "marks a major upheaval in First Amendment law and signals the end of whatever legitimate claim could otherwise have been made by the Roberts Court to an incremental and minimalist approach to constitutional adjudication, to a modest view of the judicial role vis-à-vis the political branches, or to a genuine concern with adherence to precedent" and pointed out, "Talking about a business corporation as merely another way that individuals might choose to organize their association with one another to pursue their common expressive aims is worse than unrealistic; it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed

Journalists.

"The New York Times" stated in an editorial, "The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited

Business leaders.

In 2012, Ben Cohen, the co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, founded Stamp Stampede, a sustained protest to demonstrate widespread support for a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn "Citizens United". The campaign encourages people to rubber stamp messages such as "Not To Be Used for Bribing Politicians" on paper currency. In 2014, Cohen told "Salon", "As long as the Supreme Court rules money is speech, corporations and the wealthy are using it by giving piles of it to politicians to pass or not pass laws that they want. Now, the rest of the people, [those] who don't have that money, can actually make their voice heard by using money to stamp a message out."

Media coverage.

Political blogs.

Most blogs avoided the theoretical aspects of the decision and focused on more personal and dramatic elements, including the Barack Obama–Samuel Alito face-off during the President's State of the Union address. There, President Obama argued that the decision "reversed a century of law" (the federal ban on corporate contributions dates back to the 1907 Tillman Act, and the ban on union and corporate expenditures dates from 1947) and that it would allow "foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections", during which Justice Alito, in the audience, perceptibly mouthed the words "not true". This event received extensive comment from political bloggers, with a substantial amount of the coverage concentrated on whether or not foreign corporations would be able to make substantial political contributions in US elections. In the opinion, the Court had specifically indicated it was not overturning the ban on foreign contributions.

Opinion polls.

An ABC–"The Washington Post" poll conducted February 4–8, 2010, showed that 80% of those surveyed opposed (and 65% strongly opposed) the "Citizens United" ruling, which the poll described as saying "corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections". Additionally, 72% supported "an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns". The poll showed large majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.  A Gallup Poll conducted in October 2009, after oral argument, but released after the Supreme Court released its opinion, found that 57 percent of those surveyed "agreed that money given to political candidates is a

Further court rulings.

"SpeechNow v. FEC".

SpeechNow is a nonprofit, unincorporated association organized as a section 527 entity under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The organization was formed by individuals who seek to pool their resources to make independent expenditures expressly advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates. SpeechNow planned to accept contributions only from individuals, not corporations or other sources prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act. On February 14, 2008, SpeechNow and several individual plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act provisions governing political

Public electoral financing.

On June 27, 2011, ruling in the consolidated cases of "Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett" (No. 10-238) and "McComish v. Bennett" (No. 10-239), the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional an Arizona law that provided extra taxpayer-funded support for office seekers who have been outspent by privately funded opponents or by independent political groups. A conservative 5–4 majority of justices said the law violated free speech, concluding the state was impermissibly trying to "level the playing field" through a public finance system. Arizona lawmakers had argued there was a compelling state interest in equalizing resources among competing candidates and interest groups. Opponents said the law violated free-speech rights of the privately financed

State campaign-spending limits.

Despite the "Citizens United" ruling, in December 2011, the Montana Supreme Court, in "Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana," upheld that state's law limiting corporate contributions. Examining the history of corporate interference in Montana government that led to the Corrupt Practices Law, the majority decided that the state still had a compelling reason to maintain the restrictions. It ruled that these restrictions on speech were narrowly tailored and withstood strict scrutiny and thus did not contradict "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission".  While granting permission to file a

"McCutcheon v. FEC".

In addition to limiting the size of donations to individual candidates and parties, the Federal Election Campaign Act also includes aggregate caps on the total amount that an individual may give to all candidates and parties. In 2012, Shaun McCutcheon, a Republican Party activist, sought to donate more than was allowed by the federal aggregate

Legislative responses.

Legislative impact.

"The New York Times" reported that 24 states with laws prohibiting or limiting independent expenditures by unions and corporations would have to change their campaign finance laws because of the ruling.  After "Citizens United" and "SpeechNow.org" numerous state legislatures raised their limits on contributions to candidates and parties. At the federal level, lawmakers substantially increased contribution limits to political parties as part of the 2014 budget bill. Such changes are widely perceived as efforts to place candidates and parties on something closer to equal footing with organizations making independent

Legislative reactions by state and local lawmakers.

Members of 16 state legislatures have called for a constitutional amendment to reverse the court's decision: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia.  Most of these are non-binding resolutions, but three states—Vermont, California, and Illinois—called for an Article V Convention to draft and propose

Political impact.

The "Citizens United" ruling "opened the door" for unlimited election spending by corporations, but most of this spending has "ended up being funneled through the groups that have become known as super PACs." Critics predicted that the ruling would "bring about a new era of corporate influence in politics," allowing companies and businesspeople to "buy elections" to promote their financial interests. Instead, large expenditures, usually through "Super PACS," have come from "a small group of billionaires", based largely on ideology. This has shifted power "away from the political parties and toward the... donors themselves. In part, this explains the large number and variety of candidates fielded by the Republicans in 2016."

Super PACs.

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" has often been credited for the creation of "super PACs", political action committees which make no financial contributions to candidates or parties, and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions. Certainly, the holding in "Citizens United" helped affirm the legal basis for super PACs by deciding that, for purposes of establishing a "compelling government interest" of corruption sufficient to justify government limitations on political speech, "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption".  It took another decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, "Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission", to actually authorize the creation of super PACs. While "Citizens United" held that corporations and unions could make independent expenditures, a separate provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, at least as long interpreted by the Federal Election Commission, held that individuals could not contribute to a common fund without it becoming a PAC. PACs, in turn, were not allowed to accept corporate or union contributions of any size or to accept individual contributions in excess of $5,000. In "Speechnow.org", the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, held 9–0 that in light of "Citizens United", such restrictions on the sources and size of contributions could not apply to an organization that made only independent expenditures in support of or opposition to a candidate but not contributions to a candidate's campaign.  "Citizens United" and "SpeechNOW" left their imprint on the 2012 United States presidential election, in which single individuals contributed large sums to "super PACs"

Weakening of "establishment" forces.

At least in the Republican Party, the Citizens United ruling has weakened the fund raising power of the Republican "establishment" in the form of the "three major" Republican campaign committees (Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee). Columnist Thomas B. Edsall notes

Republican advantage.

Studies have shown that the Citizens United ruling gave Republicans an advantage in subsequent elections. One study by political scientists at University of Chicago, Columbia University and the London School of Economics found "that Citizens United increased the GOP’s average seat share in the state legislature by five percentage points. That is a large effect—large enough that, were it applied to the past

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning campaign finance. The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission war ein 2009/2010 am Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten verhandelter Fall zur Frage, ob gesetzliche Offenlegungspflichten und Finanzierungsbeschränkungen für die auf die Beeinflussung von Wahlen gerichteten Tätigkeit von Firmen (auch Non-Profit-Organisationen) und Gewerkschaften verfassungskonform sind.


History.

Riverside was first settled in the 1880s by Uriah Ward. When steamboats began traveling up the Okanogan River, Riverside was the upstream limit of navigation during the high water season. Riverside was officially incorporated on December 22, 1913.

Geography.

Riverside is located at (48.502830, -119.508718). According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of, of which, is land and is water. Sometimes considered to be part of Greater Omak, it is home to the Omak Airport.

Demographics.

2010 census.

As of the census of 2010, there were 280 people, 128 households, and 78 families living in the town. The population density was. There were 154 housing units at an average density of. The racial makeup of the town was 87.1% White, 7.5% Native American, 1.8% from other races, and 3.6% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.4% of the population.  There were 128 households of which 23.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 45.3% were married couples living together, 10.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 4.7% had a male householder with no wife present, and 39.1% were non-families. 32.8% of all households were made up of individuals and 10.9% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.17 and the average family size was 2.68.  The median age in the town was 47 years. 20% of residents were under the age of 18; 5.7% were between the ages of 18 and 24; 21.8% were from 25 to 44; 30.4% were from 45 to 64; and 22.1% were 65 years of age or older. The gender makeup of the town was 50.0% male and 50.0% female.

2000 census.

As of the census of 2000, there were 348 people, 143 households, and 95 families living in the town. The population density was 389.5 people per square mile (151.0/km2). There were 153 housing units at an average density of 171.2 per square mile (66.4/km2). The racial makeup of the town was 90.52% White, 0.29% African American, 5.17% Native American, 0.29% Asian, 1.15% from other races, and 2.59% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.87% of the population.  There were 143 households out of which 30.1% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 49.0% were married couples living together, 11.9% had a female householder with no husband present, and 32.9% were non-families. 24.5% of all households were made up of individuals and 11.9% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.43 and the average family size was 2.93. In the town, the population dispersal was 26.7% under the age of 18, 5.7% from 18 to 24, 27.9% from 25 to 44, 21.3% from 45 to 64, and 18.4% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 39 years. For every 100 females, there were 105.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 104.0 males.  The median income for a household in the town was $23,125, and the median income for a family was $28,250. Males had a median income of $28,750 versus $19,375 for females. The per capita income for the town was $11,297. About 12.9% of families and 18.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 24.4% of those under age 18 and 9.2% of those age 65 or over.

Riverside is a town in Okanogan County, Washington, United States. The population was 348 at the 2000 census and decreased to 280 at the 2010 census.

Riverside ist eine Kleinstadt ("Town") im Okanogan County im US-Bundesstaat Washington. Zum United States Census 2000 hatte Riverside 348 Einwohner; die Einwohnerzahl sank zum United States Census 2010 auf 280.


History.

Like its 1766 predecessor, the Limehouse Cut, the Hertford Union Canal was intended to provide a short-cut between the River Thames and the River Lee Navigation. It allowed traffic on the Lea heading for the Thames to bypass the tidal, tortuous and often silted Bow Back Rivers of the Lea via a short stretch of the Regent's Canal, and provided a short-cut from the Lea to places west along the Regent's Canal.  The canal was promoted by Sir George Duckett who succeeded in gaining an Act of Parliament that gained its Royal Assent on 17 May 1824, entitled "An Act for making and maintaining a navigable Canal from the River Lee Navigation, in the parish of St. Mary Stratford Bow, in the county of Middlesex, to join the Regent's Canal at or near a Place called Old Ford Lock, in the parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green, in the said county of Middlesex."  The Act authorised Duckett to borrow up to £50,000 to fund construction, and to charge tolls for using the canal, initially one shilling (£0.05) per ton of goods carried.  With Francis Giles appointed as engineer, the canal opened in 1830 and was for some years known as Duckett's Canal or Duckett's cut (or passage). It was not a commercial success, and within a year offers to waive the tolls were being made. For several years around the 1850s it was unnavigable, as a dam was built across it to prevent the Regent's Canal losing water to it. After failed attempts to sell it in 1851, it was eventually acquired by the Regent's Canal Company and became a branch of that canal on 28 October 1857. The new owners removed the dam, and deepened and widened the channel. When the Grand Union Canal Company came into existence on 1 January 1929, it became part of that network. Today, it is maintained by the Canal & River Trust.

Route.

The canal starts at Hertford Union Junction between Mile End Lock and Old Ford Lock on the Regent's Canal. It passes along the north of Bow Wharf, redeveloped in the 1990s with shops and bars, and after Grove Road, passes south of Lakeview Estate, completed in 1958. For much of the rest of its route it is bounded on the north by Victoria Park. The canal joins the Lee Navigation just above Old Ford Lock.  Many of the associated locks, bridges and other features around the canal, date from the canal's opening in 1830 and are designated listed structures within a scheduled ancient monument.

Locks.

The locks on this canal have been collectively named Old Ford Three Locks, all lying within the district of Old Ford, but are now individually known as Hertford Union Top, Middle and Bottom locks. They are grouped together towards the north-eastern end, and descend approximately from the Regent's Canal to the Lee Navigation. These locks are all single manual locks, and the largest craft that can use them have a length of 72 feet and a beam of 14 feet.  Proceeding west to east, the locks are:

Hertford Union Top Lock No. 1.

This is lock No.1, and is from the Hertford Union Junction with the Regent's Canal. It is to the south of Victoria Park, with the tail of the lock passing beneath a cast iron footbridge accessing the park from Parnell Road. It has a fall of.  The lock was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1990, and its bottom gates have rare cast iron balance beams. One of the adjacent cottages (No 3 Lock Cottages) is also a Grade II listed building.

Hertford Union Middle Lock No. 2.

The middle lock has a fall of The tail of the lock passes under Cadogan Terrace.

Hertford Union Bottom Lock No. 3.

The lower lock has a fall of. It is just from the junction with the River Lee.  The public house, now the "Top of the Morning", but then the Mitford Castle, by the ramp to the canal, on Wick Road, was where Thomas Briggs – the first victim of a railway murder – was taken to die from his wounds, in July 1864 (see Hackney Wick).

Transport.

The nearest London Overground station is "Hackney Wick"  The canal towpath is open to walkers and cyclists — without permit. At its eastern end, the towpath joins the Lea Valley Walk. At Hackney Wick, the Capital Ring crosses the canal; with section 13 proceeding north-west toward Stoke Newington and section 14, south-east — using The Greenway towards Beckton District Park. The towpath forms part of the "Limehouse Circuit"; commencing at Limehouse Basin and utilising the Limehouse Cut, Lee Navigation, Regent's Canal and Hertford Union in a circular five-mile walk.  The Olympic Park, London was constructed to the east of the Lee Navigation. During the games, the Cut was closed to navigation and used for mooring visiting craft. In the legacy phase of the 2012 Summer Olympics, there is promised access to the Olympic Park and Bow Back Rivers.

The Hertford Union Canal or Duckett's Cut is just over long in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in East London. It connects the Regent's Canal to the Lee Navigation. It was opened in 1830 but quickly proved to be a commercial failure. It was acquired by the Regents Canal Company in 1857, and became part of the Grand Union Canal in 1927.

Der Hertford Union Canal oder Duckett’s Canal ist ein Kanal von 1,5 km Länge im London Borough of Tower Hamlets im Osten von London. Er verbindet den Regent's Canal mit der Lee Navigation. Er wurde 1830 eröffnet. Es stellte sich aber schnell heraus, dass er eine geschäftliche Fehlkalkulation war. Er wurde von 1857 von der "Regents Canal Company" übernommen und wurde 1927 ein Teil des Grand Union Canal.


Early life and education.

Davenny Wyner was born October 17, 1943 in New Haven, Connecticut where her father, pianist Ward Davenny, was professor of music at Yale University. She was originally trained as a violinist and violist. Following early studies at the Cleveland Institute of Music and the Hartford School of Music, she graduated "summa cum laude" from Cornell University in 1965 with degrees in both comparative English literature and in music. She entered into vocal studies with Herta Glaz from 1969-1975. She received a Fulbright scholarship and a grant from the Ford Foundation, and also won the Walter W. Naumberg Prize.

Career.

Career as soprano.

She made her solo debut as a vocalist with the Boston Symphony Orchestra in 1974. She was a soloist in Georg Handel's "Messiah" under Sir Colin Davis with the Boston Symphony Orchestra. She sang in Ludwig Beethoven's Ninth at the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C. under Leonard Bernstein, who invited her to perform his own "Kaddish" Symphony and "Songfest". Davenny Wyner made her first New York City Opera appearance as Claudio Monteverdi's "Poppea" October 23, 1977. She received critical acclaim as the lead role in Maurice Ravel's opera "L'Enfant et les Sortileges" with Andre Previn; that 1981 recording was reissued in 1995 on the EMI Eminence label. Ms. Wyner made her Metropolitan Opera debut as Woglinde in "Das Rheingold" under Erich Leinsdorf, on October 8, 1981. She also recorded "Erwartung", in 1981.  As a soprano Susan Davenny Wyner had an international career, performing as a soprano soloist with the Boston Symphony Orchestra, Cleveland Orchestra, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra London Symphony Orchestra, Metropolitan Opera, New York City Opera, New York Philharmonic Orchestra, Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra, and many others. She obtained regular engagements with notable conductors such as Leonard Bernstein, Sir Colin Davis, Erich Leinsdorf, André Previn, Lorin Maazel, Seiji Ozawa, Robert Shaw, and Michael Tilson Thomas. She was a successful as a performer of music in both historic and modern vernaculars. She regularly premiered works written especially for her, some of which were recorded for Columbia Masterworks, Angel Records/EMI, Composers Recordings, Inc. ("Erwartung") and Musical Heritage Society. In April 1983, her career as a soprano was ended by an automobile/bicycling accident that damaged her vocal chords.

Career as a conductor.

Following her accident, she studied conducting, leading to a subsequent career for which she has received critical acclaim. Davenny-Wyner studied at Yale and Columbia University and received conducting fellowships for study at the Tanglewood Music Festival, the Aspen Music Festival, and the Los Angeles Philharmonic Institute. Since, she has had conducting positions at the New England Conservatory, at the Cleveland Institute of Music, at Wellesley College and Cornell University where she had once studied, at Brandeis University. In 1998, she was the Assistant Conductor at Chicago's Grant Park Music Festival, a position that was created especially for her.  Since 1999 Davenny Wyner has served as the Music Director and Conductor of the Warren Philharmonic Orchestra in Warren, Ohio. She also leads two opera companies as Music Director and Conductor: Opera Western Reserve in Youngstown, Ohio, since its creation in 2004 and the Boston Midsummer Opera since 2007.

Personal life.

Susan Davenny Wyner married Yehudi Wyner (a composer, pianist, conductor, and music educator) in 1967.

Susan Davenny Wyner (born Susan Davenny, October 17, 1943) is a nationally-acclaimed American conductor based in Massachusetts. Davenny Wyner had promising career as a soprano, which was ended by an automobile/bicycling accident that damaged her vocal cords.

Susan Davenny-Wyner (* 17. Oktober 1943 in New Haven/Connecticut) ist eine US-amerikanische Sängerin (Sopran) und Dirigentin. Die Tochter des Pianisten Ward Davenny hatte zunächst Geigen- und Bratschenunterricht. Sie besuchte das Cleveland Institute of Music und die Hartford School of Music und studierte bei 1965 englische Literatur und Musik an der Cornell University. 1967 heiratete sie den Komponisten und Pianisten Yehudi Wyner.


Life.

Craloh was the biological brother of his predecessor, Thieto, and was elected on 31 May 942. He is listed in the book of vows but his offices are not known before that. Because he only appears in the monks' registers from 895, one can assume that he entered the monastery after that point in time. There is a record of his work as a scribe in the form of a document from the 27 October 920. His role as abbot is mentioned for the first time in a document from the 12 June 947, in which Otto I granted him the right of coinage inRorschach.

Works.

Craloh's main task was a difficult one. He had to rebuild the abbey after being destroyed in a fire in 937. He was somewhat successful economically, as attested by eight transfers of goods (Güterübertragungen) to the Abbey of Saint Gall between 948 and 957. His strictness in wanting to reinstate former discipline in the monastery led to friction within the abbey. Part of his reforms was the renewal of a purgatorial society with Reichenau Abbey in 945.  In 953/54 those tensions reached their breaking point when Liudolf began his rebellion against Otto I. The majority of monks took Liudolf's side, while Craloh took the side of Otto I. During the revolt, Craloh fled to Otto's court and only returned to the convent after the defeat of the rebellion. In the meantime, the abbey was ruled by Anno, who was elected anti-abbot by the Saint Gall monks. He died before the defeat of Liudolf, so when Cradolf returned he found the abbey under the rule of the monk Viktor. Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg reconciled the convent with the abbot, who ultimately destroyed the monks' trust by sending armed men after Viktor to blind him as he was fleeing to his relatives. As a consequence, Craloh retreated to an estate in Herisau.

Craloh († 26 February 958) was abbot of the benedictine Abbey of Saint Gall from 942 to 958. During his time in office, the first anti-abbot was elected.

Craloh († 26. Februar 958) war von 942 bis 958 Abt des Benediktinerklosters St. Gallen. Zu seiner Amtszeit wurde der erste Gegenabt gewählt.


Early years.

Sergei Skripal was born in Kaliningrad, Kaliningrad Oblast on 23 June 1951. His father worked for a land improvement contractor, while his mother was employed with the local Council of Deputies. He grew up in the town of Ozyorsk, also in Kaliningrad Oblast.

Education, military intelligence.

In 1972, Skripal completed the military engineering school in Kaliningrad named Zhdanov, located in the village of Borisovo (formerly ) with the qualification of a sapper-paratrooper. He then studied at the Moscow. He then served in the Soviet Airborne Troops and was deployed to Afghanistan during the Soviet–Afghan War under the command of Boris Gromov.  Skripal was co-opted to the military intelligence (GRU) from the Airborne Troops. In the early 1990s, he was posted as a GRU officer at the embassy in Malta. In 1994, he obtained a position in the military attaché′s office in Madrid, Spain. According to the FSB and other sources, in 1995, in Spain, he was recruited to British intelligence by British intelligence agent Pablo Miller, who was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo. According to intelligence sources cited by "The Times" in March 2018, Skripal was first spotted for potential development as an asset by Spanish intelligence but was approached by the British recruiter around July 1995 and was given the codename 'Forthwith'. According to the FSB, Pablo Miller was also involved in efforts to recruit other Russian assets and was in contact with Alexander Litvinenko.  In 1996, due to his diabetes, Skripal was sent back to Moscow, where he went on to work in the GRU headquarters and for a while was acting director of the GRU personnel department. Skripal held the rank of colonel when he retired, due to his inadequate health condition, in 1999. He continued to make trips to Spain, where he had a house near Málaga at his disposal, provided by his handlers.  According to Russian prosecutors, he began working for the United Kingdom's Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) in 1995 and passed on state secrets, such as the identities of Russian intelligence agents. After his retirement, he worked in the Household Department of the Russian foreign ministry, while continuing to work for MI6. He was alleged to have blown the cover of 300 Russian agents.  From 2001, Skripal worked in the Ministry of Municipalities of the Government of Moscow Oblast.

Arrest and conviction.

In December 2004, Skripal was arrested outside his house in Moscow's Krylatskoye District shortly after returning from Britain. In August 2006, he was convicted under Article 275 of the Russian Criminal Code (high treason in the form of espionage) by the Moscow Regional Military Court in the trial conducted behind closed doors. Prosecution, which was represented personally by Chief Military Prosecutor Sergei Fridinsky, argued for a 15-year sentence – instead of the 20-year maximum under Article 275 – in recognition of mitigating circumstances such as his cooperation with investigators. Skripal was sentenced to 13 years in a high-security detention facility; he was also stripped of his military rank and decorations. The affair was not revealed to the public until after he was sentenced in August 2006. Skripal's lawyers appealed the sentence, which was upheld by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court on 30 November 2006.

Release and life in UK.

On 9 July 2010, Skripal, along with three other Russian nationals imprisoned for espionage, was freed as part of a spy swap for the ten Russian agents arrested in the United States as part of the Illegals Program, after being pardoned by the then President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev. The UK government insisted on Skripal being included in the swap.  Skripal moved to Salisbury, Wiltshire, where he purchased a house in 2011. According to British security officials, Skripal continued to provide information to the UK and other Western intelligence agencies for a period after 2010.  Skripal's wife died in 2012 of disseminated endometrial cancer. His daughter returned to Moscow in 2014 and worked in sales. His son died aged 43 in March 2017, in unknown circumstances, on a visit to Saint Petersburg; Skripal's older brother died within the two years before the poisoning. Both Skripal's wife and his son are buried in a cemetery local to Salisbury.  In May 2018, the New York Times reported that Skripal, though retired, was "still in the game." While living in Britain he had travelled to other countries, meeting with intelligence officials of the Czech Republic, Estonia and Colombia, most likely discussing Russian spying techniques. In June 2016 he travelled to Estonia to meet local spies. Russia exile Valery Morozov told Channel 4 News Sergei Skripal was still working and in regular contact with military intelligence officers at the Russian Embassy.  While it was initially reported that Skripal was a close confidant of Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who compiled the controversial Trump–Russia dossier, The Telegraph later reported that this trail of evidence linking Skripal to Steele was fabricated by Russian Intelligence.  On 28 September 2018, the news magazine Focus reported, referring to a statement of a senior official from NATO's Allied Command Counter-Intelligence Unit (ACCI) in Mons, that until 2017 Skripal worked for four intelligence agencies of NATO countries. Skripal not only traveled, accompanied by MI6 officials to Prague, where he contributed information about the active Russian spy network, some agents Skripal knew from his active service. He provided information to the Estonian secret service in Tallinn, which enabled them to identify three active Russian undercover operatives. Skripal also worked with the Spanish secret service Centro Nacional de Inteligencia, informing the agency about the Russian organized crime in the Spanish region of Costa del Sol. All the trips were organized and approved by the British foreign intelligence service, MI6. Mark Urban reported that in 2017 Skripal was scheduled to meet with the Swiss Intelligence Service of the Federation.

Poisoning.

On 4 March 2018, Skripal and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia, who was visiting from Moscow, were found "slipping in and out of consciousness on a public bench" near a shopping centre in Salisbury by a doctor and nurse who were passing by. Paramedics took them to Salisbury District Hospital where medical staff determined that the pair had been poisoned with a nerve agent. The police declared a major incident as multiple agencies were involved. Following the incident, health authorities checked 21 members of the emergency services and the public for symptoms; two police officers were treated for possible minor symptoms, said to be itchy eyes and wheezing, while a third, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who had been sent to Sergei Skripal's house, was in a serious condition., Bailey remained seriously ill but stable. By 22 March 2018, he had recovered enough to be discharged from the hospital, and by 15 January 2019, he returned to active duty., Skripal and his daughter remained critically ill. On 29 March, Yulia was reported to be out of critical condition, "conscious and talking".  On 6 March, it was agreed under the National Counter Terrorism Policing Network that the Counter Terrorism Command based within the Metropolitan Police would take over the investigation from Wiltshire Police. Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, head of Counter Terrorism Policing, appealed for witnesses to the incident following a COBR meeting chaired by Home Secretary Amber Rudd.  On 12 March 2018, Prime Minister Theresa May identified the nerve agent used in the attack as a Russian-developed Novichok agent and demanded explanation from the Russian government. Two days later, May said that Russia was responsible for the incident and announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats in retaliation.  In mid-March 2018, Russia said that its diplomats were denied access to both Sergei Skripal and his daughter, who is a Russian national. On 31 March 2018 the BBC reported that the UK was considering the Russian Embassy's request, 'in line with its obligations under international and domestic law.'  On 6 April, Victoria Skripal, the cousin of poisoned Yulia, was denied a UK visa to visit her relatives in hospital in Salisbury, after reports that she was being coached by Moscow to discredit Yulia. The official reason for the refusal was that there was no evidence that Victoria had previously visited Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the UK, and regardless the Skripals were not in a condition to receive guests.  On 7 April, the hospital reported that Sergei Skripal was improving rapidly and was no longer in a critical condition, two days after the improvement had been reported in Moscow following a phone call from his daughter.  On 18 May 2018, Sergei Skripal was discharged from the hospital. The Director of Nursing said that further treatment will be provided outside the hospital and that treating the Skripals had been "a huge and unprecedented challenge".  On 16 February 2019, "The Sunday Times" reported, without identified sources, that Sergei Skripal "has suffered a deterioration in his health and is being treated by doctors".  On 6 June 2020, The "New York Post" reported that Sergei and his daughter have been settled in New Zealand under new identities.

Sergei Viktorovich Skripal (, born 23 June 1951) is a former Russian military intelligence officer who acted as a double agent for the UK's intelligence services during the 1990s and early 2000s. In December 2004, he was arrested by Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) and later tried, convicted of high treason, and sentenced to 13 years in prison. He settled in the UK in 2010 following the Illegals Program spy swap. He holds both Russian and British citizenship.

Sergei Wiktorowitsch Skripal (; * 23. Juni 1951 in Kaliningrad, Sowjetunion) ist ein ehemaliger Oberst des sowjetischen, später russischen Militärnachrichtendienstes GRU, der als Überläufer eigene Agenten gegenüber dem britischen Auslandsgeheimdienst MI6 enttarnte. Rund vier Jahre nach seinem Ausscheiden aus dem Geheimdienst wurde er als Informant enttarnt und verhaftet. Nach sechs Jahren in Haft kam er im Jahr 2010 durch einen Agentenaustausch nach Großbritannien.


Early life.

Hodge was educated at Croftinloan School, an independent junior boarding school in Perthshire, and Trinity College, Glenalmond, also in Perthshire. He studied at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (BA), and the School of Law of the University of Edinburgh (LL.B.), and worked as a civil servant at the Scottish Office between 1975 and 1978, before being admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1983.

Legal career.

Hodge was appointed Standing Junior Counsel to the Department of Energy from 1989 to 1991, and to the Inland Revenue from 1991 to 1996, in which year he took silk. As a QC, his practice was mainly in commercial law, judicial review and property law. He served as a part-time Commissioner on the Scottish Law Commission from 1997–2003, and from 2000 to 2005 was a Judge of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey, and Procurator to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  He was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice in 2005, taking the judicial title, Lord Hodge. Like all Scottish judges on the Supreme Court, he has sat in both the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, but had particular responsibility as the Exchequer judge in the Court of Session. On 1 October 2013, Hodge succeeded Lord Hope as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. On 27 January 2020, Hodge was appointed Deputy President of the Supreme Court, succeeding Lord Reed who became President.

Personal life.

Hodge married Penelope Jane Wigin in 1983, with whom he has two sons and a daughter. His interests include opera and skiing, and he is a member of Bruntsfield Links Golfing Society. He has been a Governor of Merchiston Castle School, Edinburgh, since 1998.

Patrick Stewart Hodge, Lord Hodge, PC (born 19 May 1953) is a Scottish lawyer, currently serving as Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Patrick Stewart Hodge, Lord Hodge, QC (* 19. Mai 1953) ist ein schottischer Jurist und Richter am Obersten Gerichtshof des Vereinigten Königreichs.