History.

Founding in 2004.

The Kabul Bank was established in 2004.  Kabul Bank claims that accounts can be opened and maintained in afghani, U.S. dollars and euro. Kabul Bank claims that it is connected throughout the globe with SWIFT facility, which enables fund transfer for its customers. The bank has correspondent relationship with seven international banks situated in Germany, China, Iran, Tajikistan, Saudi Arabia and India.

Corruption scandal.

Kabul Bank was badly shaken and almost collapsed in 2011, in one of "the worst banking scandals in history", according to "The Guardian" newspaper. In late 2012, according to the "Los Angeles Times", independent investigators and journalists uncovered widespread corruption in Kabul Bank. "The New York Times", in 2012, headlines indicate "Audit Says Kabul Bank Began as 'Ponzi Scheme'" following investigation and judicial action in the aftermath of the Bank's crisis and scandal.  In 2010, it was disclosed that its Chairman Sherkhan Farnood and other insiders were spending the bank's US$1 billion for their own personal lavish style living and lending money under the table to family, relatives and friends. The bank scandal also involved members of Afghan President Karzai's family, including his brother Mahmood Karzai. In September 2010, one of the principal owners of the bank said that depositors had withdrawn $180 million in two days and predicted a "revolution" in the country's financial system unless the Afghan government and the United States moved quickly to help stabilize the bank. In November 2010, reports appeared that Farnood and chief executive Khalilullah Frozi both had been sacked from duties; as of early 2011 both were effectively under house arrest and could not leave the country, and in July 2011 both were formally arrested and detained in Kabul. DAB stated in February 2011, it would seek to sell Kabul Bank within three years once it was rehabilitated, but both the International Monetary Fund and US officials subsequently pressed for a rapid wind down of the institution. A USAID inspector general report estimated that fraudulent loans diverted $850 million to bank insiders. By October 2011, more than a year after the government seized control, officials had recovered less than 10 percent of the nearly $1 billion that went missing.

Bank run and panic in 2010.

After only six years in operation, in 2010 there was a panic of customers seeking to withdraw their savings from the bank. Despite nearly $1 billion in U.S. taxpayers' funded assistance in the form of Afghan government salaries deposited into Kabul Bank, Kabul Bank was on the brink of collapse and mobs of customers massed outside of bank locations trying to get their deposits out of the bank with limited luck.  Despite Kabul Bank's near collapse in 2010 during the corruption allegations, Kabul Bank claims it is significant to Afghanistan's internal security and stability because it is the vehicle used to pay, largely with money supplied by the United States government, as many as 300,000 Afghan government employees, mostly military and police, who are key to plans to rebuild Afghanistan's capacity to deal with its ongoing Taliban-led insurgency. President Karzai's brother, Mahmood Karzai, is reported to have played a significant role in the bank scandal, and is alleged to have received millions of dollars in loans from Kabul Bank. He was later alleged to be under investigation by a U.S. Federal grand jury and U.S. tax authorities, including the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for tax evasion allegations. Canada's "Maclean's" magazine reported that Mahmoud Karzai was being investigated for racketeering, extortion and tax evasion as a result of connections to the bank and Hamid Karzai.  During the bank scandal and panic in September 2010, hundreds of Afghans, including many civil servants and their families, gathered outside Kabul Bank offices in the capital and elsewhere in Afghanistan. Long lines formed of depositors hoping to withdrawal some or all of their money. Afghan police beat back mobs at the Kabul Bank worried their money would be lost according to the "Washington Post". Panic set in among many depositors according to reports by the "New York Times".  On 27 December 2010, a suicide car bomber killed at least three Afghans, including one policeman, as he targeted police officers who lined up to withdraw their salaries in front of Kabul Bank in central Kandahar; the midday explosion also wounded 16 policemen and five civilians, officials said.

2011 aftermath of panic.

On 19 February 2011, at least 38 people (including 13 policemen) were killed during an insurgent raid on a branch of Kabul Bank in Jalalabad, the provincial capital of Nangarhar, and at least three militants were killed, officials said. Three suicide bombers reportedly entered the bank and detonated themselves, and fighting between insurgents and security forces continued for over four hours; President Hamid Karzai and a NATO International Security Assistance Force spokesman condemned the attack, which was the deadliest in the country since June 2010.  In its July 2011 review of the Kabul Bank scandal and its aftermath, international non-governmental organization (NGO) Transparency International raised repeated concerns about problems of corruption in Afghanistan and its impact on the economy, business investment, security and civil society.

2010 depositor panic and aftermath.

In early 2010, the "Washington Post" reported that the Kabul Bank played a part in "a crony capitalism that enriches politically connected insiders and dismays the Afghan populace."  At the beginning of September, Frozi, one of the two largest shareholders of Kabul Bank, said reports indicating that the institution had lost as much as $300 million were overstated. But he predicted that if Afghan depositors continued to withdraw their money at the current rate, Kabul Bank would almost certainly collapse, undermining confidence in the nascent financial system the Afghans have been trying to build with American help. "If this goes on, we won’t survive", Mr. Frozi said in an interview. "If people lose trust in the banks, there will be a revolution in the financial system."  Afghan leaders promised to guarantee deposits in an attempt to arrest the panic, which began at the end of August 2010 when the country's top banking officials demanded the resignations of both Frozi and Farnood. "The government has decided that there will be an audit firm that will be coming to audit not only Kabul Bank accounts but also other private banks in Afghanistan", an Afghan presidential spokesman announced in late October. Earlier in the month, the government also froze assets held by some of Kabul Bank's owners even as the central bank governor said it was solvent and had the backing of Karzai's administration. U.S.-educated economist Hamidullah Farooqi, a former Karzai minister and chairman of the Afghanistan International Chamber of Commerce, said Afghanistan received a "massive wake-up call" from the crisis, further stating: "It's not just a lack of capacity in our institutions, there is a lack of laws and a lack of accountability, which is much more serious. It's a case of the blind leading the blind. They are too young, they are babies."  Mahmood Karzai is one of the brothers of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a seven-percent shareholder in the bank. In a telephone interview with the "Boston Globe" in September 2010, he said: "America should do something." In October, the "Washington Post" reported that Mahmood Karzai could soon be indicted for tax evasion in the U.S., though he denied the charges, telling the newspaper: "I'm very clean", and insisting his only interest was "rebuilding Afghanistan."  In mid-January 2011, acting chief financial officer and other Pakistani employees of Kabul Bank fled to Pakistan, apparently out of fear for their lives and possible arrest, though some said they were being made scapegoats for powerful shareholders. Afghan authorities also called in several bank managers, including foreigners, for questioning and detained some in southern Afghanistan's Helmand Province in connection with illicit transfers of bank funds.  In early February 2011, DAB Governor Abdul Qadir Fitrat said the central bank would impose stricter rules on banks wanting to handle about US$1.5 billion worth of salaries for government and security officials, which until now has been done by Kabul Bank. Fitrat also told Reuters the total amount of money at risk over suspected irregularities at Kabul Bank amounted to $579 million, almost twice the figure estimated when the bank's troubles first surfaced. Fitrat dismissed concerns that it faced liquidation, saying it would be privately owned again within three years. "Kabulbank is stabilised, it has enough cash at its disposal and the central bank is trying to rehabilitate the bank and then at some point sell it to potential buyers in two or three years," Fitrat told Reuters. In early July 2011, Fitrat resigned as head of the central bank after fleeing to the United States, claiming his life had been threatened and that he was being made a scapegoat for politically connected individuals.  After a mid-February 2011 visit by Neal Wolin, the U.S. deputy Treasury secretary, the Afghan finance ministry said that weak international support had exacerbated the crisis. "Afghan and US officials agreed that (the crisis)... was compounded by the erroneous audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and ineffective international technical assistance and supervision", the ministry said. However, Wolin pressed the government to rapidly place the lender into receivership, echoing calls made by a previous International Monetary Fund (IMF) delegation. "The deputy secretary... stressed the need for the Afghan government to take swift and decisive action to ensure a credible, effective resolution of issues related to Kabul Bank," the U.S. embassy said in statement. Kabul Bank was put into receivership following the scandal and a new bank set up, but only $70 million of fraudulent loans it granted have so far been recovered, with criminal investigations ongoing. In October 2011, Afghanistan's parliament approved a $51 million payment to DAB as part of a planned compensation package over its multi-million-dollar bailout; the payment is part of a package of government measures agreed with the IMF to secure a new loan. Afghanistan has been without an IMF program since the Kabul Bank failure, but the IMF announced that it is moving ahead on a new $129 million loan in the wake of the government's reform promises, with a new program expected to be submitted to the IMF executive board for approval in November 2011.  At the end of June 2011, the "Washington Post" reported that Farnood and Frozi used fake names, forged documents, fictitious companies and secret records as part of an elaborate ruse to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to shareholders and top Afghan officials, including President Karzai's brother Mahmood and Mohammed Fahim, the country's first vice president. Both Farnood and Frozi were arrested in Kabul and held without charge, even though Afghanistan's attorney general said the evidence against them was "quite clear". Without a successful resolution of Kabul Bank's problems, one senior U.S. official said Afghanistan could face "the collapse of the banking sector." As of October 2011, neither man had yet been charged with a crime, but Deputy Attorney General Enayatullah Nazari said the government intends to bring them to court.  "A crime has happened", Nazari said. "They will go to the court whether they manage to secure the money or not". Authorities loosened the terms of their detention and provided them with a security detail to go to a bank office on workdays and on occasion to fancy restaurants and hotels for what Nazari described as work meetings.

Depositor losses from collapse.

With regard to public sector corruption in Afghanistan and the loss of nearly U.S. $1 billion in U.S. taxpayers' funded foreign assistance to Afghanistan in the form of U.S.-supplied Afghan government and Afghan military and police salaries deposited into Kabul Bank, "The New Yorker Magazine", the "Wall Street Journal", the "New York Times", "National Public Radio" (NPR) and others, have reported that widespread corruption, ponzi schemes, fraudulent loans, mass looting, insider loans to fake and bogus companies run by family and friends, and other corrupted practices, were undertaken by a small group of Afghan insiders (less than 12 people), apparently linked to Mahmoud Karzai, President Hamid Karzai and Ahmed Wali Karzai. This resulted in nearly $1 billion ($900 million) in Kabul Bank's deposits seemingly vanishing into Dubai and other off-shore locations and unknown offshore bank accounts and tax havens. Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars were often smuggled and flown out of Afghanistan secretly stashed in bags and airline food trays

2012 anti-corruption report and reform efforts.

On 28 November 2012, the Independent Joint Anti-Corruption Monitoring and Evaluation Committee published its report and declared in a news conference that US$5 billion, including $400 million the Kabul Bank's shareholders, were illegally transferred abroad. About 22 people are accused of embezzlement in the case, and their trial started. At three hearings, 18 people, including Sher Khan Farnood and Khalil Ferozi, appeared before the court to defend themselves. Some $935 million of the bank assets was transferred abroad through various systems and $825 million are needed to bail out the bank. The Afghan government will have to pay 5–6% of its GDP to save the bank, which would be a huge blow to the country's economy.  Since 2011, the Karzai Government has rejected banking oversight and reform efforts by the United States in the wake of the Kabul Bank scandal and collapse according to reports by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) in 2013–14.  Banking experts, economists and humanitarian aid officials have expressed serious concern about this development given Kabul Bank's large and historic dependence on U.S. taxpayers' funding of bank deposits via payments of the Afghan National Army soldiers, police and Afghanistan's civil service employees who are largely paid with billions of dollars in U.S. aid to the Karzai government and to Afghanistan from the U.S. Congress, U.S. Treasury and ultimately U.S. taxpayer.  The U.S. government has found anti-corruption efforts in Afghanistan in the wake of the Kabul Bank crisis as deeply troubling, including the banking sector, according to reports by the Washington Post in 2012 and SIGAR.

2014 murder of IMF official and executive sentences.

In January 2014, the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) representative Wabel Abdallah, who assisted in the Kabul Bank crisis aftermath, was murdered by suicide bombers and gunmen in Kabul along with some 21 others in a high-profile attack that the Taliban said they undertook. Abdallah headed the IMF's office in Afghanistan since 2008.  Following the departure of Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai in 2014, President Ashraf Ghani re-opened efforts to bring former Kabul Bank officials involved in the Kabul Bank Crisis to justice, extend and enforce prison sentences for those previously convicted, and seek to recover hundreds of millions of U.S. and Afghan taxpayers' dollars in funds stolen or lost by embezzlement, corruption, and fraud by the bank's insiders. Ghani vowed to seek to continue the investigation of the Kabul Bank crisis and fight corruption in Afghanistan. In October 2014, the Ghani Administration in Kabul reportedly officially re-opened the investigation.

New company.

After corruption and scandals it was re-established in 2011 as the New Kabul Bank.  In 2011, 38 customers at the bank's branch in Jalalabad were killed by a Taliban bombing. Fighting with security forces lasted four hours, and four of the attackers were killed. Two men were later charged for the attack and executed in June 2011. A third person was sentenced to prison.  In September 2010, the Afghan Central Bank said it was prepared to provide loans to the Kabul Bank, "if it requests". After the bailout by the government, by 2015, authorities were inviting bids to privatize the new bank. In 2016, Afghanistan's Joint-Stock Company offered to buy New Kabul Bank for $31 million. Pakistan's MCB Bank also made a bid, as New Kabul Bank was to be privatized in October 2018.  In April 2015, the Islamic State or an associated group claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing at the entrance of a New Kabul Bank branch in Jalalabad, where government workers waited in line to collect salaries. 34 people were killed at least, and 125 injured. In June 2017, a Taliban suicide bomber killed 29 people at a Kabul Bank branch in the Helmand province.  In August 2017, there were reports of long lines and slow services at the New Kabul Bank branch in the Paktika province, where it was the only bank in the region. That month, a suicide bomber targeted the Kabul Bank branch entrance close to the US embassy, resulting in five reported deaths. The Taliban claimed responsibility.

New Kabul Bank is a bank in Afghanistan that has its main branch in the capital city of Kabul. It was established in 2004 as the Kabul Bank, the first private bank in Afghanistan. After corruption and scandals it was re-established in 2011 as the New Kabul Bank.

Die New Kabul Bank (vormals "Kabul Bank") ist das größte Kreditinstitut Afghanistans. Gründer und Vorstandschef der Bank war Sherkhan Farnud. Die Kabul Bank war die älteste Privatbank des Landes.


Background.

Ms. A. Tysiąc suffered from severe myopia. During her third pregnancy in 2000, she was examined by three ophthalmologists. All of them concluded that, due to pathological changes in her retina, the pregnancy and delivery constituted a risk to her eyesight. However, they refused to issue a certificate for the pregnancy to be terminated, despite Tysiąc's requests, saying that the risk of the retina detaching itself due to the strain caused by giving birth could be avoided if Mrs. Tysiąc delivered through cesarean section. Subsequently, Ms. Tysiąc sought further medical advice. A general practitioner (GP) issued a certificate stating that the third pregnancy constituted a threat to Ms. Tysiąc's health as there was a risk of rupture of the uterus, given her two previous deliveries by caesarean section. She further referred to Ms. Tysiąc's short-sightedness and to significant pathological changes in her retina. These considerations, according to the GP, also required that Ms. Tysiąc should avoid physical strain which in any case would hardly be possible as at that time the applicant was raising two small children on her own. Ms. Tysiąc understood that on the basis of this certificate she would be able to terminate her pregnancy lawfully.  Subsequently, Ms. Tysiąc contacted a state hospital, the Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Warsaw, in the area to which she was assigned on the basis of her residence, with a view to obtaining the termination of her pregnancy. On 26 April 2000 she had an appointment with Dr R.D., head of the Gynaecology and Obstetrics Department of the Clinic. Dr R.D. examined her, but did not examine her ophthalmological records. Afterwards, he made a note on the back of the certificate issued by the GP that neither her short-sightedness nor her two previous deliveries by caesarean section constituted grounds for therapeutic termination of the pregnancy. He was of the view that, in these circumstances, the applicant should give birth by caesarean section. During the applicant's visit Dr R.D. also consulted an endocrinologist.  As a result, Ms. Tysiąc's pregnancy was not terminated. She delivered the child by caesarean section in November 2000.  Some time after the delivery, her eyesight deteriorated. On 11 January 2001 the social welfare centre issued a certificate to the effect that she was unable to take care of her children as she could not see from a distance of more than 1.5 metres.  Ms. Tysiąc lodged a criminal complaint against Dr R.D., alleging that he had prevented her from having her pregnancy terminated on medical grounds as recommended by the GP and permissible as one of the exceptions to a general ban on abortion. She complained that, following the pregnancy and delivery, she had sustained severe bodily harm by way of almost complete loss of her eyesight. The investigation of the applicant's complaint was carried out by the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Prosecutor. The prosecutor heard evidence from the ophthalmologists who had examined the applicant during her pregnancy. They stated that she could have had a safe delivery by caesarean section. The prosecutor further requested the preparation of an expert report by a panel of three medical experts (ophthalmologist, gynaecologist and specialist in forensic medicine) from the Białystok Medical Academy. According to the report, the applicant's pregnancies and deliveries had not affected the deterioration of her eyesight. Given the serious nature of the applicant's sight impairment, the risk of retinal detachment had always been present and continued to exist, and the pregnancy and delivery had not contributed to increasing that risk. Furthermore, the experts found that in the applicant's case there had been no factors militating against the applicant's carrying her baby to term and delivering it.  The criminal investigation against Dr R.D. was therefore discontinued.

Judgment.

By 6 votes to 1, the court held that there was a violation of Article 8 ECHR (right to private life), as ""it is not the Court's task in the present case to examine whether the Convention guarantees a right to have an abortion" and "it has not been demonstrated that Polish law as applied to the applicant's case contained any effective mechanisms capable of determining whether the conditions for obtaining a lawful abortion had been met in her case... the provisions of the civil law on tort as applied by the Polish courts did not afford the applicant a procedural instrument by which she could have vindicated her right to respect for her private life. The civil law remedy was solely of a retroactive and compensatory character. It could only, and if the applicant had been successful, have resulted in the courts granting damages to cover the irreparable damage to her health which had come to light after the delivery... Crucially, the examination of the circumstances of the case in the context of criminal investigations could not have prevented the damage to the applicant's health from arising. The same applies to disciplinary proceedings before the organs of the Chamber of Physicians."  Judge Borrego Borrego filed a dissenting opinion, concluding that "the Court has decided that a human being was born as a result of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to this reasoning, there is a Polish child, currently six years old, whose right to be born contradicts the Convention. I would never have thought that the Convention would go so far, and I find it frightening". Judge Bonello filed a separate opinion, stating that his vote for finding a violation goes no further than "whether, in cases of conflicting views (between a pregnant woman and doctors, or between the doctors themselves) as to whether the conditions to obtain a legal abortion were satisfied or not, effective mechanisms capable of determining the issue were in place".  Besides, the court ruled unanimously that there was no violation of Article 3 (no torture, inhuman or degrading treatment).  Ms. Tysiąc was awarded €25000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €14000 in respect of costs and expenses.

Tysiąc v. Poland (Application no. 5410/03) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in 2007. A pregnant woman from Poland, diagnosed with a severe eye disease, tried to get an abortion to avoid an escalation of her disease. Her requests were rejected by several medical doctors and she underwent labor of her third child. Her condition later deteriorated, and she sued one of the doctors. Her criminal lawsuits were rejected in Poland and the case was appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which accepted one part of the complaint, and the plaintiff was awarded damages.

Beim Fall Tysiac handelt es sich um einen Fall des Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, in dem die polnische Staatsbürgerin Alicja Tysiąc die Republik Polen verklagte. Im Jahr 2007 wurde ihrer Klage stattgegeben und der polnische Staat zu einer Entschädigungszahlung in Höhe von 25.000 Euro verurteilt.


Taxonomy.

The species was named by Allan Octavian Hume after the collector Frederik Adolph de Roepstorff who shot it at Aberdeen, Andamans. Hume placed it in the genus "Strix". Some authors consider this bird to be a subspecies of the barn owl/western barn owl "(Tyto alba)",or the eastern barn owl ("Tyto javanica"), but König, in his "Owls of the World", recognizes it as a distinct species; one distinguishing feature is that it lacks the greyish veil, speckled with black and white, that all other races of "Tyto alba" / "Tyto javanica" possess.

Description.

The Andaman masked owl grows to a length of between, with a wing of around and a tail of. It is almost uniformly dark reddish-brown above, with some speckling of buffish-orange. The facial disc is pale reddish-buff with a distinctive orange-brown margin. The eyes are blackish and the beak creamy-white. The breast is golden-brown with blackish spots, paling towards the belly, which is whitish. The legs are fully feathered to near the feet. The toes are greyish-pink and the claws purplish-grey. The voice has been described as a rather high-pitched, short, rasping, descending shriek which terminates abruptly and is repeated several times.

Distribution and habitat.

The Andaman masked owl is known only from the southern Andaman Islands. It occurs on the coastal plain, in fields and gardens with trees, and in human settlements. It is not thought to be migratory.

Ecology.

Little is known of the habits of this owl but they are likely to be similar to those of other related species. It is nocturnal, roosting during the day and emerging at dusk. It feeds on small rodents, and the bones of mice and rats have been found in regurgitated pellets beneath roosting places. It probably nests in cavities but details of its breeding habits are not known.

The Andaman masked owl ("Tyto deroepstorffi") is a barn owl endemic to the southern Andaman Islands, an archipelago between India and Myanmar, in the Bay of Bengal. Regarded by some authors as a subspecies of the common barn owl ("Tyto alba"), it is recognized by others as a species in its own right.

Die Andamanen-Schleiereule ("Tyto deroepstorffi") ist eine Art aus der Gattung der Schleiereulen, die nur auf den Andamanen vorkommt. Sie galt lange als eine Unterart der Schleiereule, wird aber in jüngerer Literatur als eigenständige Art angesehen. Ihr Erstbeschreiber, der sie noch als "Strix De-Reopstorffi" einer anderen Gattung zuordnete, veröffentlichte 1875 den Artikel anonym.


Early life and career.

On a scholarship of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Seif studied law at the University of Bonn from 1983 until 1989. During his studies, he worked for the International Society for Human Rights. Since 1993, he has been practicing as a lawyer.

Political career.

Seif joined the CDU in 1982 and held positions in local politics in Weilerswist from 1999 to 2009.  Since 2009, Seif has been CDU party chairman in the district of Euskirchen.  Seif has been a member of the German Bundestag since the 2009 federal elections. Since then, he has been a member of the Committee on European Affairs. In 2014 he became Deputy Spokesman for the committee. Seif's thematic areas of expertise in the committee are basic rights; EU citizenship; coordination between the judicature and police; border protection and counterterrorism; and asylum- and migration policy. Additionally, he is the CDU/CSU parliamentary group's rapporteur for Great Britain and Malta.  Between 2009 and 2017, Seif was a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs, where he served as his parliamentary group's rapporteur on legal professionals, data privacy and labor law.  In 2018, he joined the Committee on Internal Affairs.  The same year, Seif became a member of the first Investigative Committee of the 19th legislative period, which is investigating the failure of German security authorities to prevent Anis Amri's attack on a Berlin Christmas market in December 2016.  In addition to his committee assignments, Seif is a member of the German-American Parliamentary Friendship Group and the German-British Parliamentary Friendship Group.

Political positions.

European Affairs  On July 17, 2015, Seif voted against his party's line and rejected the Merkel government’s proposal to negotiate a third bailout for Greece.  As the EU deputy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group and rapporteur for affairs in Great Britain, Seif is outspoken on the topic of Brexit. Before the Brexit referendum in June 2016, Seif stated that if Prime Minister Cameron wanted Britain to stay in the EU, he would have to convince his fellow Britons of the advantages of EU membership. Seif compared Cameron to a “butterfly,” and declared that “Britain does not need a butterfly but a lion.”  Regarding Brexit negotiations, Seif has taken a rigid stance and views the Brexit as a “catastrophe” that “damages economic development and the development of the EU.”  Upon Prime Minister Theresa May's activation of Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon beginning formal Brexit proceedings and her remark that a failure to reach an agreement on Brexit would weaken UK-EU cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism, Seif was one of many German members of parliament who did not take kindly to May's statement, deeming it “an extraordinarily primitive attempt at blackmailing us.”  Seif blamed a leak to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung of an unflattering description of the first meeting between UK and EU negotiation teams in May 2017 on a “babbling idiot,” seeing both sides at fault for “the fact that the atmosphere is becoming poisoned.”  Seif believes the Brexit will do significant damage to both Great Britain and the EU and is quoted as saying “a win-win settlement is excluded and it’s appropriate to speak about a lose-lose result.”  Domestic Affairs  Within his party, Seif belongs to the conservative wing.  During the Böhmermann affair in 2016, Seif read the Böhmermann's "smear poem" in the German Bundestag to demonstrate that it is an insult of the Turkish president, which caused the outrage of other MPs.  In June 2017, Seif voted against Germany's introduction of same-sex marriage. Following the party's result in the 2017 elections, he held that voters had abandoned the CDU because, under Angela Merkel, it had moved too far to the left.  Following Germany's September 2017 federal elections, Seif identified points of contention between the CDU, CSU, and SPD, telling Reuters that pensions, Europe and asylum and migration policy were all “areas where there are explosives built into the coalition agreement."  In April 2018, Seif was the first member of the German Bundestag to delete his Facebook account as a result of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. He wrote an open letter to Facebook's Managing Director in Central Europe in which he stated he could not recommend Facebook to anyone, so long as Facebook continued to handle user data in a sloppy fashion.

Personal life.

Seif is Protestant, married and has one daughter.

Detlef Seif (born 15 August 1962 in Euskirchen) is a German politician. He is a member of the CDU party and has been a Member of the German Bundestag since 2009.

Detlef Seif (* 15. August 1962 in Euskirchen) ist ein deutscher Politiker (CDU). Seit 2009 vertritt er den Wahlkreis 92 (Euskirchen – Rhein-Erft-Kreis II) als direkt gewählter Abgeordneter im Deutschen Bundestag.


Work.

Milman received his Ph.D. at Kharkiv State University in 1965 under the direction of Boris Levin.  In a 1971 paper, Milman gave a new proof of Dvoretzky's theorem, stating that every convex body in dimension "N" has a section of dimension "d(N)", with "d(N)" tending to infinity with "N", that is arbitrarily close to being isometric to an ellipsoid. Milman's proof gives the optimal bound "d(N)" ≥ const log "N". In this proof, Milman put forth the concentration of measure phenomenon which has since found numerous applications.  Milman made important contributions to the study of Banach spaces of large (finite) dimension, which led to the development of asymptotic geometric analysis. His results in this field include Milman's reverse Brunn–Minkowski inequality and the quotient of subspace theorem.

Positions.

He holds several positions including being the advisor to the Israel Ministry of Science on the immigration of scientists, and being a member of the European Mathematical Union.  He is on the editorial boards of several journals, including Geometric and Functional Analysis. He has published over 150 scientific publications, a monograph and eleven edited books. He has delivered lectures at Universities such as MIT, IAS Princeton, Berkeley, IHES Paris, Cambridge.

Awards and honors.

Milman was an Invited Speaker of the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1986 in Berkeley and in 1998 in Berlin. He received the Landau Prize in Mathematics in 2002 and the EMET Prize in mathematics in 2007.  In 2012 he became a fellow of the American Mathematical Society.

Family.

Mathematics runs in the Milman family. His father is the mathematician David Milman, who devised the Krein–Milman theorem. His brother is the mathematician Pierre Milman and his son is the young mathematician Emanuel Milman.

Vitali Davidovich Milman (; ) (born 23 August 1939) is a mathematician specializing in analysis. He is a professor at the Tel-Aviv University. In the past he was a President of the Israel Mathematical Union and a member of the “Aliyah” committee of Tel-Aviv University.

Vitali Davidovich Milman (, "Witali Dawidowitsch Milman"; ; * 23. August 1939 in Odessa, Sowjetunion) ist ein israelischer, aus der ehemaligen Sowjetunion stammender Mathematiker, der sich mit Funktionalanalysis beschäftigt.


History.

Neither the reasons nor the history behind the right to silence are entirely clear. The Latin brocard "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" ('no man is bound to accuse himself') became a rallying cry for religious and political dissidents who were prosecuted in the Star Chamber and High Commission of 16th-century England. People coming before these tribunals were forced to make the "ex officio" oath by which they swore to truthfully answer the questions to be put before them without knowing of what they were being accused. This created what has been termed the cruel trilemma whereby these accused were forced to choose between committing the mortal sin of perjury (if they lied under oath to protect themselves), harsh punishment for contempt of court (if they refused to answer), or betraying their "natural" duty of self-preservation (if they told the truth to honour their oath). Sir Edward Coke's challenge to the ecclesiastical courts and their "ex officio" oath is seen as the origin of the right to silence. With his decision that common law courts could issue writs of prohibition against such oaths and his arguments that such oaths were contrary to the common law (as found in his "Reports" and "Institutes"), Coke "dealt the crucial blow to the oath "ex officio" and to the High Commission".  After the parliamentary revolutions of the late 17th century, according to some historical accounts, the right to silence became established in the law as a reaction of the people to the excesses of the royal inquisitions in these courts. The rejection of the procedures of the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission eventually resulted in the emergence of the principle, according to US jurist and law of evidence expert John Henry Wigmore, "that no man is bound to incriminate himself, on any charge (no matter how properly instituted), or in any Court (not merely in the ecclesiastical or Star Chamber tribunals)". It was extended during the English Restoration (from 1660 on) to include "an ordinary witness, and not merely the party charged".  However, the right to silence was not always a practical reality for all accused in the English courts for some period afterwards. With limited access to legal counsel (often depending on the social status of the accused), a shifting standard of proof, and a system generally distrustful of silent defendants, a criminal accused who remained silent was often believed to be guilty and got sentenced. Nevertheless, it remained a basic right available to the accused and has been an accepted practice over the

Worldwide.

Warnings of a right to remain silent are given in approximately 108 nations around the world.

Australia.

Australia has no constitutional protection for the right to silence, but it is broadly recognized by State and Federal Crimes Acts and Codes and is regarded by the courts as an important common law right and a part of the privilege against self-incrimination. In general, criminal suspects in Australia have the right to refuse to answer questions posed to them by police before trial and to refuse to give evidence at trial. However a person must provide their full name, address, place of birth, and date of birth if asked to by police. No other question has to be answered. As a general rule judges cannot direct juries to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's silence ("Petty v R") but there are exceptions to this rule, most notably in cases which rely entirely on circumstantial evidence which it is only possible for the defendant to testify about ("Weissensteiner v R"). This exception has been abolished in Victoria by sections 42 and 44 of the "Jury Directions Act 2015". The right does not apply to corporations ("EPA v Caltex").  Within Australia, the right to silence derives from common law. The basic position amongst the states is that neither the judge nor the jury is permitted to draw any adverse inference about the defendant's culpability, where he/she does not answer police questions [RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620... overturning Jones v Dunkel [1959] 101 CLR 298]. While this is the common law position, it is buttressed by various legislative provisions within the states. For instance s.464J of the "Crimes Act" 1958 (Vic) and s.89 of the "Evidence Act" 1995 (NSW).  However, s89A of the Evidence Act (NSW) operates to allow adverse inferences to be drawn from a failure to mention, when questioned, something which the subject later relies upon in Court and which he/she ought reasonably have been aware of at the time of questioning. This inference can only be drawn if the subject has been given the special caution, which is a caution in addition to the usual caution and the subject consults with an Australian Legal practitioner in persona so as to fully understand the effect of the special caution. In NSW a subject has the right to a lawyer being present in a police interrogation but they do not have the right to have a lawyer provided for them, therefore a lawyer will only attend if the subject can afford private legal counsel. Therefore, the subject can prevent the invocation of s89A by receiving legal advice over the phone or choosing not to have a lawyer present (assuming they can afford one).  It has also been upheld by the High Court in the case of "Petty v R" (1991) 173 CLR 95. However, where a defendant answers some police questions, but not others, an inference may sometimes be drawn about the questions he refused to answer. (See "Coldrey", below.)  Where a defendant refuses to speak to the police, but then speaks to an undercover member of the police, the court is likely to exclude that evidence to ensure that the police do not avoid their limitations. However, if a defendant speaks to a person who is not a member of the police, and who is fitted with a listening device, that evidence would be admitted.[Queen v Swaffield; Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR]  Australian research indicates that very few suspects actually refuse to speak. Stevenson's research (see below for citation) indicates that only 4% of suspects who are subsequently charged and tried in the District Court of New South Wales in Sydney remain silent during interviews. The Victorian DPP found that 7–9% of suspects refused to answer police questions.  A number of states have conducted enquiries into the adoption of the English changes set out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. All states have rejected such change. As the NSW Report said: It is also important to note that anything said to an Australian police member should be corroborated, especially by way of video or audio tape. If it is not so corroborated it will be admitted only under exceptional circumstances, S.464H (2)(a) of the "Crimes Act" 1958 (Vic), and where the circumstances, on the balance of probabilities, justify the reception of the evidence, S.464H (2)(b) of the "Crimes Act" 1958 (Vic). While initially the police were insulted by this ruling most have now come to find it useful as a way of proving that they did not invent a false, verbal confession, never made by an accused (a practice called "verballing" an accused).  There are numerous statutory abrogations of the right, particularly in the area of bankruptcy. It is also not available to witnesses testifying before a Royal Commission. There are also abrogations of the right in recent Federal anti-terrorism and Victorian organised crime Acts. Each of these acts set up coercive questioning regimes which operate outside the normal criminal processes. Direct testimonial evidence gained from this coercive questioning cannot be used in any subsequent criminal trial of the person providing the evidence, however a witness who testifies in his defense at a subsequent criminal trial who provides a different testimony to that during the questioning may face prosecution for perjury.

Bangladesh.

Article 33 of the Constitution of Bangladesh discusses the rights of the arrested and detained; no right to silence is mentioned either in the Constitution or the Bangladesh Penal Code, except in Article 35(4) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from self-implication. To facilitate protection from self-implication, Bangladesh Penal Code makes an exception in cases of confessions, in which case, the Magistrate obtaining a confession under Section 164 "must" explain the confessor's right to silence, and must attest to the fact that the rights of the confessor were read out to him and explained, and the confessor waived his right of silence.

Canada.

In Canada, the right to silence is protected under section 7 and section 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The accused may not be compelled as a witness against himself in criminal proceedings, and therefore only voluntary statements made to police are admissible as evidence. Prior to an accused being informed of their right to legal counsel, any statements they make to police are considered involuntarily compelled and are inadmissible as evidence. After being informed of the right to counsel, the accused may choose to voluntarily answer questions and those statements would be admissible.  These rights to silence exist only when the suspect is knowingly dealing with a person in authority. When the subject is unaware he is dealing with the police, such as in the case of an undercover operation, these protections do not exist. Statements made to police officers during undercover operations are almost always allowed into evidence unless the conduct of the police was deemed so egregious that it would shock the community.  Under the Charter, an arrested person has the right:  The Canadian Charter warning reads (varies by police service): "You are under arrest for _________ (charge); do you understand? You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. We will provide you with a toll-free telephone lawyer referral service, if you do not have your own lawyer. Anything you do say can and will be used in court as evidence. Do you understand? Would you like to speak to a lawyer?" (See: "R. v. Hebert" [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151.)  A more detailed version:  I am arresting you for (charge). It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You may call any lawyer you want. There is a 24-hour telephone service available which provides a legal aid duty lawyer who can give you legal advice in private. This advice is given without charge and the lawyer can explain the legal aid plan to you. If you wish to contact a legal aid duty lawyer, I can provide you with a telephone number. Do you understand? Do you want to call a lawyer? You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence in court.  (See: Brydgesa fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (s.

China.

The right of silence is not guaranteed by law in China. Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Law states that "The criminal suspect shall answer the investigators' questions truthfully, but he shall have the right to refuse to answer any questions that are irrelevant to the case." But since the 1996 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law, Article 15 states that "It shall be strictly prohibited to extort

Czech Republic.

The Czech Republic protects the right to silence by two clauses in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms. Article 37, clause 1 states that "everyone has the right to

European Union.

Within the European Union, a gradual process of harmonising the laws of all the states of the Union has resulted in the adoption a common letter of rights that will apply to everyone across the European Union. The agreed law—also known as "the Reding Rights" taking the name of the EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, who has proposed and negotiated the measure to become law across the entire European Union—will mean that suspects in the European Union will once detained receive a 'letter of rights listing their basic rights during criminal proceedings.  The European law ensures that people suspected of a criminal offence receive adequate information about their basic rights during criminal proceedings. These are the right to a lawyer; to be informed of the charge; to interpretation and translation for those who do not understand the language of the proceedings; the right to remain silent and to be brought promptly before a court following arrest.  In particular, the law includes five innovations:  <poem>Suspects will be informed of their rights following the arrest; They will be given a "letter of rights" spelling out their rights in writing; The letter of rights will be easy to understand, without legal jargon; It will be made available in a language the suspect understands; It will contain practical details about the person's rights.</poem>  These rights are contained in a "letter of rights"—"the Reding Rights"—a printed document given to suspects after they are detained and before interrogation. The European Union law, proposed in July 2010 by the European Commission, was adopted by the European Parliament and Council in December 2011. The European Union Directive was published officially on June 1, 2012 in the Official Journal of the European Union L 142, June 1, 2012. It became operational across the European Union by June 2, 2014.

European Convention on Human Rights.

The concept of right to silence is not specifically mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights but the European Court of Human Rights has held that

France.

In France, any person brought in police custody () must be informed of the maximal duration of the custody, and a number of rights, in a language that this person understands. Among these rights are: the possibility of warning a relative or employer of the custody, that of asking to be examined by a physician, and that of discussing the case with a lawyer.  The French Code of Criminal Procedure (art. L116) makes it compulsory that when an investigating judge hears a suspect, he must warn him that he has the right to remain silent, to make a statement, or to answer questions. A person against which suspicions lay cannot legally be interrogated by justice

Germany.

According to § 136 (StPO, i.e. Criminal Procedure Code) a suspect, arrested or not, has to be informed before any interrogation about their right to remain silent. Though the police and courts may not draw inference from the complete silence of the accused in any stage of criminal proceedings, inference may be drawn if the accused is selectively silent. Suspects cannot be heard under oath.  Before any interrogation begins a suspect, arrested or not, must be informed:  Foreign suspects have the following additional rights:

Hong Kong.

The right to silence is protected according to common law. The "Rules and Directions for the Questioning of Suspects and the Taking of Statements" (Rules and Directions), promulgated by the then Secretary for Security in 1992, stipulate that the caution to be used to remind a suspect of his right to

India.

The Constitution of India guarantees every person right against self incrimination under Article 20 (3): "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself". It is well established that the Right to Silence has been granted to the accused by virtue of the pronouncement in the case of Nandini

Israel.

In Israel, according to Sections 28 (Hearing arguments of the detainee) and Section 31 (Explanation of rights to the detainee) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Authority—Arrests) 1996, an officer interrogating/arresting a suspect must duly warn him first that he does not have to say any thing that may incriminate him, and that any thing he will say may be used against him. According to Israeli law, the exercise of the right to remain silent may be considered as supplemental evidence in most cases, and this

Latvia.

In Latvia, the Criminal procedure law (Kriminālprocesa likums) (sections 60.2, 150, 265 and more) sets out a right for anyone against whom criminal proceedings has been initiated or suspicions raised to remain silent. Upon arrest and before first interrogation of a person against whom any (official or unofficial) suspicion has been raised in a criminal case, such person must be warned of his or her right to remain silent, and that everything such person says may be used against that person in a criminal proceedings. Witnesses, victims and

Netherlands.

In the Netherlands, each accused suspect has the right to remain silent to questions of the police and the prosecutor, during interrogation or investigation at the hearing. According to Dutch law, only the police officer will read the rights of the suspect in the police station. Security guards have the right to put somebody under arrest, but they have to hand over the suspect immediately to the police officer who will read the rights of the suspect later in the station. The rights are: to remain silent, the right to have an attorney,

New Zealand.

In New Zealand, the right of persons arrested to refrain from making a statement and to be informed of that right is contained in the Bill of Rights Act 1990, as further reflected in a practice note on police questioning issued in 2006, by then Chief Justice Sian Elias.. The Evidence Act 2006 explicitly prohibits the inference of guilt in a criminal proceeding from

Norway.

According to Straffeprosessloven (Criminal Procedures Code), a defendant cannot be obliged to testify(§90). Further; no promises, inaccurate information, threats or coercion can be used. The same applies to any means which reduces the defendants consciousness or his ability to self-determination. Any interrogation must not have as a goal to wear out the defendant(§92). However, if the defendant decides not to testify, the judge may advise him that it may in certain circumstances be held against him(§93).  In general, anyone is required to appear before the courts and give testimony, except dictated otherwise by the law(§108)
 There are some notable exceptions:
 §119: The court may not hear evidence from a priest in the Norwegian Church, or indeed any priest or similar in any registered faith, lawyers, defence attorneys, arbitrators in marriage affairs, medical doctors, psychologists, nurses, midwives or apothecaries, except with the explicit

Pakistan.

Article 13 of the 1973 Constitution of

Philippines.

Article 3, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution states that "Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel."  The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, in section 12(1) of Article 3 (Bill of Rights), states:  This was expanded into a caution during arrest under Republic Act 7438. Previously, informing arrested persons of their rights occurred long after arrest, if it ever occurred at all.  Punishments for law enforcement officers who fail to read suspects their rights, under RA7438, are severe: besides a fine of 6,000 Philippine pesos, officials may be jailed for between eight and ten years.  In the 1999 case People vs Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485, the Supreme Court of the Philippines was asked to consider the case of Larry Mahinay y Amparado, a man convicted of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, the neighbor of his employer. Mahinay confessed but later retracted his confession, claiming that he made it due to fear surrounding his imprisonment and not actual guilt. Mahinay claimed that the police officers attacked him and threatened to kill him if he would not confess, and they did not inform him of his right to

Republic of Ireland.

In the Republic of Ireland, the Supreme Court held that the right was not only a common law right but also a constitutional right which might however be validly limited by legislation (O'Leary v AG [1995] 1 IR 254).  In this jurisdiction, a number of statutory measures have re-interpreted the right to silence,

Russian Federation.

Clause 1 of the article 51 of the Russian Constitution grants everyone the right to not witness against either themselves or against their spouses and

South Africa.

The Constitution of South Africa requires that any arrested person be informed of their right to remain silent and the consequences of not remaining silent, their right to choose and consult with a legal practitioner, and their right to have a legal practitioner assigned to

Spain.

In Spain, according to the "Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal" (Penal procedure code) article 520.2, the suspect must be informed

Switzerland.

Article 158 of the unified Swiss code of criminal procedure, which entered into force in 2011, establishes that the results

Thailand.

Sections 83 and 84 of the Thai Code of Criminal Procedure, which have been amended by the Act Amending the Criminal Procedure Code (No. 22), BE 2547 (2004), require the police officers who conduct the arrests to inform the arrestees of the Miranda rights.  Paragraph two of section 83 reads:  In cases an arrest is conducted by an officer, the officer must inform the arrestee of the charge, produce to him a warrant of arrest, if any, and

Ukraine.

Section 4 of Article 29 of Constitution of Ukraine reads:  Everyone arrested or detained shall be informed without delay of the reasons for his or her arrest or detention, apprised of his or her rights, and from the moment of detention shall be given the opportunity to personally defend himself or herself, or to have the legal assistance of a defender.  Article 63 of Constitution of Ukraine reads:  The Criminal Process Code of Ukraine has some regulations on how the rights of suspects and accused. Section 2 of Article 21 reads:  Inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, judge, and court, before the first examination of the suspect, accused, and defendant, are required to advise them of the right to have a defense counsel and draw up an appropriate record thereon, as well as provide the suspect, accused, and defendant the possibility to defend

United Kingdom.

The right to silence is different depending upon which jurisdiction of the United Kingdom the suspect is questioned in. In England and Wales it is possible for an adverse inference to be drawn from an accused person's silence during questioning. The same is true for Northern Ireland under the "Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988", but no adverse inference may be drawn in Scotland under Scots law.

England and Wales.

The right to silence has a long history in England and Wales, first having been codified in the Judges' Rules in 1912. A defendant in a criminal trial has a choice whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings. Further, there is no general duty to assist the police with their inquiries.  At common law, and particularly following the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where the accused:  There may be no conviction based wholly on silence. Where inferences may be drawn from

Northern Ireland.

The Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 provided for adverse inferences being drawn for failure to mention something prior to being charged to an offence. The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2009/2087 which came into effect on 5 October 2009, and replaced the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 24 provides for post-charge questioning. This can be applied for failure to mention facts after a suspect has been charged with an offence.  The scope of Emergency Legislation in Northern Ireland includes limitations

Scotland.

In Scotland, Scots law, unlike that of England and Wales, has not curtailed the right to silence. The caution upon questioning reads "You are going to be asked questions about (give a brief description of all the suspected offences). You are not bound to answer but if you do your answers [will be noted] [will be tape recorded and may be noted] and may be used in evidence. Do you understand?" No adverse inference can be drawn by an accused person's silence when they are interviewed under caution.  A statutory basis is given to the right to silence in Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which states,

United States.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself. At trial, the prosecution can neither call the defendant as a witness, nor comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Whether to testify or not is exclusively the privilege of the defendant, although defendants were originally not allowed to testify on their own behalf at all. An 1864 appropriations act allowed defendants to do so while removing race restrictions, and the 1987 Supreme Court case "Rock v. Arkansas" established a constitutional "right to take the witness stand."  Outside the context of lawful detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of the police. If judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person can still invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to testify if answers to questions posed are potentially self-incriminating. Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him or her, can a person be compelled to answer over an assertion of this right. If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him or her that he or she has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. (This is known as the "Miranda" warning.) If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and ordinarily nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule may be admitted against him or her at trial.  On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in "Salinas v. Texas" that, prior to being arrested, an individual must specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment right to "remain silent", otherwise selective silence can be used against him or her in court.

Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Members of the United States Armed Forces are covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under the UCMJ, sworn military personnel, whether of enlisted, warrant or commissioned rank, have a right to remain silent that was established 16 years before the "Miranda v. Arizona" ruling. There are significant protections against coercive self incrimination in Article 31, UCMJ, but it does differ somewhat from the "Miranda" warning, and in essence provides greater protections. This is one difference between civilian and military justice in the United States, and many other nations have similar corollary rules regarding military justice vs. civilian justice.

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

Das Aussageverweigerungsrecht ist das Recht eines Beschuldigten, in Strafverfahren sowie bei Ordnungswidrigkeiten, keine Angaben zu dem zur Last gelegten Sachverhalt machen zu müssen. Zu unterscheiden vom Aussageverweigerungsrecht sind die zugunsten von Zeugen unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen bestehenden Zeugnisverweigerungsrechte. Der Verzicht auf das Recht der Aussageverweigerung ist in der Praxis so gut wie nie zum Vorteil des Beschuldigten.


Biography.

Education and career.

Starting in 1980, Alpers studied pedagogy at the Free University of Berlin, finishing her Diplom degree in 1986. Subsequently, she was active in child welfare. She is a founder of school groups and was the leader of the first Kids Samba Group in Bremen during Carnival. She is married with two children.  After a speech in the Bundestag on 28 June 2013, Alpers collapsed and had to be resuscitated on site. A stroke as a result of an aneurysm was diagnosed, and Alpers was placed into an artificial coma. By the end of July, she was taken out of her coma. In September, she was moved to a hospital in Bremen and is currently undergoing rehabilitation. She handed in her Bundestag mandate effective 2 March 2015 and was succeeded in office by Birgit Menz.

Politics.

Agnes Alpers was a member of the "Socialist Unity Party of West Berlin", which was closely related to the Socialist Unity Party of Germany and the German Communist Party in West Berlin.  From October 2007, Alpers represented the Left in a Bremen "Deputation" (a kind of local parliamentary council) for Education in the Bremen Parliament.  In September 2009, she was elected to the Bundestag (or German Parliament) as part of the Bremen state party list. In parliament, she is a member of the Committee on Education, Research, and Technology. Despite her stroke, Alpers remained the lead candidate on the Bremen state party list and was reelected to the Bundestag in the federal election in 2013.

Positions.

Alpers supported a cross-party bill, brought to parliament by a group of over 50 representatives on 8 November 2012, which would limit circumcision for religious purposes for only those who have reached religious maturity (14 years).

Agnes Alpers (born 29 June 1961) is a Diplom-qualified educator, politician with the Left, and former member of the Bundestag.

Agnes Alpers (* 29. Juni 1961 in Oerel) ist eine deutsche Pädagogin, Politikerin (Die Linke) und ehemaliges Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages.


Life.

Guglielmo Massaia was born on 9 June 1809 in Piedmont as Lorenzo Antonio Massaia.  He was first educated at the Collegio Reale at Asti under the care of his elder brother Guglielmo who served as a canon and precentor of Asti Cathedral. On the death of his brother he passed as a student to the diocesan seminary in 1824; but at the age of sixteen entered the Capuchin Franciscan Order, receiving the habit on 25 September 1825. He completed studies at the seminary in 1826. He took the name of "Guglielmo" around this time.  Massaia was ordained to the priesthood on 16 June 1832 in Vercelli and served as a spiritual director at a hospital in Turin from 1834 to 1836. He served also as the confessor and advisor of Giuseppe Benedetto Cottolengo - future saint.  He was appointed as a lector of theology; but even whilst teaching he acquired some fame as a preacher and was chosen confessor to Prince Victor Emmanuel, afterwards King of Italy, and Ferdinand, Duke of Genoa. The royal family of Piedmont would have nominated him on several occasions to an episcopal see, but he wanted to join the foreign missions of his order.  He obtained his wish in 1846. That year the Congregation of Propaganda, at the instance of the traveller Antoine d'Abbadie, determined to establish the Apostolic Vicariate of Galla for the Oromo in Ethiopia. The mission was confided to the Capuchins, and Massaia was appointed as the first vicar-apostolic. He received episcopal consecration in Rome on 24 May of that year in the church of San Carlo al Corso.  On his arrival in Ethiopia in 1856, he found the country in a state of religious agitation. The titular head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Abuna Qerellos III, had been dead for about 20 years and there was a movement amongst the native Christians towards union with Rome. Massaia, who had received plenary faculties from Pope Pius IX, ordained a number of native priests for the Coptic Rite; he also obtained the appointment by the Holy See of a vicar-apostolic for the Copts, and himself consecrated the missionary Justin de Jacobis to this office. But this act aroused the enmity of the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, who sent a bishop of his own, Abuna Salama III, to Ethiopia.  As a result of the ensuing political agitation, Massaia was banished from the country and had to flee under an assumed name. In 1850 he visited Europe to gain a fresh band of missionaries and means to develop his work: he had interviews with the French Minister of Foreign Affairs in Paris, and with Lord Palmerston in London. On his return to the Oromos he founded a large number of missions; he also established a school at Marseille for the education of Oromo boys freed from slavery; besides this he composed a grammar of the Oromo language which was published at Marseilles in 1867. During his thirty-five years as a missionary he was exiled seven times, but he always returned. However, in 1880 he was compelled by ill-health to resign his mission. In recognition of his merit, Pope Leo XIII raised him to the titular Archbishopric of Stauropolis. Leo XIII also raised him into the cardinalate in 1884 as the Cardinal-Priest of Ss. Vitale, Gervasio e Protasio.  At the command of the pope he wrote an account of his missionary labours, under the title, "I miei trentacinque anni di missione nell' alta Etiopia", the first volume of which was published simultaneously at Rome and Milan in 1883, and the last in 1895. In this work he deals not only with the progress of the mission, but with the political and economic conditions of Ethiopia as he knew them.  He lived his last decade at a Capuchin friary in Frascati and died on 6 August 1889 at 4:30am of cardio-circulatory collapse. His remains were buried in Frascati after the funeral on 10 August 1889, celebrated by Ignazio Perrsico, the Titular Archbishop of Damiata.

Legacy.

In 1940 his native village of Piovà was renamed Piovà Massaia in his honour. In 1952, Italy issued a commemorative stamp celebrating his mission to Ethiopia. Many streets and buildings in Italy are named after Guglielmo Massaia, for example the "Via Cardinale Guglielmo Massaia" in Rome and Turin or the "Museo Etiopico Guglielmo Massaia" in Frascati (Rome).  He was the subject of the 1939 biopic "Cardinal Messias" directed by Goffredo Alessandrini and starring Camillo Pilotto as Massaia. It was awarded the Mussolini Cup at the 1939 Venice Film Festival.

Cause for beatification.

The process for beatification had its origins as far back as 1914 in which documents were collected in a diocesan process that commenced on 5 December 1941 until an unknown date. The "nihil obstat" (nothing against) was granted on 21 July 1987 which allowed for the formal commencement of the cause of beatification and the granting of the title Servant of God.  The Positio was submitted to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 2014 while historians voiced their approval to the cause in a vote undertaken on 21 October 2014. Pope Francis titled him as Venerable on 1 December 2016 upon the confirmation of his life of heroic virtue.

Guglielmo Massaia (9 June 1809 - 6 August 1889), born Lorenzo Massaia, was an Italian cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church who was also a missionary and Capuchin friar. His baptismal name was Lorenzo; he took Guglielmo as religious name.

Guglielmo Massaia OFMCap, gelegentlich auch "Massaja", Taufname "Lorenzo Antonio Massaia" (* 8. Juni 1809 in Piovà Massaia, Piemont; † 6. August 1889 in San Giorgio a Cremano) war ein italienischer katholischer Missionar, Kapuziner und Kardinal.


History.

Mendeley was named after the biologist Gregor Mendel and chemist Dmitri Mendeleyev, and founded in London in November 2007 by three German PhD students. The first public beta version was released in August 2008. The company's investors included some people previously involved with Last.fm, Skype, and Warner Music Group, as well as academics from Cambridge and Johns Hopkins University.

Early success.

Mendeley won several awards in 2009 including Plugg.eu "European Start-up of the Year 2009", TechCrunch Europas "Best Social Innovation Which Benefits Society 2009", and The Guardian ranked it #6 in "Top 100 tech media companies".  In 2012, Mendeley was one of the repositories for green Open Access recommended by Peter Suber. The recommendation was revoked after Elsevier bought Mendeley.

Purchase by Elsevier.

Mendeley was purchased by the academic publisher Elsevier in early 2013. The deal price was speculated to be €50 million (US$65 million). The sale led to debate on scientific networks and in the media interested in Open Access, and upset members of the scientific community who felt that the Mendeley's acquisition by Elsevier was antithetical to Mendeley's open sharing model.  David Dobbs, in "The New Yorker", suggested Elsevier's reasons for buying Mendeley could have been to acquire its user data and/or to "destroy or coopt an open-science icon that threatens its business model." This was contrasted to a non-profit service like Unpaywall, which marketed itself as not susceptible to a sell-out to Elsevier.

Extensions to product line.

After acquisition, Mendeley subsequently extended its product line into new areas while continuing to iterate on its reference manager.  On September 23, 2013, Mendeley announced iPhone and iPad apps. An Android app followed shortly after.  On January 12, 2015, Mendeley announced the acquisition of Newsflo, a service which provided links to press coverage of researchers' work. The functionality was subsequently incorporated into Mendeley Feed and Mendeley Profile.  In April 2016, Mendeley Data, a platform for sharing citable research datasets online, was promoted out of beta.  In October 2016, Mendeley Careers was launched to help researchers to locate job opportunities. As of August 2019, Mendeley Careers offered 295k science and technology job opportunities.  On May 24, 2019, Mendeley announced two new products: Mendeley Reference Manager and Mendeley Cite.

Products.

Mendeley is freemium software.

Incidents.

In 2018, an update to Mendeley resulted in some users losing PDFs and annotations stored in their accounts. Elsevier fixed the issue for most users after a number of weeks.

Mendeley is a company based in London, UK, which provides products and services for academic researchers. It is most known for its reference manager which is used to manage and share research papers and generate bibliographies for scholarly articles.

Mendeley ist ein Literaturverwaltungsprogramm zum Organisieren, Austauschen und Zitieren von wissenschaftlichen Artikeln und PDF-Dokumenten. Die Software wird durch ein Web-Interface ergänzt. Man kann mittels Browser die eigene Bibliothek verwalten und auf Statistiken zugreifen, die aktuelle Trends in der Forschung aufzeigen. Ebenso kann man ein persönliches Profil anlegen und sich in einem sozialen Netzwerk mit weiteren Forschern austauschen.


Early life and career.

After obtaining Abitur 1982 in Königstein im Taunus, Hardt served as a naval officer in the Bundeswehr for four years and studied economics in Heidelberg and Cologne from 1986 to 1993.  From 1992 to 2001 Hardt worked for the federal office of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, including as head of the office of Peter Hintze, the CDU Secretary-General, from 1995 to 1998. From 2001 to 2009 he was a senior manager at household appliances company Vorwerk in Wuppertal.

Political career.

On the national level, Hardt was federal chairman of the Association of Christian Democratic Students (RCDS) from 1987 to 1989. From 2004 to 2009 he served as a member of Wuppertal's city council and chaired the council's committee on economic affairs.  Since 2003 Hardt has been serving as chairman of the Wuppertal county branch of the CDU and since 2005 deputy chairman of the Bergisches Land district branch of the CDU.

Member of the Bundestag, 2009–present.

Hardt was first elected to the Bundestag in the 2009 federal election, representing Solingen – Remscheid – Wuppertal II. He served on the Defense Committee and the Committee on the Affairs of the European Union between 2009 and 2015 before moving to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. He is also a member of the German delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and of the German-Israeli Parliamentary Friendship Group. Hardt defended his seat in parliament by winning the majority of votes in his electoral district in the 2013 election.  In addition to his committee assignments, Hardt succeeded Philipp Mißfelder as Coordinator of Transatlantic Cooperation at the Federal Foreign Office in the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel in April 2014, an office he held until April 2018. Following Mißfelder’s death in 2015, he also took over as foreign policy spokesperson of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group. In the negotiations to form a coalition government under the leadership of Chancellor Angela Merkel following the 2017 federal elections, he was part of the working group on foreign policy, led by Ursula von der Leyen, Gerd Müller and Sigmar Gabriel.

Political positions.

In June 2017, Hardt voted against Germany’s introduction of same-sex marriage. Ahead of the Christian Democrats’ leadership election in 2018, he publicly endorsed Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer to succeed Angela Merkel as the party’s chair.

Jürgen Hardt (born 30 May 1963) is a German politician of the Christian Democratic Union. He currently serves as a member of the Bundestag.

Jürgen Hardt (* 30. Mai 1963 in Hofheim am Taunus) ist ein deutscher Politiker (CDU) und Volkswirt. Er ist außenpolitischer Sprecher der CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion und gehört dem Fraktionsvorstand an. Hardt ist seit 2009 Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages.


Early life.

Ronald James Taylor was born on October 16, 1952 in Galveston, Texas to Marian and Robert "Bruno" Taylor and had two sisters, Roberta and Frances. He attended O'Connell High School, and Wharton County Junior College, where he was a football player, and a participant in the school choir and theater. The choir teacher suggested he join after overhearing him singing The Temptations. He favoured music over football, and at the age of 19 attended the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York, intending to become a singer.

Career.

Theater.

Early theater work.

Taylor, a "barrel-chested bass-baritone", had an extensive career in musical theater. Upon graduating from the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, Taylor was unable to read sheet music and could "barely" play the piano, but found work as a singer. In 1977 he played the Cowardly Lion in a national touring production of "The Wiz". Taylor subsequently played Great Big Baby in the 1978 Broadway production "Eubie!" and Caiaphas in a performance of "Jesus Christ Superstar".  He voiced Audrey II, the "street-smart, funky, conniving" talking killer plant which is an "anthropomorphic cross between a Venus flytrap and an avocado", in the original off-Broadway production of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken's "black-comedy musical" "Little Shop of Horrors" from 1982. Audrey II was played by four increasingly large puppets, operated by Martin P. Robinson, while Taylor sat in a box at the back of the stage to voice the role, standing to perform his musical numbers. The two kept in close proximity to ensure "that voice and action are always synchronized" and "developed a rapport" which was "the only thing that allow[ed] the character to really bloom." Taylor disliked sitting in the box as it left him feeling disconnected from the audience. The part was his break and was described by Jesse McKinley of "The New York Times" as "a role Mr. Taylor's booming voice was made for...[he] soon put his stamp on Audrey's signature line: 'Feed me, feed me!'" Members of the public often used the line when they saw Taylor. "Little Shop of Horrors" was performed over 2000 times before it closed in 1987. At the 1983 Drama Desk Awards, Taylor won the award for Outstanding Special Effects for his performance, which he shared with Robinson.  In the 1984 Broadway production of "The Three Musketeers" at The Broadway Theatre, Taylor played Porthos, one of the three title characters. After fifteen preview performances, the show ran just nine times before closing. Frank Rich wrote that the musketeers were "professionally played" by Taylor and his co-stars Brent Spiner and Chuck Wagner but felt the three had "little dialogue and often seem like interchangeable stand-ins for the Three Stooges." A similar view was held by William B. Collins of the "Philadelphia Inquirer" who said they "speak as in one voice and behave like comedians who have been stranded without good material."

"It Ain't Nothin' But the Blues".

Taylor created and starred in the musical revue "It Ain't Nothin' But the Blues", which charted the history of blues music from its African origin to American success. He conceived the original idea for the show when he played blues musician Rufus Payne in a 1987 production of "", a play about singer Hank Williams at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts in Denver, Colorado. He proposed the idea to director Randal Myler who eventually accepted it in 1994. Taylor co-wrote the revue with Myler, Lita Gaithers, Charles Bevel and Dan Wheetman, and also served as its associate producer. Taylor was the revue's lead singer and acted as its narrator; his numbers included "I'm Your Hoochie Coochie Man", "The Thrill is Gone", "Blues Man" and "Let the Good Times Roll". It was initially performed as a 45-minute production at 25 local high schools. Because of their positive reception, the show was expanded to two hours and 50 songs, with three people being added to the original cast of four, and was regularly performed at the Denver Center.  Taylor described the performance as "very cordial", with the audience close to performers, and that "one show is never the same as the next because of the songs, of what they are. Blues is about how you feel today. One day, you're down; another day is real happy and giddy. We're all laughing. Randy's direction captures that. It's always so personal, bringing the audience into the piece." As well as African music, the revue includes "country, gospel, the old blues, Appalachian music," featuring music by Patsy Cline, Brenda Lee, Mahalia Jackson, Jimmy Rogers, Nina Simone and Muddy Waters.  In 1995, the revue ran for a month at the Cleveland Play House, in conjunction with the opening of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, before touring at other regional theaters. It played at the Crossroads Theatre in New Jersey for seven weeks in November 1998 and opened off-Broadway at New York's New Victory Theater in March 1999, presented by Crossroads Theatre, in association with San Diego Repertory Theatre and Alabama Shakespeare Festival. It was met with critical and audience acclaim and the following month moved to Broadway to the Vivian Beaumont Theater. "New York Times" critic Lawrence Van Gelder wrote that the show had a "cornucopia of splendidly interpreted song," and "is a potent blend of visual eloquence and historical sweep that engages the eye and touches the heart while its songs soothe the ear, occasionally work mischief on the funny bone, and always raise the spirits."  A week after opening at the Beaumont, the show received four Tony Award nominations, with Taylor being nominated for Best Performance by a Featured Actor in a Musical and Best Book of a Musical. The cast's performance on the live Tony Awards show on CBS was bumped due to limited time, sparking controversy, costing the show potential revenue, and damaging its prospects for survival. The cast performed two days later on the CBS talkshow "Late Show with David Letterman", while media attention and radio coverage of the Tony snub boosted the show's takings for the following two weeks. This did not last and did not "build a long-lasting audience like the Tonys could", leading to dwindling attendance. A large word-of-mouth networking campaign to advertise the performance was set up by the producers and the show moved to the Ambassador Theatre, where the box office takes began to break even. The show closed in January 2000 after a total run of eight months on Broadway.  For the rest of the year, "It Ain't Nothin' But the Blues" again toured at regional theaters, running in Atlanta, San Diego, and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington D.C., and returning to New York in August 2000 at the B.B. King Blues Club and Grill for a month-long run. Jim Trageser of "The Press-Enterprise", in a review of one of the San Diego performances, praised Taylor, saying he "has the lung power to simply take over any show, especially his own" and "shows surprising grace and athleticism as well as the kind of leonine masculinity that certain big men (Orson Welles, Babe Ruth) possess". Trageser also praised the writing, calling it "a superb job not only of selecting the songs, but in choosing arrangements that blow away all the cobwebs history has laid on many of them."  "It Ain't Nothin' But the Blues" was the longest-running show Taylor appeared in, as well as his final Broadway appearance. Taylor planned an IMAX film version of the production; and nine years after his death, it was revived by the New Harlem Arts Theater at the Aaron Davis Hall on the City College of New York campus.

Film, television and music.

Taylor had numerous television roles. He voiced jazz musician "Bleeding Gums" Murphy on "The Simpsons", appearing in the first season episode "Moaning Lisa" (1990) and returning for the character's death in the season six episode "'Round Springfield" (1995). He was one of the first people to guest star on the show. Taylor was supposed to reprise his role in the season two episode "Dancin' Homer", but was in New York and unable to record his part. Keith Phipps of "The A.V. Club" said the role gave Taylor "television immortality". He also reprised the role on a recording of Billie Holiday's song "God Bless the Child" on the 1990 "The Simpsons" album "The Simpsons Sing the Blues". He appeared as a Klingon chef in "", and played wrestling instructor Coach Wingate in "Twin Peaks". Other television roles included guest spots on "NYPD Blue", "ER", "Profiler", "Family Matters", "Home Improvement" and "Ally McBeal". Taylor also had a recurring part in the 2000 series "City of Angels", and played a blues singer in a two-part episode of "Matlock", a role that was written for him. He also appeared in more than 20 films. These included "Trading Places", "Amos & Andrew", "A Rage in Harlem" (as Hank), "The Mighty Quinn" and "Rush Hour 2".  After a 1991 appearance on the series "L.A. Law", on which he played a singer sacked by a baseball team for "embellish[ing]" his performances of the American national anthem "The Star-Spangled Banner", Taylor received several invitations to sing it before sports events, although never expected anything to happen when he had taken the part. He sang it before the Major League Baseball game between the Baltimore Orioles and Detroit Tigers on July 1, 1991. His rendition did not mimic that of his character: "the song is self-explanatory. I'm just going to sing the song straightforwardly and that's that." Taylor received travel and accommodation expenses but no other payment for his performance. He also sang for a Los Angeles Kings National Hockey League game, and on August 5, 1995 he sang the anthem before the MLB match between the Cleveland Indians and Chicago White Sox.  Taylor was part of the blues group The Nervis Bros and performed across the United States. He also sang with Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen, Etta James, Slash and Sheila E..

Personal life.

Taylor met DeBorah Sharpe in 1977 during the production of "The Wiz" where she was the understudy for Dorothy. They married in 1980 and had a son, Adamah. In his spare time, Taylor often helped teach vulnerable young people through a variety of projects, including at the George Street Playhouse in New Jersey. He noted "things have come out of the air for me...I'm grateful; that's why I work with kids. I've had a blessing in my career, to have gone as far as I've gone." A 1995 piece in "The Plain Dealer" described Taylor as "A jolly giant of a man, he looks like a natural force – a mountain, perhaps, who can tell great stories." Taylor was a Christian.  Taylor suffered a small stroke in 1999; he was able to perform again in "It Ain't Nothin' But the Blues" 73 days later. He died of a heart attack aged 49, on January 16, 2002, at his home in Los Angeles, California. His funeral took place on January 28 at the New Christ Memorial Church of God in Christ.

Ronald James Taylor (October 16, 1952 – January 16, 2002) was an American actor, singer and writer. He grew up in Galveston, Texas and later moved to New York City to attend the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. After graduating, Taylor began working in musical theater, appearing in "The Wiz" (1977), before getting his break with the 1982 off-Broadway production "Little Shop of Horrors". Taylor voiced the killer plant Audrey II in the show, which ran for five years and over 2,000 performances.

Ron James Taylor (* 16. Oktober 1952 in Galveston, Texas; † 16. Januar 2002 in Los Angeles, Kalifornien) war ein US-amerikanischer Schauspieler und Sänger.