text:
|Overall C78 page [1]
Major Contributor(s): Robert C. Palmer, Dave King
Minor Contributors please initial relevant rows
|Subject Matter
|C78/, no. []
|14 Jan
|Phillip Drancour; James Seager; William Seager; and Mary Seager, infants by said Phillip Dancour v. Elizabeth Price, widow
|re. ordered and decreed that it should be referred to Master Kynaston of this Court to compute what should be due to the complainants for principal and interest on the mortgage in the pleadings in the cause mentioned & to tax the complainants the costs of the suit...
|C78/1767, no. 7 [2]
|18 Jan
|Mary Brice, widow v. John Hatch
|re. loan 20 Jan last past, £700 by John Hatch of Alverstoake [Alverstoke in Gosport, Hants] from
Joesph Bissett of Portsmouth, secured on messuage or tenement, barns, stables, outhouses, edifices, buildings, yards, backsides...at Berry [?Bury Hall] in par. Alverstoake...
|C78/1745, no. 3 [3]
|27 Jan
|Thomas Baily, gent v. Henry Plowman; William Plowman; John Kellett; and Robert Fidell
|re. loan 6 April 1725 £300, by Ann Plowman from Thomas Baily, secured on messuage in the manor of Harringay [Harringey] alias Hornsey , Middx., with one small parcel of land lying before the house 35' by 13'.
|C78/1707, no. 1 [4]
|29 Jan
|Sir John Smith, baronet; and several others since deceased (sic) together with John Lade, esq v. The Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the City of London; and others (sic)
|re. 'An Act for Relief of the Orphans and other Creditors of the City of London' (William and Mary, 1694); aqueducts charged, funding...
|C78/1689, no. 2 [5]
|6 Feb
|John Jesser of Frome Selwood, Som, mercer v. John Phelps of Frome aforesaid, gent
|[vide 1728 C78/1679, no. 2] re. it was ordered and decreed that the defendant John Phelps pay to the said complainant, the sum of £1058, 7 shillings and 3 pence halfpenny on 26 Sept then next at the Chapel of the Rolls in Chancery Lane in the county of Middlesex, between the hours of 11 and 12 of the clock, in the forenoon....
|C78/1679, no. 3 [6]
|8 Feb
|William Newton, eldest son of William Newton, clerk; and Thomas Newton his youngest son, infants by William Taylor their uncle v. Richard Edge, & Rebecca his wife; Sarah Hill, widow; Stephen Wood, son and heir of Anne Wood; Benjamin Cockayne, son and heir of Jane Cockayne; Francis Harvey, son and heir of Mary Harvey; Thomas Newton, & Elizabeth his wife; John Meller; John Odingsells Leeke; and Robert Leacroft
|re. descent of lands and messuages etc. in manor(s) of Clifton, Ashbourne, Brassington and Buxton, Derbs., belonging to late Richard Buxton of Brassington, who was son and heir of late John Buxton...
|C78/1738, no. 5 [7]
|11 Feb
|Elizabeth Hyett, spinster and only daughter of Thomas Hyett her late deceased father and grandfather (sic) of John Hyett late citizen and distiller of London decd v. Thomas Bland; Conrade de Gols; Edward Salway; John Goffe; and John Hyett
|re. will 5 Sept 1719, of John Hyett (complt's g-father) and his very considerable real estate and
very considerable personal estate; will's provisions for complt. Elizabeth Hyett, £2,500 at her age of 21 etc...
|C78/1423, no. 9 [8]
|19 Feb
|Sir Gustavus Hume [of Castle Hume, Berwickshire, Scotland, 3rd Baronet c.1670-1731] v. Thomas Holles, duke of Newcastle; John, duke of Mountague; Alexander Denton esq; Arrabella Godfrey widow; Elizabeth Dunch widow; Sir George Oxenden baronet & Dame Elizabeth his wife; Harriet Dunch; and Arrabella Dunch
|re. loan 23 April 1719 £1,000, by Edmund Dunch from Sir Gustavus Hume, secured on promised annuity of £200 p.a. during their joint lives; penalty of £2,000..
|C78/2075, no. 7 [9]
|24 Feb
|Dame Susannah Kneller, widow and executrix of Sir Godfrey Kneller, knight and baronet, her late husband; Thomas Springall, gent, & Elizabeth his wife; White Wickham, gent, & Ann his wife v. Knightly Danvers; Baynbridge Buckeridge; John Roberts; Godfrey Kneller; Huckle William Cawley; Edward Bing; John Jacob Hemken; and Magdalen Margaretta Hencken; Catherina Maria Kneller; Anna Christiana Kneller; Johanna Kneller; and sophia Eliza Kneller
|re. will 27 April 1723 of Sir Godfrey Kneller [1st Baronet 1646–1723] and his freehold and copyhold lands and hereditaments & a considerable personal estate of South Sea stock, South Sea annuities, ready money, jewels, watches, rings, pictures, very valuable household goods to a very great value....
|C78/1706, no. 9 [10]
|4 March
|Grace Jones, widow v. Ann Archer; John Shish; Joseph Burgess; John Ward, esq; Anthony Simpson, & Sarah his wife; William Blackway; James Hugget, sr; and James Hugget, jr; and others
|re. debts to divers persons of John Bayliffe of the Middle Twmple, London, an indenture of 4 July 1641 & his manor of Weeke alias Wyke with the capital messuage with 10 acres, 3 acres and 6 acres of marsh ground in Week marsh with the Wyke house in par. Hackney, Middx. & also of a messuage, tenement or farm called Combe at Croydon, Surrey; indenture of sale 10 May [1638/9]...
|C78/1790, no. 11 [11]
|6 March
|William Fountain of Linton in Craven, Yorks, gent, nephew and one of the residuary legatees of Richard Fountain of Enfield, Midd, esq; Ann Fountain; William Fountain; Dorothy Fountain; Robert Fountain; Jane Fountain; Christopher Fountain; and Elizabeth Fountain, children of said William Fountain of Linton, infants by said William Fountain their father; Richard Fountain, eldest son of said William Fountain the father; Richard Fountain of Linton; and Hewat Fountain, brothers of said William Fountain; Christopher Atkinson; John Atkinson; Richard Atkinson; William Atkinson; Robert Atkinson; and Mathew Atkinson, children of William Atkinson, gent, by Lydia his wife, niece of said Richard Fountain, infants by said William Atkinson the father; Willliam Booth; and Ann Booth, children of John Booth, gent, by Ann his wife, niece of said Richard Fountain, infants by said John Booth; and the said John Booth, administrator of Jeremiah Booth his son; Thomas Procter; William Procter; George Procter; Anthony Procter, sons of Robert Procter, gent, and Isabell his wife, niece of said Richard Fountain; William Batty, gent, son of Margaret Winterburne one of the sisters of said Richard Fountain by John Batty her husband; William Colton, son of Ann Colton, daughter of said Margaret Winterburne, all of them residuary legatees of the said Richard Fountain; John Noell, gent, & Ann his wife; Ann Colton, sister of said William Colton and another of the residuary legatees of the said Richard Fountain; Mathew Jones, & Margaret his wife, daughter of William Winterburne, nephew of the said Richard Fountain and another of his residuary legatees of said Richard Fountain; Richard Poward, gent, & Elizabeth his wife, another of the cousins and residuary legatees of said Richard Fountain; Robert Appleton, gent, & Frances his wife, another of the residuary legatees of said Richard foundatin
v. Robert Harle; Bridget Colton; James Cook; George Allan; Thomas Jekyll; Benjamin Stgephens, & Christian his wife; and Sir Philip York, knight, Attorney General
|re. will 15 July 1721, of Richard Fountain and his real estate of a very considerable value and also possessed of a very great personal estate of the value of £40,000+, consisting of stock in the Bank of England, South Sea Company the East India Company and other stocks and of several diamonds and other precious stones and several jewels of great value and divers gold and silver medals and several pieces of gold and silver plate, and also of several debts and sums of money, exchequer bills,debentures, lottery tickets, orders, banknotes, exchequer notes, mortgages...; endowment of hospital at Linton in Craven.
|C78/1805, no. 12 [12]
|11 March
|John Hoskyns, & Elizabeth his wife; and John Bartow, which said Elizabeth and Joan were the only surviving children of Thomas Bartow of Crediton, devon, gent, & Elizabeth his wife v. Aaron Smith, & Mary his wife; Thomas Rudd, sr; Thomas Rudd, jr; Elizabeth Mills, widow; William Kirkpatrick
|re. indenture of demise 23 July octavo Jacobi primi [1610/11] by John Courtenay of Trethurfe [Trethurffe in par.of Ladock, near Truro] Cornwall and Edward Courtenay, his bro., to Anthony Cross, one eighth part of a messauge,tenement and garden in Tiverton, Devon for the lives of 3 persons long since deceased...
|C78/1699, no. 3 [13]
|12 March
|John Hopkins lately John Dare v. John Hopkins, esq; Sarah Hopkins; Mary Hopkins; Elizabeth Hopkins; Hannah Hopkins; Amey Hopkins; James Hopkins; Francis Dare; Philip Dare; and James Bamett
|C78/1804, no. na [14]
|13 Mar
|Richard Humphreys v. Francis Moult; Thomas Dutton; and Glysson Maydwell
|re. loan £1,373 16s 4d, 20/21 June 1722, by Doctor Robert Caton from complt. Richard Humphreys secured on messuages, burgages, tenemnts and gardens in Manchester, Lancs.and messuages etc in Millgate Street and messuages in Salford etc... closes in Peniston, Yorks.
|C78/1442, no. 3 [15]
|13 March
|Thomas Gaudy; and John Meering v. Anne Legg, widow and devisee of Thomas Lent the younger, who was grandson and heir of William Hilton, gent; John Legg; John Legg; John Legg the younger of Fort St George, Merthyr; and Thomas Legg the elder
|re. loan 2 Sept 1703 £150, by Thomas Legg from Thomas Gaudy secured on messuage called Crouchmans alias Cooks alias ?Cookshe alias ?Wallen, in Ulting [now part of Maldon], Essex.
|C78/1780, no. 6 [16]
|15 March
|Charles, earl of Tankerville v. Sir George Cooke, knight; Richard Rooth, esq; Hugh Mills, gent, executors of Charles, earl of Tankerville; James, earl of Berkeley; John, lord viscount Limington, & Lady Bridget his wife; William Pawlett, esq, & Annabella his wife; William Wilmer, esq, & Mary his wife; George Gordon, esq, executor of Grey Bennett, esq; Elizabeth Misson; Henry Grey, esq; Charles Bennett, esq commonly called lord Ossulston, an infant, by Charles Skottowe, clek his guardian; and Charles Wilmer an infant by said William Wilmer his guardian
|re. demise 5/6 Dec 1681 by lord Grey [Ford Grey, 1st Earl of Tankerville, 1655–1701] to earl of Berkeley, George Smith, German ireton and thomas Pettit, several honours, castles, lands, messuages, premises and hereditaments in Northumberland, Sussex, London, Middlesex, and in Berwick-upon-Tweed of about £7,000 per annum...
|C78/1755, no. 8 [17]
|19 March
|Barzilla Jones clerk; James Jones clerk eldest son and heir apparent of the said Barzilla Jones; and Capell Jones an infant and only son of the said James Jones v Anne Bentham widow; Elizabeth Bentham widow; Anne Barron widow; William Westbrook and Frances his wife; Anne Barron spinster; George Wharton; Thomas Llupton
|re. descent of capital messuage and lands called Mudlescombe and other lands in divers pars. in Carmarth. & Glam., of Sir Edward Mansell [4th Baronet 1637– 1706].
|C78/1395, no. 6 [18]
|15 April
|Phillip Jones, esq v. Mary Wild; Richard Merriman; Anne Fowler; and Thomas Rowe
|re. complt. importuned by his father Richard Jones, deceased to become bound with him for payment of £192 10s, in July 1709, as security to Benjamin Wild deceased, for notes of credit...
|C78/1742, no. 1 [19]
|19 April
|John Thomas Woolhous esq.[oculist, 1664-1734] v. Thomas Butts; John Watts; Samuel Gillman; John Rawlins; John Graile; Elizabeth Beauchamp; and John Child
|re. will 20 May 1688 of Thomas Woolhouse [1628-1688] and several messuages, lands, tenements and hereditaments in Wapping and elsewhere in Middx.
|C78/2071, no. [20]
|26 April
|Joseph Jeffery clothworker v. William Heath
|re. marriage agreement 9/10 Mar 1710, William Jeffreys and Mary, his wife (complt's parents); pieces or parcels of land of Joseph Brown of Seven Oakes [Sevenoaks, Kent].
|C79/6, no. [21]
|1 May
|Robert Barry, esq, & Elizabeth his wife, sister and heir of Judith Onley, spinster v. William Edgeworth, esq; and Mary Rudge
|re. death 8 Aug 1726, of Judith Onley intestate, and descent of her closes in Upper Catesby [near Daventry], Northnts; the defdnt. pretended to complt. that, shortly before her death, she had made a will...
|C78/1779, no. 2 [22]
|1 May
|James Northleigh; Robert Northleigh; George Northleigh, jr; Thomas Northleigh; Richard Northleigh; John Northleigh; Elizabeth Northleigh; Joanna Northleigh; Rebecca Northleigh, jr; Mary Northleigh; Lucy Northleigh; and Margaret Northleigh, infants by Richard Hole; and the said Richard Hole v. Henry Northleigh; George Northleigh, sr; Robert Hole; Thomas Hole; Joan Nenner; and Rebecca Northleigh, widow
|re. marriage agreement 8 Oct 2Ann [1703-4] James Northleigh and Rebecca, messuages, lands and tenements in Colbrook; complts were younger children of James Northleigh of Colbrook [Colebrooke,], Devon, deceased by defdt, Rebecca, his wife.
|C78/1699, no. 4 [23]
|3 May
|Robert Masters of Southampton, mariner v. Robert Michell of London, merchant, and others
|re. Commissioners of Sick and Wounded Men and Exchange of Prisoners taken in the war with France; concerning expenses, 10s per head, allowed for transporting English POWs from Saint Maloes [Saint-Malo] to Southampton, Portsmouth & Swanage; complt. was master of ship 'Southampton' used for such transportation.
|C78/1823, no. 7 [24]
|5 May
|John Fox; Joseph Fox; William Bingham; Thomas Minnitt; George Cassell yeomen owners and occupiers of land and inhabitants in the parish of Sturton [Sturton le Steeple], Notts on behalf of themselves and all other owners and occupiers of lands and inhabitants of that parish v. Robert Ayd clerk; St Andrew Thornhagh; and the dean and chapter of the cathedral and metropolitan church of St Peter of York
|re. ancient custom (whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary) in par. Sturton that occupiers of land, being also residents of the par., are discharged for payment of tithe for the herbage of their dry, barren and unprofitable...
|C79/72, no. [25]
|8 May
|Susannah Bingham, an infant, by John Potenger, esq; George Farrell, gent; and Thomas Leggett, being legatees of John Kyrle Ernle, esq for themselves and other legatees; William Baskerville; and Dorothy Goldsmith, widow being creditors upon bond of said John Kyrle Ernle for themselves and other creditors upon specialty of said John Kyrle Ernle; ___ Cleveland; and Jonathan Hicks beings creditors upon simple contract of said John Kyrle Ernle v. Constantia Ernle, the younger; Constantia Ernle, widow; Richard Bingham, esq; Ernle Washbourn, esq; and Edward Ernle, esq
|re. will 16 June 1719, of John Kyrle Ernle [1683-1725] and his several manors, lands, tenements and hereditaments in the counties of Wilts. and Hereford & elsewhere to value £2,500+ p.a. and very great personal estate, jewels, plate household goods, stock upon land and other goods and chattels, £300+; his debts.
|C78/1704, no. 2 [26]
|14 May
|Amos Doidge; Walter Coade; John Bird; Samuel Brent; John Vallack; Arthur Crew; and Elizabeth Mayow, creditors and legatees of John Harris late of Manadon, Devon, esq v. Jane Harris the widow and executrix of said John Harris; Elizabeth Harris; John Yeo, & Lucretia his wife; Joanna Harris; John Harris of Hayne, esq; Nicholas Docton; Thomas Were; Thomas Hurrell; John Morshead; John Harris of Radford; Pollexfen Bastard; William Harris; Harry Trelawney; John Elford; Thomas Martin; Samuel Addis; Lucretia Haviland; Harry Elford; Gilbert Simkyn; William Strong; Edmund Cross; Shilstan Calmady; and Phillip Lyne
|re. will 20 Jan 12George [1725], of John Harris of Manadon [?Manaton], Devon; very many bequests and conditions...
|C78/1826, no. 1 [27]
|16 May
|Samuel Hall; & John Thornton v. Thomas Burdus; and James Jones exexcutors of William Hall decd, & also against Ann Hall; John Atley; James Atley; Hester Laroway; William Blower; Sarah Blower; Catherine Green; Hall Reason; Mary Reason; Dorcas Easter; Charles Carter the elder; Mary Howard; Charles Carter the younger; John Bristow and Alice his wife; John Twist and Mary his wife
|re. will 18 May 1724, of William Hall [d. 23 May 1724] and his large number of messuages & tenements described and named in parishes of Bishopsgate Without, St Stephen Coleman St, St Botolph Without Bishopsgate & St Sepulchre's in the City of London, and Newington, Edmonton & Bow Bridge, Middx.
|C78/1449, no. 2 [28]
|24 May
|John, duke of Montagu; and Mary, duchess of Montagu his wife, one of the daughters of the said duke and duchess of Montagu the Lady Mary Montagu another duaghter of the said duke and duchess of Montagu an infant by the said duke of Montagu her father; Elizabeth Montagu widow and relict of Edward Richard Montagu: Willilam Montagu; and Elizabeth Montagu, children of the Elizabeth lady Hunchingbrooe infants by said lady Hunchingbrooke their mother; Edward Harvey, esq; Michael Harvey, esq, son and heir apparent of said Edward harvey esq; Lord Robert Montagu, brother of said William, duke of Manchester v. George, earl of Halifax; James, earl of Barrymore; John Baynes; and Edmund Sawyer
|re. 'An Act for the Sale of Part of the Duke of Montagu's Estate, for the Intents and Purposes therein mentioned; and for settling other Estates, in Lieu thereof, to the same Uses,'3George[1717]; indenture 18 Jan 1704.
|C78/1810, no. 1 [29]
|27 May
|Vincent Giles, gent; and Rene Contencin, churchwardens of Fowy, Corn; William Carlyon; Philip Tringcombe; Jonathan Gearth, sr; and John Burnard overseers of said parish; Philip Goodall of Fowy, gent; Giles Major of Fowy, gent, & Abigail his wife; Mary Dean of Fowy, widow; Jude Parnell of St Mary Ottery, Devon; John Goodall; Thomas Goodall; and William Goodall, all of Fowy, gent, sons of said Phillip Goodall; Clara Goodall of Fowy, spinster, daughter of said Philip Goodall; John Evans, one of the five younger children of Mary Pipon lately Mary Evans of Dartmouth, Devon; and Mary Evans; Timothy Evans; Thomas Pipon; and Joshua Pipon the four other children of said Mary Pipon, infants by said Mary Pipon their mother v. Sir John Coryton, baron of Grigory Stribley; Peter Goodall, an infant; and Elizabeth Goodall an infant
|re. will 19 Dec 1717, of John Goodall of Fowy [Fowey], Cornwall; his considerable real and personal estate in Cornwall; bequests including continuance of his g-father's legacy of £3 p.a. to poor of Fowey.
|C78/1733, no. 9 [30]
|3 June
|Patience Dean of Worcester, widow v. Phillip Pearkes; William Rogers; Robert Fullwood; Thomas Callow; and Gyles Attwood
|re. indentures of lease and release April 1715 and Nov 1721 by Phillip Pearkes and wife Anne to William Mortiboys, a messuage or tenement, situate in Fladbury, Worcs., 'right over against the church there'...
|C78/1543, no. 2 [31]
|5 June
|Charles Cocks, eldest son and heir apparent of John Cocks of Castleditch in Eastnor, Herefs, esq, & Mary his wife, which said Mary was sole daughter only child and heir of Thomas Cocks of Castleditch, esq, an infant of 3 years; Thomas Cocks another of the sons of said John Cocks, & Mary his wife, also an infant of 2 years; and Mary Cocks, daughter of said John Cocks and Mary his wife, an infant of 1 year, by John Brydges, gent v. John Cocks, & Mary his wife; sir Phillip York, knight, Attorney General, & Dame Margaret his wife; James Cocks; Robert Biddulph; and Michael Biddulph, esqs.
|re. will 9 Dec 1723, of Thomas Cocks (complt's g-father); his manors or reputed manors, lands, tenements etc in Heref., Gloucs.,Worcs. & Middx; bequest to cousin John Cocks, second son of his uncle Charles Cocks of Worcester...
|C78/1543, no. 1 [32]
|7 June
|Hugh Bethell esq & Sarah his wife and Mary Williamson executor and executrixes of William Dickenson esq v. Charles Robinson
|re. ordered and decreed that it should be referred to Master Sir Thomas Gerey of this Court to take an account and see what was due to the complainants upon their several mortgages for principal and interest & to tax the complainants the costs of this suit...
|C79/125, no. [33]
|12 June
|John Stevens gentleman & Margaret his wife and John Reynolds v. William Hyde esq
|re. marriage agreement 9/10 June 1704, John Reynolds, the son and Margaet Hyde; ownership of ten messuages: in Goswell St in par. Saint Gyles, Middx. & corner house at end of Billiter Lane in Fenchurch street & one other messuage in Fenchurch Street, formerly owned by John Reynolds. Merchant Taylor of London and Susannah, his wife, parents of complt. John Reynolds.
|C79/11, no. [34]
|12 June
|John Scrimshire, gent; and James Fage, executors of Thomas Landey v. Piercy Griffith, & Alicia his wife; Jane Bennett; and Thomas Dugles, & Sarah his wife
|re. lease 10 June 1700, by John, Duke of Newcastle to Capt. Joseph Bennett a piece or parcel of land with houses thereon, in Haughton Street and Stanhope Street in par. St Clement Danes, Middx; erection of six new houses; loan £100 11 Feb 1716, by Joseph Bennett from Thomas Landey..
|C78/1786, no. 15 [35]
|16 June
|Thomas Berrington, gent; Jonas Berrington, an infant; Hannah Morgan, widow; Elizabeth Parry, widow; and John Watkins, gent v. John Delahay, who was son of Thomas Delahay formerly a defendant in this cause, an infant; Deborah Delahay, widow; Sarah Delahay; Thomas Williams, gent; and John Price, gent
|re. conveyance 25/26 June 1707 £800, of castle of Urishay [near Peterchurch], Heref. & farm called Ponylan [Penilan] with two mills etc...
|C78/1777, no. 7 [36]
|17 June
|Christopher Crow, esq, & Lady Charlott his wife, late wife of Benedict Calvert, lord Baltimore v. Charles, lord Baltimore; Lawrence Elliott, esq, and Margaret, lady Balitmore his wife, late widow and executrix of Charles late lord Baltimore executrix of Benedict, lord Baltimore; Robert Webb; and Roger North esqs, surviving trustee in the marriage settlement
|re. marriage agreement 30/31 Dec 1698, Benedict Calvert [1679-1715], son and heir of Charles, Lord Baltimore [3rd baron], and Charlotte Lee ; messuages, mills, tithes, lands and hereditaments in Kipling [Kiplin], Moulton and Katerick [Catterick], Yorks.
|C78/1831, no. 3 [37]
|18 June
|Alexander Dykes, & Sarah his wife; and Charles Dykes; William Dykes; and Mary Dykes infants by the said Alexander Dykes v. Josiah Wallis, & Mary his wife; John Smith, & Anne his wife
|re. will 5 May 1723, of Samuel Humston Baker (complt. Sarah Dyke's late father), and his considerable personal estate; bequests and debts.
|C78/1833, no. 7 [38]
|19 June
|Richard Cleaver, & Hannah his wife, one of the daughters of Anthony Parry, citizen and haberdasher of London v. James Spurling; Benjamin Whithers; Robert Parry; Anthony Parry; Jane Parry; Elizabeth Parry; John Butler, & Mary his wife
|re. will 15 Nov 1725, of Anthony Parry and his considerable personal estate, £2,500+; £20 to complts. and residue to grandsons...
|C78/1708, no. 2 [39]
|19 June
|Hannah Hoskins, widow v. Rebeccah Travers, widow; Simon Taylor, & his wife; John Tucker, & his wife; Elizabeth Travers; Rebeccah Travers; and George Stephens
|re. will 3 Feb 1688, of Christopher Travers (complt's late father) of West Milton, Dorset; his considerable real and personal estate, bequests
|C78/1706, no. 8 [40]
|1 July
|Edmund Bond; George Hooper; William Camfield; Phillip Seale; Thomas Coyfe; Robert Mercer; Richard Fry; Samuel Wagton; Edward Jarrett; John Wooll; William Welford; John Ketch; Robert Fry; William Jeffery; John Mercer; William Hunt; and Isaac Luckhurst v. Maurice Conyers esq; Boyle Smith esq; Samuel Rose; and Charles Yarwood
|re. ordered and decreed that the defendant Conyers, Lord of the manor of Rusthall [Kent], should pay to such of the complainants who as tenants of the said manor signed the lease of the 15 Sept 1713... the sum of 10 shillings a piece, per annum, being the sum contained in the body of the lease of the 13 Aug 1682....[compensation to freeholders for building of colonnade known as the Pantiles, by previous owner Thomas Neale, on a strip of the common, adjacent to a chalybeate spring].
|C79/9, no. [41]
|8 July
|William Scourfield of Brecon, Co. Brecon and Anne his wife who was daughter, heir and executrix of William Phillips, who was brother, heir and executor of Thomas Phillips of Brecon decd v Mary Griffith widow and Jeremiah Griffith, clerk
|Mortgage by Thomas Powell, father of the deft Mary, of lands called Penycerrig in the parishes of Llanelweth [Llanelwedd] and Disserth, Co. Radnor.
|C78/1394, no. 4 [42]
|8 July
|Thomas Brailsford, esq v. Humphry Brailsford, clerk
|re. descent of messuages, lands, tithes,tenements and hereditaments in Derbs., Leics., Lincs and Notts. belonging to complt's father; competing claims of son and his uncle...
|C78/1798, no. 11 [43]
|8 July
|Thomas Gearinge, together with Michael Dunwell; and George Strode, gent v. Apina Opie, relict and administratrix of Nicholas Opie; Richard Soame; John Fellows; Samuel Bury; George Read; Roger Mott; George Monke; John Holland; and John Busfield
|re. transfer 1 May 1704 of five shares of common stock of the Proprietors of the Water Works of London Bridge & other waterworks by Richard Soames to complt...
|C78/1763, no. 11 [44]
|9 July
|George Bewe of London apothecary v. Samuel Shelton; and Alice Gardiner
|re. indenture of lease 24 Feb 1724, of capital messuage, with stables and coach horses, in Cursitors Alley in par. St Andrews, Holborn, Middx by Elizabeth Palmer, widow at yearly rent; pulling down of said messuage and erection of four new messuages; loan 27 Oct 1726 £1,200, by complt. to defendt.
|C78/1780, no. 21 [45]
|11 July
|Elizabeth Palmer widow and Mary Torlock v. Henry Troughton & Margaret his wife and Catharine Ellis spinster now the wife of Hugh Kenedy
|re. loan £1,000 25 July 1718, by Thomas Ellis from Elizabeth Palmer; indenture dated tertio maii, decimo tertio Anne [1714] Doctor Wynne [c.1661-1743], chancellor of St Asaph demised to Thomas Ellis, the prebend & rectory of LLanyfyed [Llannefydd]...
|C78/163, no. [46]
|15 July
|John Opie of London, merchant v. Barbara Opie, spinster; Thomas ___; and Richard Rowlandson
|re. will 13 Feb 1684 of Barbara Dudeney; debts and bequests.
|C78/1782, no. 17 [47]
|16 July
|James Vernon of St George, Hanover Square, Middx, esq; and Francis Vernon; Charles Vernon; Richard Vernon; and Arethusa Vernon Kemp, the only daughter and all the younger sons of said James Vernon infants by said James Vernon their father v. Edward Vernon of St George, Hanover Square, Middx, esq
|re. will 15 Nov 1728, of Theodosia Vernon, spinster; personal estate and considerable real estate, £4,900 shares or interest in capital stock and funds of the governor and company of the Bank of England...
|C78/1732, no. 1 [48]
|20 July
|William Camfield v. Elizabeth Dewe widow and Mary Walker
|re. ordered and decreed that it should be referred to Master ?Vard of this Court to compute what was due for principal & interest to the complainant, for the £311 10 shillings, contained in the mortgage deed of 26th July 1723...
|C79/11, no. [49]
|22 July
|Henry, duke of Beaufort son and heir of Henry, duke of Beaufort his late father; and Charles, lord Noel Somerset youngest son of the said Henry, duke of Beaufort infants by the Mountague, earl of Abingdon; the Honorable James Bertie; and the Honorable Dodington Greville esqs v. Walter Cary and Samuel Holditch esqs
|re. will 19 Aug 1712 of Henry, late duke of Beaufort [1684-1714]; large capital messuage & divers large gardens, messuages, tenements in par. of Chelsea, Middx. & manors, lands and hereditaments in cos. of Middx, Southampton [Hants], Devon and Dorset...
|C79/60, no. [50]
|22 July
|Thomas Alston, & Mary his wife; William Tatum, clerk, & Catherine his wife; Lucy Killingworth; and Ann Alston, widow v. William Hawkins; Jane Mead; William Mead; and John Mead, executors of John Mead; William Aldey; John Cox; John Lund; and William Robinson
|re. descent of piece of ground and several old decayed messuages or tenements in or near Shugg Lane in par. St James, Westminster, property of late John Killingworth to six daughters (two decsd.); desire to sell properties.
|C78/1755, no. 1 [51]
|22 July
|John Dodd, son and heir of Randall Dodd, esq, an infant v. Francis Columbine, & Margaret his wife; Elizabeth Dodd; Margaret Dodd; Sir Richard Grosvenor; Sir Henry Bunbury; William Stanley; Benjamin Hall
|re. will 15 Feb 1720, of Randall Dodd (complt's late father); manors, messuages, farms, lands, tenements, tithes, woods and hereditaments in pars. of Hillingdon and Hayes, Middx., East and West Compton, ?Bucks and Waverham [?Weaverham], Cheshire, £1,200 p.a; bequests.
|C78/1748, no. 5 [52]
|22 July
|George Lewis Coke, esq, son and heir of Thomas Coke, esq, late vice chamberlain of the household and one of the Privy Council v. John Coke, esq; and John Harding, esq, guardians to the complainant and administrators with the will and codicil annexed of said Thomas Coke during the minority of complainant; and Charlotte Coke, only daughter of said Thomas Coke by Mary, his last wife, an infant by Elizabeth Coke, her aunt and guardian; and Walter Plummer esq
|re. marriage agreement 13/14 Oct 8Anne [1709-10], Thomas Coke [1674-1727] and Mary (complt's parents); honours, manors, messuages, farms, rectories, lands, tenements & hereditaments in Leics, Northants. and Derbs.
|C78/1748, no. 4 [53]
|25 July
|Attorney General, at the relation of Mary Farwell; Elizabeth Abbott; James Elkes; Jane Stephens; Mary Randall; Olive Nevill; Frances Buckeridge; Ann Dewey; Isabella Hill; Hester Andrews; Alice Davidge; Dorothy Eastmond; Jane Whale; Agnes Every; Sarah Mitchell; Frace Bryant; Elizabeth Shadwell; Alice Gibbons; Elizabeth Syms; Jane Walter; Add Harding; Rachel Stuckley; Ann Gardiner; Elizabeth Roberts; Susan Cherry; Mary Withers; Olive Francklyn; Christian Coventry; and Joan Randall, the poor inhabitants of the Hospital of Froxfield, Wilts v. Samuel Grimstone, baronet; Elizabeth Gregory, widow; and William Gregory esq, son and heir of William Gregory, knight
|re. conveyance 14 July 34CharlesII [1683-4] by Sarah, late Duchess of Somerset to sir Harbottle Grimston [1603-1685] and sir Samuel Grimston [1643-1700]; messuages and farms of Wilton and Fifield [Fifield Bavant], Wilts; descent of property.
|C78/1704, no. 3 [54]
|27 July
|Edward Turnour esq; George Ward gentleman & Isabella his wife who was one of the daughters and coheirs of Charles Turnour late of Parendon [Great Parndon in Harlow], Essex, esq who was son and heir of Sir Edward Turnour knight; Dorothea Turnour an infant (one other of the daughters of the aforesaid Charles Turnour) by the said Edward Turnour; and Charles Lee citizen ofLondon one of the creditors of the aforesaid Sir Edward Turnour on the behalf of himself and other creditors of the said Sir Edward Turnour v. Sir William Osbaldiston baronet; Sir Thomas Cross baronet; Nathaniel Pigot; George Lewen; William Newland esqs; and Samuel Roycroft gentleman
|re. will 2 May 1720, of Sir Edward Turnour [1646-1721] of Hallingbury, Essex and his manors, lordships, messuages,lands, tenements in Essex, Herts, Norf., Suff. & Middx; bequest and debts.
|C79/60, no. [55]
|27 July
|Sir George Walter, knight; and William Daw v. Thomas Johnson, Richard Biltys; William Waterman; Lewis Ford; James Urling; Thomas Hampton the younger; Richard Hedger; Richard Finch the younger; and Thomas Jones
|re. will 14 Aug 1725, of Anne Seymour of par.St James, Westminster; inter alia lands in pars. of Langley and Iver, Bucks to be conveyed to six substantial inhabitants of that neighbourhood, on trust, benefit to poor of Langley and Iver...[Almshouse Charity].
|C78/1777, no. 6 [56]
|6 Aug
|George, earl of Cardigan v. Richard, lord bishop of Lincoln [Richard Reynolds 1674–1743] and Ralph Winterton clerk
|re. articles of agreeemnt 20 Mar 1727, concerning inclosed grounds in Little Pannton [Little Ponton], Lincs. [Cardigan conveyed to John Williamson, the late rector of Ponton, certain pieces of inclosed land, in lieu of the glebe lands, and the great and small tythes and composition for tithes, and also all the commons for sheep, cows, and horses, belonging to the said rectory. New rector=Ralph Winterton].
|C78/1917, no. 6 [57]
|6 Aug
|John Crompton; Mary Crompton; Clare Crompton; Anthony Clancy, & Rebecca his wife v. Martha Dymocke, widow; Elizabeth Dymoke; Mary Potter, widow; Elizabeth Potter; Thomas Costin, & Martha his wife; Matha Nicholls; William Sale; Robert Mael; and John Norman
|re. will 20 Aug 1726, of Thomas Boddington [d, 24 Aug 1726]; personal estate £4,000+; annuities; Elizabeth Boddington's will...
|C78/1708, no. 3 [58]
|15 Oct
|Sir Phillip York Attorney General at the relation of the Church Wardens of Dagenham, Essex v Thomas Forbes and Anne his wife; Charles Eaton; and John Biggs
|re. will, 28 Jan 1716, of Richard Uphill of St James' Westminster decd. Annuities due from the duties of beer, ales and other liquors.
|C78/1395, no. 5 [59]
|15 Oct
|Arnault Hawkins v. Thomas Puckeridge, esq
|re. loan 27 Nov 1712 £4000, by Anne Rolle widow, deceased from Francis Rolle, deceased, secured on messuage or tenement in par. Lockerley {Hants].
|C78/1795, no. 12 [60]
|15 Oct
|Ann Walter, widow; Richard Walter; and Arthur Walter, the executors of Richard Walter, citizen and fishmonger of London; Sarah Gregory, widow; and March Tombs, spinster v. Thomas Meager; Joseph Nicholas; John Warden; Joshua Pembroke, esq; Stephen Humble; William Pembroke, an infant; Ann Sophia Meager; Clinton Dowse; and John Marshe; Joseph Haynes; James Mead; and Robert Fransham
|re. loan 8 Mar 1719 £200, by Samuel Meager of St Albans, Herts. from Robert Walter deceased; will of Richard (sic) Walter 20 Nov 1719 and codicil 19 April 1720....
|C78/1739, no. 6 [61]
|27 Oct
|William Baresby v. Richard Elliott; and Zacheus Duckett
|re. loan 14 Apr 1722 £150, by William Baresby [Barsby] from Zacheus Duckett, secured on parcel of land called Pestly Close in Thorpe Satchville, Leics.
|C78/1784, no. 1 [62]
|29 Oct
|Sir Phillip York, knight, Attorney General, at the relation of William Garway; and Daniel Paine of taunton, Som, the then present constables of Taunton; Arthur Towill; and William Langdon; Port Reeves; Joseph Tapley; and Nichola Wodham, bailiffs; William Jeffard; George Culverwell; Edward Hooper; George Grabham; Thomas Dyer; Joseph Case; and John Copon, all of Taunton, for themselves and for the other inhabitants of Taunton and the poor of the town and borough of Taunton
v. Doctor Edmund Archer; Henry Portman; John Bampfield; William Catford; Henry Proctor; Thomas Palmer; William Daggett; Edward Cadby; Charles Cox; Thomas Gunston; Thomas Gale; thomas Westcombe; John Pearce; James Poole; John Purchase; John Standerwick; Thomas Haywood; Thomas Grant; Jeffery Pysing; john Dow; and The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the town and borough of Taunton
|re. lands and tenements belonging to the Feoffees of Taunton Town Lands Charity, invested for poor of the said town and other charitable uses; St James nigh Taunton, St Mary Autery and Up Autry [Ottery St Mary, Devon].
|C78/1754, no. 3 [63]
|10 Nov
|James Clavering, esq; and Thomas Clavering; George Clavering; and John Clavering, infants by said James Clavering their father v. Sir Francis Clavering, baronet; Dame Jane Clavering; Nicholas Fenwick, esq, & Elizabeth his wife; and John Clavering esq; (and added:) Anne Clavering; George Grey, & Alice his wife
|Marriage settlement of James Clavering, of Whitehouse, Co Durham, eldest son & heir of John Clavering decd & grandson & heir apparent to Sir James Clavering of Axwells, Co Durham (grandfather of the complts) & Elizabeth Middleton, daughter of Sir William Middleton. Manor of Axwells & Smallwell [Swalwell] in Whickham parish, messuages etc in Winlington als Winlaton in Ryton parish, messuages etc in Chester parish [Chester-le-Street] (includes a detailed schedule of lands & their tenants).
|C78/1806, no. 9 [64]
|12 Nov
|John Eyles; Sir Thomas Cross; John Rudge; Mathew Lant; Sir Roger Hudson; Edmond Halsey; John Lade; Gabriel Roberts; Sir Richard Hopkins v John Ward; Sir John Blunt; William Mason; and Abraham Cropp
|Refs previous decree of 3 Feb 1 Geo II.
|C78/1397, no. 2 [65]
|13 Nov
|Mary Corfield the wife of Francis Corfield gentleman by Benjamin Farnham ; Gerrald Cranny & Mary his wife; Charles Corfield yeoman; and Elizabeth Corfield; Francis Corfield jr; Anne Corfield; and Jane Corfield infants by said Benjamin Farnham their guardian v. Joseph Arthur; Thomas Southill; and said Francis Corfield
|re. ownership of property including messuage, cottages closes etc. at Prescott in par. Stottesdon [near Cleobury Mortimer], Salop; decree of 9 Dec 1704.
|C78/1891, no. 9 [66]
|13 Nov
|Robert Macartie commonly called Lord Muskerry; Justin Macartie, esq, & Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Paul David, esq, late lord viscount Mount Cashell, Ireland, residuary legatees of the Lady Macartie of St Ann in the Liberty of Westminster, Middx, spinster, who was aunt to the complainant v. Joseph Gibson merchant and others
|C78/1829, no. 9 [67]
|17 Nov
|John Moore esq & Elizabeth his wife v. Richard Marsh and John Lunbrey
|C78/2074, no. 5 [68]
|21 Nov
|Charles, duke of Richmond and Lenox; and Sarah, duchess of Richmond and Lenox his wife; The Lady George Anna Carolina Lenos; and Lady Margaret Lovisa Lenos, only children of the duke and duchess, infants by the said duke their father; and the Honorable James Burdenell, esq v. The Right Honorable Charles, lord Cardigan; Henry Petty, esq, earl of Shelburn, Ireland; and John, lord Carteret, executors of William, late earl of Cadogan; Margaret Cecill, countess dowager Cadogan; and the lady Margaret Cadogan
|C78/1769, no. 1 [69]
|25 Nov
|Thomas Empson gentleman son and heir and executor and residuary legatee of Thomas Empson v. John Green & Mary his wife; John Holroyd & Susannah his wife; Richard Richardson esq; William Green; and John Shaw gentleman
|C79/19, no. [70]
|26 Nov
|John Hutchinson the elder v. John Hutchinson; and Thomas Pochin
|C78/1738, no. 4 [71]
|1 Dec
|Henry Bosse clerk v. Anne Bosse widow; John Knowles; John Accourt; and Walker Weldon esq
|C79/8, no. [72]
|1 Dec
|John Lacy of Gosport, Hants, bricklayer on behalf of himself and other the creditors of Henry Player of Alresford, gent v. Sarah Player; Bistern Martin; and Mary Martin
|C78/1825, no. 10 [73]
|3 Dec
|Richard Blake, clerk; James Oades, gent; Elizabeth Fowler, widow; Henrietta Maria Husband, spinster; Uriah Messiter, gent, & Anne his wife; and William Masters, gent, & Elizabeth his wife, which said Henrietta and Maria Husband, Anne Messiter, and Elizabeth Masters were executors of Richard Husband; Francis Parris; and Anne Louth, widow, executrix of Doctor Simon Louth v. Sarah Bateman, widow; Thomas Gibson, esq; John Jacob, gent; Katherine Lloyd; and Sir William Norwich baronet; and Henry Sawyer, esq
|C78/1837, no. 1 [74]
|3 Dec
|Sir Theodore Jansoen of Wimbledon, Surrey, knight and baronet; and Dame Williamza his wife; Abraham Jansen; Henrietta Jansoen; Henry Jansen; Mary Jansen; and William jansen; and robert Janssen, an infant, by said Sir Theodore Janssen his father, which said Abraham, Henrietta, Henry, Stephen, Theodore, Barbara, Mary, William, and robert are all the children of said Sir Theodore Janssen, by said Dame Williamza v.
|C78/1690, no. 1 [75]
|3 Dec
|Thomas Perry v. John Ward
|C78/1494, no. 9 [76]
|5 Dec
|George Bowes of Streatham Castle, Durham, esq v. Sir Robert Echlin baronet and Dame Elizabeth his wife; Sir Edward Stanley baronet; Thomas Ashurst; and Dorothy Bellingham
|Estate of William Bellingham late of Rufford, Lancs, whose co-heirs were the defts Elizabeth & Dorothy. Manor of Worsall als Worksall als High Worksall, Yorks, with lands etc in Worsall, Kirk Levington, Grisby, High & Low Middleton in Yorks & Co Durham; mansion house in Houghton le Spring, Co Durham called Bellingham Farm and unspecified property in Lancs & Northumberland
|C79/17, no. [77]
|9 Dec
|John Hall of Acton Beauchampe. Worcs; William Kent; Francis Pengrief; William Fifeild; William Luggon; John Watkins; Edmund Fawkes; Henry Jones; John Fifield; Richard Hales; Charles Harber; Thomas Beard; Thomas Goodger; Richard Smith; and Thomas James all copyholders of the manor of Cradley, Herefs; John Mitchell of the town of Bromyard, Herefs; and Elizabeth Hall of the same, widow v. Robert Cotton
|Customs of the manor of Cradley.
|C78/1447, no. 3 [78]
|9 Dec
|Thomas Bradgate an infant by Sarah Merriman, widow, his grandmother v. Thomas Ridlington, gent, executor of Johnb Merriman, gent, uncle of said complainant; and William Bradgate, esq, & Dorcas his wife, father and mother of said complainant
|C78/1811, no. 6 [79]
|11 Dec
|Lancelot Tolson Tilly an infant by James Humberstone of New Inn, Middx, gentleman v. John Simpson esq and John Brome esq and Joseph Tilly & Mary his wife
|C78/2066, no. 3 [80]
|13 Dec
|John Walter and Littleton Meynell v Thomas Alleyne; Reynold Alleyne; and John Alleyne
|Will of Abell Alleyne late of Weston [Weston Green ], Surrey decd. Estate in England and plantations in Barbados.
|C78/1400, no. 2 [81]
|18 Dec
|John Castledge doctor in phisick v. Benarah Beeston and John Lake executors of John Downes and the Right Honorable William Pultener esq; and Harry Pultener esq
|C79/64, no. [82]
|18 Dec
|Elizabeth Gee widow and executrix of Henry Gee decd v. Henry Gee; Elizabeth Gee; Mary Gee; and John Gee
|Complts rights to one third of the personal estate of Henry Gee her late husband, freeman of the City of London, according to the custom of the City of London.
|C78/1459, no. 4 [83]
|19 Dec
|Christian Vaughan of the parish of St Andrews, Holborn, Middx, widow and Arthur Vaughan an infant the son of said Christian Vaughan by said Christian Vaughan v. Richard Hallett esq; Robert Hales esq; Sarah his wife; Thomas Hodges esq & Mary his wife; and Edmund Sutton and Samuel Osborne esqs
|C79/6, no. [84]
|C78/, no. []


text:
Sam Mendes' James Bond flick, Skyfall, the 23rd installment in the famed franchise, opened strongly in the U.K. with $32 million, but has continued that trend to set a one-week box office record. Pulling in $60 million, Skyfall beats out previous seven-day record holder, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, which nabbed $57 million in 2011. Internationally, Skyfall claimed $83 million (up from its initial estimate of $77 million) on its opening day and has since crossed the $100 million mark. This achievement is especially remarkable considering there's no ticket price uptick for 3D. Hit the jump to see what other records Skfyfall has set, and what the positive buzz means for its domestic opening on November 9th.
THR reports that Skyfall continues its record-breaking run in the U.K. A spokesperson for the media analysis company Rentrack said that the lack of 3D in Skyfall apparently had no diminishing effect on audience interest:
"The Bond films attract Bond audiences and most don't care about it being in 3D. They'd have all gone anyway."
Oh, if only that trend applied across the board. By comparison the conclusion to the Harry Potter trilogy pulled in nearly half of its U.K. gross from 3D ticket sales. However, IMAX accounted for $3.5 million of the film's total initial box office take. Skyfall opened in 79 IMAX theaters in 15 territories, netting the format's largest opening ever for a non-holiday, non-summer title. The film also broke the record for the highest opening weekend ever for a Bond film in Brazil.
More Hollywood brass chimed in on the records set overseas with veiled and obvious hopes that the trend continues stateside. MGM chairman and CEO Gary Barber noted:
"The continued record-breaking success of this film is a true testament to all involved and the global power of this 50 year old franchise."
Starring Daniel Craig, Dame Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Berenice Marlohe and Naomie Harris, Skyfall opens in the U.S. November 9th.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The federal government just bought 26,000 acres of land in Arizona, expanding the Petrified Forest National park by more than 10 percent.
The National Park Service paid about $8 million for the land, which was known as the Paulsell Ranch. Much of the newly-acquired land has remained untouched for centuries and likely contains Indian petroglyphs, dinosauer fossils and the famous, rainbow-colored petrified wood the area is known for.
"The opportunity to actually go out into an area that hasn't been worked before by other researchers, the opportunity to find things that are truly new to science — there's a very good chance of that, so it's pretty exciting," Bill Parker, a paleontologist at the park, told The Associated Press. "I think we're definitely going to be able to find some things that are new out there that are really going to enhance the story of the park."
U.S. & World
The day's top national and international news.
Congress more than doubled the boundaries of the park in 2004, from 93,500 acres to about 218,500 acres. But much of the land within the new border remained in private hands. With the latest purchase, Congress has acqured about a third of the 120,000 acres owned privately within the boundaries.
Petrified wood is scattered throughout the undeveloped ranch land. Mike Ford, of the Conservation Fund, which has worked with the federal government to acquire lands for parks, said he's been working on the deal for more than a dozen years.
"I tell people about this part of the world — it's so rough and crude, it has its own beauty," Ford said. "For people who love the Southwest and love those kinds of landscapes, it's isolated, it's remote, it's out there. That crudeness has a beauty that you have to be a desert rat to appreciate."
About 630,000 people visit the park each year.


text:
The One Ring Messageboard
Long as this place runs I'll be here. I can't tell ya how much I appreciate all the hard work that goes into keeping TORC up and running smooth. This place has been a light in the darkness and a life line when life becomes too much. I know that TORC helped save my life, it helped to get me through the worst and it helps me keep it together now. this place makes me laugh and gives me that warm feeling of family and a great place to...
Hobbituk wrote:Welcome back! I remember you well, congratulations on your book.
Calma wrote:Just a quick note to all the mods and Jon
For your hard work on the recent collapse of TORC.
Thank you all for your time and efforts
I, for one, really appreciate what you all did.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


text:
123456789101112 is awesome.
Of course watching it this time I noticed that as the video highlights what seem to be random sequences, the number 2 and 4 are mentioned right after each other, and the then number 12.
The whole video is sync loaded for sure. What isn't really these days?
Two is first said just as a dog takes a ball from a bunch of rainbow baseball players and then sends it down a sync whole to appear in the raised hand of the Statue of Liberty. This right off the bat connects the Dogstar/Sirius and Jupiter via 42 and rainbows (a rainbow REfracts at 42 degrees).
Isis in her 8 ray blue waterstar takes the pinball and sends it to the Washington Monument Obelisk, which takes the pinball and ejaculates it like a canon.
The Obelisk which symbolizes the solar force is also in the middle of an 8 ray star.
Then we reach the number Four, making a good 42 reference in this video. 42 also appears in this video around some heavy occult symbols.
An 8 ray star is related to 42 as well as 4x2 = 8 = Infinity.
Above is a photo of an 8 ray star like the one's in the 123456789101112 video. This photo is from L'Ecole des Beaux Arts.
A the end of the Rainbow is the number 12 and the abyss, the edge.
The Jump into infinity.
I like the big Red button at the top of the Twelve Pyramid in what seems like a sort of alchemical Rainbow Land.
Been thinking some more and it is interesting that the name for the video 123456789101112 is book ended by 12. (1212/2112/1221/ABBA/Father/42/12 O'clock/24 Hours/Midnight).
Stefan mentioned in the comments that this video is sung by the POINTER SISTERS. Pointing to what I wonder?
The names of the original Pointer Sisters are: Anita, Ruth, Bonnie and JUNE.
Happy June 1st everybody!
At home all day watching random stuff. Sorry this clip starts in German but the song is what got me anyways....Kinda relevant....


text: Show Hide image World 11 September 2010 Exclusive essay: India in crisis A powerful indictment of Indian democracy by the Booker Prize-winning novelist and activist. Sign-up The law locks up the hapless felonWho steals the goose from off the common,But lets the greater felon looseWho steals the common from the goose. Anonymous, England, 1821 In the early morning hours of 2 July 2010, in the remote forests of Adilabad, the Andhra Pradesh State Police fired a bullet into the chest of a man called Cherukuri Rajkumar, known to his comrades as Azad. Azad was a member of the politburo of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist), and had been nominated by his party as its chief negotiator for the proposed peace talks with the government of India. Why did the police fire at point-blank range and leave those tell-tale burn marks, when they could so easily have covered their tracks? Was it a mistake or was it a message? They killed a second person that morning – Hem Chandra Pandey, a young journalist who was travelling with Azad when he was apprehended. Why did they kill him? Was it to make sure no eyewitness remained alive to tell the tale? Or was it just whimsy? In the course of a war, if, in the preliminary stages of a peace negotiation, one side executes the envoy of the other side, it is reasonable to assume that the side that did the killing does not want peace. It looks very much as though Azad was killed because someone decided that the stakes were too high to allow him to remain alive. That decision could turn out to be a serious error of judgement – not just because of who he was, but because of the political climate in India today. The Trickle-down Revolution Days after I emerged from the Dandakaranya forest in central India, where I had spent two and a half weeks with the Maoist guerrillas, I found myself charting a weary but familiar course to Jantar Mantar, on Parliament Street in New Delhi. Jantar Mantar is an old observatory built by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II of Jaipur between 1727 and 1734. In those days it was a scientific marvel, used to tell the time, predict the weather and study the planets. Today it's a not-so-hot tourist attraction that doubles up as Delhi's little showroom for democracy. For some years now, protests – unless they're patronised by political parties or religious organisations – have been banned in Delhi. The Boat Club on Rajpath, which has in the past seen huge, historic rallies that sometimes lasted for days, is out of bounds for political activity now, and is available for picnics, balloon-sellers and boat-rides only. As for India Gate, candlelight vigils and boutique protests for middle-class causes – such as "Justice for Jessica", the model who was killed in a Delhi bar by a thug with political connections – are allowed, but nothing more. Section 144, an old 19th-century law that bans the gathering of more than five people – who have "a common object which is unlawful" – in a public place, has been clamped on the city. The law was passed by the British in 1861 to prevent a repeat of the 1857 Mutiny. It was meant to be an emergency measure, but has become a permanent fixture in many parts of India. Perhaps it was in gratitude for laws like these that our prime minister, while accepting an honorary degree from Oxford, thanked the British for bequeathing us such a rich legacy: "Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration, and they have served the country well." Jantar Mantar is the only place in Delhi where Section 144 applies but is not enforced. People from all over the country, fed up with being ignored by the political establishment and the media, converged there, desperately hoping for a hearing. Some take long train journeys. Some, like the victims of the Bhopal gas leak, have walked for weeks, all the way to Delhi. Though they had to fight each other for the best spot on the burning (or freezing) pavement, until recently protesters were allowed to camp in Jantar Mantar for as long as they liked – weeks, months, even years. Under the malevolent gaze of the police and the Special Branch, they would put up their faded shamianas and banners. From here they declared their faith in democracy by issuing their memorandums, announcing their protest plans and staging their indefinite hunger strikes. From here they tried (but never succeeded) to march on parliament. From here they hoped. Of late, though, democracy's timings have been changed. It's strictly office hours now, nine to five. No overtime. No sleepovers. No matter from how far people have come, no matter if they have no shelter in the city – if they don't leave by 6pm they are forcibly dispersed, by the police if necessary, with batons and water cannon if things get out of hand. The new timings were ostensibly instituted to make sure that the 2010 Commonwealth Games that New Delhi is hosting go smoothly. But nobody's expecting the old timings back any time soon. Maybe it's in the fitness of things that what's left of our democracy should be traded in for an event that was created to celebrate the British Empire. Perhaps it's only right that 400,000 people should have had their homes demolished and been driven out of the city overnight. Or that hundreds of thousands of roadside vendors should have had their livelihoods snatched away by order of the Supreme Court so city malls could take over their share of business. And that tens of thousands of beggars should have been shipped out of the city while more than a hundred thousand galley slaves were shipped in to build the flyovers, metro tunnels, Olympic-sized swimming pools, warm-up stadiums and luxury housing for athletes. The Old Empire may not exist. But obviously our tradition of servility has become too profitable an enterprise to dismantle. I was at Jantar Mantar because a thousand pavement dwellers from cities all over the country had come to demand a few fundamental rights: the right to shelter, to food (ration cards), to life (protection from police brutality and criminal extortion by municipal officers). It was early spring. The sun was sharp, but still civilised. This is a terrible thing to have to say, but it's true – you could smell the protest from a fair distance: it was the accumulated odour of a thousand human bodies that had been dehumanised, denied the basic necessities for human (or even animal) health and hygiene for years, if not a whole lifetime. Bodies that had been marinated in the refuse of our big cities, bodies that had no shelter from the harsh weather, no access to clean water, clean air, sanitation or medical care. No part of this great country, none of the supposedly progressive schemes, no single urban institution has been designed to accommodate them. Not the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, not any other slum development, employment guarantee or welfare scheme. Not even the sewage system – they shit on top of it. They are shadow people, who live in the cracks that run between schemes and institutions. They sleep on the streets, eat on the streets, make love on the streets, give birth on the streets, are raped on the streets, cut their vegetables, wash their clothes, raise their children, live and die on the streets. If the motion picture were an art form that involved the olfactory senses – in other words, if cinema smelled – then films like Slumdog Millionaire would not win Oscars. The stench of that kind of poverty wouldn't blend with the aroma of warm popcorn. The people at the protest in Jantar Mantar that day were not even slum dogs, they were pavement-dwellers. Who were they? Where had they come from? They were the refugees of India's shining, the people who are being sloshed around like toxic effluent in a manufacturing process that has gone berserk. The representatives of the more than 60 million people who have been displaced, by rural destitution, by slow starvation, by floods and drought (many of them man-made), by mines, steel factories and aluminium smelters, by highways and expressways, by the 3,300 big dams built since independence and now by Special Economic Zones. They're part of the 830 million people of India who live on less than 20 rupees a day, the ones who starve while millions of tonnes of foodgrain are either eaten by rats in government warehouses or burned in bulk (because it's cheaper to burn food than to distribute it to poor people). They're the parents of the tens of millions of malnourished children in our country, of the two million who die every year before they reach the age of five. They're the millions who make up the chain gangs that are transported from city to city to build the New India. Is this what is known as "enjoying the fruits of modern development"? What must they think, these people, about a government that sees fit to spend $9bn of public money (2,000 per cent more than the initial estimate) for a two-week-long sports extravaganza which, for fear of terrorism, malaria, dengue and New Delhi's new superbug, many international athletes have refused to attend? Which the Queen of England, titular head of the Commonwealth, would not consider presiding over, not even in her most irresponsible dreams. What must they think of the fact that most of those billions have been stolen and salted away by politicians and Games officials? Not much, I guess. Because for people who live on less than 20 rupees a day, money on that scale must seem like science fiction. It probably doesn't occur to them that it's their money. That's why corrupt politicians in India never have a problem sweeping back into power, using the money they stole to buy elections. (Then they feign outrage and ask, "Why don't the Maoists stand for elections?") Standing there, in that dim crowd on that bright day, I thought of all the struggles that are being waged by people in this country – against big dams in the Narmada Valley, Polavaram, Arunachal Pradesh; against mines in Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, against the police by the Adivasis of Lalgarh, against the grabbing of their lands for industries and Special Economic Zones all over the country. How many years (and in how many ways) people have fought to avoid just such a fate. I thought of Maase, Narmada, Roopi, Nity, Mangtu, Madhav, Saroja, Raju, Gudsa Usendi and Comrade Kamla (my young bodyguard during the time I spent with the Maoists in the jungle), with their guns slung over their shoulders. I thought of the great dignity of the forest I had so recently walked in and the rhythm of the Adivasi drums at the Bhumkal celebration in Bastar, like the soundtrack of the quickening pulse of a furious nation. I thought of Padma, with whom I travelled to Warangal. She's only in her thirties but when she walks up stairs she has to hold the banister and drag her body behind her. She was arrested just a week after she had had an appendix operation. She was beaten until she had an internal haemorrhage and had to have several organs removed. When they cracked her knees, the police explained helpfully that it was to make sure she "would never walk in the jungle again". She was released after serving an eight-year sentence. Now she runs the "Amarula Bandhu Mithrula Sangham", the Committee of Relatives and Friends of Martyrs. It retrieves the bodies of people killed in fake encounters. Padma spends her time criss-crossing northern Andhra Pradesh, in whatever transport she can find, usually a tractor, transporting the corpses of people whose parents or spouses are too poor to make the journey to retrieve the bodies of their loved ones. The tenacity, the wisdom and the courage of those who have been fighting for years, for decades, to bring change, or even the whisper of justice to their lives, is something extraordinary. Whether people are fighting to overthrow the Indian state, or fighting against big dams, or only fighting a particular steel plant or mine or SEZ, the bottom line is that they are fighting for their dignity, for the right to live and smell like human beings. They're fighting because, as far as they're concerned, "the fruits of modern development" stink like dead cattle on the highway. ~ On the 15 August, on th 63rd anniversary of India's independence, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh climbed into his bulletproof soapbox in the Red Fort to deliver a passionless, bone-chillingly banal speech to the nation. Listening to him, who would have guessed that he was addressing a country that, despite having the second-highest economic growth rate in the world, has more poor people in eight states than 26 of Africa's poorest countries put together? "All of you have contributed to India's success," he said, "the hard work of our workers, our artisans, our farmers has brought our country to where it stands today . . . We are building a new India in which every citizen would have a stake, an India which would be prosperous and in which all citizens would be able to live a life of honour and dignity in an environment of peace and goodwill. An India in which all problems could be solved through democratic means. An India in which the basic rights of every citizen would be protected." Some would call this graveyard humour. He might as well have been speaking to people in Finland, or Sweden. If our prime minister's reputation for "personal integrity" extended to the text of his speeches, this is what he should have said: Brothers and sisters, greetings to you on this day on which we remember our glorious past. Things are getting a little expensive, I know, and you keep moaning about food prices. But look at it this way – more than 650 million of you are engaged in and are living off agriculture as farmers and farm labour, but your combined efforts contribute less than 18 per cent of our GDP. So what's the use of you? Look at our IT sector. It employs 0.2 per cent of the population and earns us 34 per cent of our national income. Can you match that? It is true that in our country employment hasn't kept pace with growth, but fortunately 60 per cent of our workforce is self-employed. Ninety per cent of our labour force is employed by the unorganised sector. True, they manage to get work only for a few months in the year, but since we don't have a category called "underemployed", we just keep that part a little vague. It would not be right to enter them in our books as unemployed. Coming to the statistics that say we have the highest infant and maternal mortality in the world – we should unite as a nation and ignore bad news for the time being. We can address these problems later, after our Trickle-down Revolution, when the health sector has been completely privatised. Meanwhile, I hope you are all buying medical insurance. As for the fact that the per capita foodgrain availability has actually decreased over the past 20 years – which happens to be the period of our most rapid economic growth – believe me, that's just a coincidence. My fellow citizens, we are building a new India in which our 100 richest people hold assets worth a full 25 per cent of our GDP. Wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands is always more efficient. You have all heard the saying that too many cooks spoil the broth. We want our beloved billionaires, our few hundred millionaires, their near and dear ones and their political and business associates, to be prosperous and to live a life of honour and dignity in an environment of peace and goodwill in which their basic rights are protected. I am aware that my dreams cannot come true by solely using democratic means. In fact, I have come to believe that real democracy flows through the barrel of a gun. This is why we have deployed the army, the police, the Central Reserve Police Force, the Border Security Force, the Central Industrial Security Force, the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, the Eastern Frontier Rifles – as well as the Scorpions, Greyhounds and CoBRAs – to crush the misguided insurrections that are erupting in our mineral-rich areas. Our experiments with democracy began in Nagaland, Manipur and Kashmir. Kashmir, I need not reiterate, is an integral part of India. We have deployed more than half a million soldiers to bring democracy to the people there. The Kashmiri youth who have been risking their lives by defying curfew and throwing stones at the police for the past two months are Lashkar-e-Toiba militants who actually want employment, not azadi. Tragically, 60 of them have lost their lives before we could study their job applications. I have instructed the police from now on to shoot to maim rather than kill these misguided youths. In his seven years in office, Manmohan Singh has allowed himself to be cast as Sonia Gandhi's tentative, mild-mannered underling. It's an excellent disguise for a man who, for the past 20 years, first as finance minister and then as prime minister, has powered through a regime of new economic policies that has brought India into the situation in which it finds itself now. This is not to suggest that Manmohan Singh is not an underling. Only that all his orders don't come from Sonia Gandhi. In his autobiography A Prattler's Tale, Ashok Mitra, former finance minister of West Bengal, tells his story of how Manmohan Singh rose to power. In 1991, when India's foreign-exchange reserves were dangerously low, the Narasimha Rao government approached the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for an emergency loan. The IMF agreed on two conditions. The first was structural adjustment and economic reform. The second was the appointment of a finance minister of its choice. That man, says Mitra, was Manmohan Singh. Over the years he has stacked his cabinet and the bureaucracy with people who are evangelically committed to the corporate takeover of everything – water, electricity, minerals, agriculture, land, telecommunications, education, health – no matter what the consequences. Sonia Gandhi and her son play an important part in all of this. Their job is to run the Department of Compassion and Charisma, and to win elections. They are allowed make (and also to take credit for) decisions which appear progressive but are actually tactical and symbolic, meant to take the edge off popular anger and allow the big ship to keep on rolling. (The most recent example of this is the 26 August rally that was organised for Rahul Gandhi to claim victory for the cancellation of Vedanta's permission to mine Niyamgiri for bauxite – a battle that the Dongria Kondh tribe and a coalition of activists, local as well as international, have been fighting for years. At the rally, Rahul Gandhi announced that he was a "soldier for the tribal people". He didn't mention that the economic policies of his party are predicated on the mass displacement of tribal people. Or that every other bauxite giri – hill – in the neighbourhood was having the hell mined out of it while this "soldier for the tribal people" looked away. Rahul Gandhi may be a decent man. But for him to go around talking about the "two Indias" – the "Rich India" and the "Poor India" – as though the party he represents has nothing to do with it, is an insult to everybody's intelligence, including his own.) The division of labour between politicians who have a mass base and win elections to keep the charade of democracy going, and those who actually run the country but either do not need to win elections (judges and bureaucrats) or have been freed of the constraint of doing so (like the prime minister), is a brilliant subversion of democratic practice. To imagine that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi are in charge of the government would be a mistake. The real power has passed into the hands of a coven of oligarchs – judges, bureaucrats and politicians. They in turn are run like prize racehorses by the few corporations which more or less own everything in the country. They may belong to different political parties and put up a great show of being political rivals, but that's just subterfuge for public consumption. The only real rivalry is the business rivalry between corporations. A senior member of the coven is P Chidambaram, who some say is so popular with the opposition that he may continue to be home minister even if the Congress were to lose the next election. That's probably just as well. He may need a few extra years in office to complete the task he has been assigned. But it doesn't matter if he stays or goes. The die has been rolled. In a lecture at Harvard, his old university, in October 2007, Chidambaram outlined that task. The lecture was called "Poor Rich Countries: the Challenges of Development". He called the three decades after independence the "lost years", and exulted about the GDP growth rate, which rose from 6.9 per cent in 2001 to 9.4 per cent by 2007. What he said is important enough for me to inflict a chunk of his charmless prose on you: One would have thought that the challenge of development – in a democracy – will become less formidable as the economy cruises on a high-growth path. The reality is the opposite. Democracy – rather, the institutions of democracy – and the legacy of the socialist era have actually added to the challenge of development. Let me explain with some examples. India's mineral resources include coal – the fourth-largest reserves in the world – iron ore, manganese, mica, bauxite, titanium ore, chromite, diamonds, natural gas, petroleum and limestone. Common sense tells us that we should mine these resources quickly and efficiently. That requires huge capital, efficient organisation and a policy environment that will allow market forces to operate. None of these factors is present today in the mining sector. The laws in this behalf are outdated and parliament has been able only to tinker at the margins. Our efforts to attract private investment in prospecting and mining have, by and large, failed. Meanwhile, the sector remains virtually captive in the hands of the state governments. Opposing any change in the status quo are groups that espouse – quite legitimately – the cause of the forests or the environment or the tribal population. There are also political parties that regard mining as a natural monopoly of the state and have ideological objections to the entry of the private sector. They garner support from the established trade unions. Behind the unions – either known or unknown to them – stand the trading mafia. The result: actual investment is low, the mining sector grows at a tardy pace and it acts as a drag on the economy. I shall give you another example. Vast extent of land is required for locating industries. Mineral-based industries such as steel and aluminium require large tracts of land for mining, processing and production. Infrastructure projects like airports, seaports, dams and power stations need very large extents of land so that they can provide road and rail connectivity and the ancillary and support facilities. Hitherto, land was acquired by the governments in exercise of the power of eminent domain. The only issue was payment of adequate compensation. That situation has changed. There are new stakeholders in every project, and their claims have to be recognised. We are now obliged to address issues such as environmental impact assessment, justification for compulsory acquisition, right compensation, solatium, rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced persons, alternative house sites and farmland, and one job for each affected family . . . Allowing "market forces" to mine resources "quickly and efficiently" is what colonisers did to their colonies, what Spain and North America did to South America, what Europe did (and continues to do) in Africa. It's what the apartheid regime did in South Africa. What puppet dictators in small countries do to bleed their people. It's a formula for growth and development, but for someone else. It's an old, old, old, old story – must we really go over that ground again? Now that mining licences have been issued with the urgency you'd associate with a knock-down distress sale and the scams that are emerging have run into billions of dollars, now that mining companies have polluted rivers, mined away state borders, wrecked ecosystems and unleashed civil war, the consequence of what the coven has set in motion is playing out. Like an ancient lament over ruined landscapes and the bodies of the poor. Note the regret with which the minister in his lecture talks about democracy and the obligations it entails: "Democracy – rather, the institutions of democracy – and the legacy of the socialist era have actually added to the challenge of development." He follows that up with a standard-issue. meaningless clutch of sops about compensation, rehabilitation and jobs. What compensation? What solatium? What rehabilitation? And what "job for each family"? (Sixty years of industrialisation in India has created employment for 6 per cent of the workforce.) As for being "obliged" to provide "justification" for the "compulsory acqusition" of land, a cabinet minister surely knows that to compulsorily acquire tribal land (which is where most of the minerals are) and turn it over to private mining corporations is illegal and unconstitutional under the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act. Passed in 1996, PESA is an amendment that attempts to right some of the wrongs done to tribal people by the Indian constitution when it was adopted by parliament in 1950. It overrides all existing laws that may be in conflict with it. It is a law that acknowledges the deepening marginalisation of tribal communities and is meant to radically recast the balance of power. As a piece of legislation, it is unique because it makes the community – the collective – a legal entity and it confers on tribal societies who live in scheduled areas the right to self-governance. Under PESA, "compulsory acquisition" of tribal land cannot be justified on any count. So, ironically, those who are being called "Maoists" (which includes everyone who is resisting land acquisition) are actually fighting to uphold the constitution. While the government is doing its best to vandalise it. Between 2008 and 2009 the ministry of Panchayati Raj commissioned two researchers to write a chapter for a report on the progress of Panchayati Raj in the country. The chapter is called "PESA, Left-Wing Extremism and Governance: Concerns and Challenges in India's Tribal Districts"; its authors are Ajay Dandekar and Chitrangada Choudhury. Here are some extracts: The central Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has till date not been amended to bring it in line with the provisions of PESA . . . At the moment, this colonial-era law is being widely misused on the ground to forcibly acquire individual and community land for private industry. In several cases, the practice of the state government is to sign high-profile MOUs with corporate houses and then proceed to deploy the Acquisition Act to ostensibly acquire the land for the state industrial corporation. This body then simply leases the land to the private corporation – a complete travesty of the term "acquisition for a public purpose", as sanctioned by the act. There are cases where the formal resolutions of gram sabha expressing dissent have been destroyed and substituted by forged documents. What is worse, no action has been taken by the state against concerned officials even after the facts got established. The message is clear and ominous. There is collusion in these deals at numerous levels. The sale of tribal lands to non-tribals in the Schedule Five areas is prohibited in all these states. However, transfers continue to take place and have become more perceptible in the post-liberalisation era. The principal reasons are – transfer through fraudulent means, unrecorded transfers on the basis of oral transactions, transfers by misrepresentation of facts and misstating the purpose, forcible occupation of tribal lands, transfer through illegal marriages, collusive title suites, incorrect recording at the time of the survey, land acquisition process, eviction of encroachments and in the name of exploitation of timber and forest produce and even on the pretext of development of welfarism. In their concluding section, they say: The Memorandums of Understanding signed by the state governments with industrial houses, including mining companies should be re-examined in a public exercise, with gram sabhas at the centre of this inquiry. Here it is, then – not troublesome activists, not the Maoists, but a government report calling for the mining MOUs to be re-examined. What does the government do with this document? How does it respond? On 24 April 2010, at a formal ceremony, the prime minster released the report. Brave of him, you'd think. Except, this chapter wasn't in it. It was dropped. Half a century ago, just a year before he was killed, Che Guevara wrote: "When the oppressive forces maintain themselves in power against laws they themselves established, peace must be considered already broken." Indeed it must. In 2009 Manmohan Singh said in parliament: "If left-wing extremism continues to flourish in parts which have natural resources of minerals, the climate for investment would certainly be affected." This was a furtive declaration of war. (Permit me a small digression here, a moment to tell a very short Tale of Two Sikhs. In his last petition to the Punjab governor, before he was hanged by the British government in 1931, Bhagat Singh, the celebrated Sikh revolutionary – and Marxist – said: "Let us declare that the state of war does exist and shall exist so long as India's toiling masses and the natural resources are being exploited by a handful of parasites. They may be purely British capitalist or mixed British and Indian or even purely Indian . . . All these things make no difference.") If you pay attention to many of the struggles taking place in India, people are demanding no more than their constitutional rights. But the government of India no longer feels the need to abide by the Indian constitution, which is supposed to be the legal and moral framework on which our democracy rests. As constitutions go, it is an enlightened document, but its enlightenment is not used to protect people. Quite the opposite. It's used as a spiked club to beat down those who are protesting against the growing tide of violence being perpetrated by a state on its people in the name of the "public good". In a recent article in Outlook, B G Verghese, a senior journalist, came out waving that club in defence of the state and big corporations: "The Maoists will fade away, democratic India and the constitution will prevail, despite the time it takes and the pain involved," he said. To this, Azad replied (it was the last piece he wrote before he was murdered): In which part of India is the constitution prevailing, Mr Verghese? In Dantewada, Bijapur, Kanker, Narayanpur, Rajnandgaon? In Jharkhand, Orissa? In Lalgarh, Jangalmahal? In the Kashmir Valley? Manipur? Where was your constitution hiding for 25 long years after thousands of Sikhs were massacred? When thousands of Muslims were decimated? When lakhs of peasants are compelled to commit suicides? When thousands of people are murdered by state-sponsored Salwa Judum gangs? When Adivasi women are gang-raped? When people are simply abducted by uniformed goons? Your constitution is a piece of paper that does not even have the value of a toilet paper for the vast majority of the Indian people. After Azad was killed, several media commentators tried to paper over the crime by shamelessly inverting what he said, accusing him of calling the Indian constitution a piece of toilet paper. If the government won't respect the constitution, perhaps we should push for an amendment to the preamble. "We, the People of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic . . ." could be substituted with "We, the upper castes and classes of India, having secretly resolved to constitute India into a corporate, Hindu, satellite state . . ." ~ The insurrection in the Indian countryside, in particular in the tribal heartland, poses a radical challenge not only to the Indian state, but to resistance movements, too. It questions the accepted ideas of what constitutes progress, development and, indeed, civilisation itself. It questions the ethics as well as the effectiveness of different strategies of resistance. These questions have been asked before, yes. They have been asked persistently, peacefully, year after year in a hundred different ways – by the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha, the Koel Karo and Gandhamardhan agitations – and hundreds of other people's movements. It was asked most persuasively and perhaps most visibly by the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the anti-dam movement in the Narmada Valley. The government of India's only answer has been repression, deviousness and the kind of opacity that can only come from a pathological disrespect for ordinary people. Worse, it went ahead and accelerated the process of displacement and dispossession to a point where peoples' anger has built up in ways that cannot be controlled. Today the poorest people in the world have managed to stop some of the richest corporations in their tracks. It's a huge victory. Those who have risen up are aware that their country is in a state of emergency. They are aware that, like the people of Kashmir, Manipur, Nagaland and Assam, they too have now been stripped of their civil rights by laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act (CSPSA), which criminalise every kind of dissent – by word, deed and even intent. When Indira Gandhi declared the Emergency at midnight on 25 June 1975, she did it to crush an incipient revolution. Grim as they were, those were days when people still allowed themselves to dream of bettering their lot, to dream of justice. The Naxalite uprising in Bengal had been more or less decimated. But then millions of people rallied to Jayaprakash Narayan's call for "Sampoorna Kranti" (Total Revolution). At the heart of all the unrest was the demand for land to the tiller. (Even back then it was no different – you needed a revolution to implement land redistribution, which is one of the directive principles of the constitution.) Thirty-five years later, things have changed drastically. Justice, that grand, beautiful idea, has been whittled down to mean human rights. Equality is a utopian fantasy. That word has been more or less evicted from our vocabulary. The poor have been pushed to the wall. From fighting for land for the landless, revolutionary parties and resistance movements have had to lower their sights to fighting for people's rights to hold on to what little land they have. The only kind of land redistribution that seems to be on the cards is land being grabbed from the poor and redistributed to the rich for their land banks which go under the name of Special Economic Zones. The landless (mostly Dalits), the jobless, slum-dwellers and the urban working class are more or less out of the reckoning. In places like Lalgarh in West Bengal, people are only asking the police and the government to leave them alone. The Adivasi organisation called the People's Committee Against Police Atrocities (PCAPA) began with one simple demand – that the superintendent of police visit Lalgarh and apologise to the people for the atrocities his men had committed on villagers. That was considered preposterous. (How could half-naked savages expect a government officer to apologise to them?) So people barricaded their villages and refused to let the police in. The police stepped up the violence. People responded with fury. Now, two years down the line, and many gruesome rapes, killings and fake encounters later, it's all-out war. The PCAPA has been banned and dubbed a Maoist outfit. Its leaders have been jailed or shot. (A similar fate has befallen the Chasi Mulya Adivasi Sangh in Narayanpatna in Orissa and the Visthappen Virodhi Ekta Manch in Potka in Jharkhand.) People who once dreamed of justice and equality, and dared to demand land to the tiller, have been reduced to asking for an apology from the police for being beaten and maimed – is this progress? During the Emergency, the saying goes, when Mrs Gandhi asked the press to bend, it crawled. And yet, in those days, there were instances when national dailies defiantly published blank editorials to protest censorship. (Irony of ironies – one of those defiant editors was B G Verghese.) This time around, in the undeclared emergency, there's not much scope for defiance because the media are the government. Nobody, except the corporations which control the media, can tell them what to do. Senior politicians, ministers and officers of the security establishment vie to appear on TV, feebly imploring Arnab Goswami or Barkha Dutt for permission to interrupt the day's sermon. Several TV channels and newspapers are overtly manning Operation Green Hunt's war room and its disinformation campaign. There was the identically worded story about the "1,500-crore Maoist industry", filed under the byline of different reporters in several different papers. Almost all newspapers and TV channels ran stories blaming the PCAPA (used interchangeably with "Maoists") for the horrific train derailment at Jhagram in West Bengal in May 2010, in which 140 people died. Two of the main suspects have been shot down by the police in "encounters", even though the mystery around the train accident is still unravelling. The Press Trust of India put out several untruthful stories, faithfully showcased by the Indian Express, including one about Maoists mutilating the bodies of policemen they had killed. (The denial, which came from the police themselves, was published postage-stamp-size, hidden in the middle pages.) There are the several identical interviews, all of them billed as "exclusive", by the female guerrilla about how she had been "raped and re-raped" by Maoist leaders. She was supposed to have recently escaped from the forests and the clutches of the Maoists to tell the world her tale. Now it turns out that she has been in police custody for months. The atrocity-based analyses shouted out at us from our TV screens are designed to smoke up the mirrors and hustle us into thinking, "Yes, the tribals have been neglected and are having a very bad time; yes, they need development; yes, it's the government's fault, and it's a great pity. But right now there is a crisis. We need to get rid of the Maoists, secure the land, and then we can help the tribals." As war closes in, the armed forces have announced (in the way only they can), that they, too, are getting into the business of messing with our heads. In June 2010 they released two "operational doctrines". One was a joint doctrine for air-land operations. The other was a doctrine on Military Psychological Operations which "constitutes a planned process of conveying a message to select target audiences, to promote particular themes that result in desired attitudes and behaviour, which affect the achievement of political and military objectives of the country . . . The Doctrine also provides guidelines for activities related to perception management in sub-conventional operations, specially in an internal environment wherein misguided population may have to be brought into the mainstream." The press release went on to say that "the Doctrine on Military Psychological Operations is a policy, planning and implementation document that aims to create a conducive environment for the armed forces to operate by using the media available with the Services to their advantage". A month later, at a meeting of chief ministers of Naxalite-affected states, a decision was taken to escalate the war. Thirty-six battalions of the India Reserve Force were added to the existing 105 battalions, and 16,000 Special Police Officers (civilians armed and contracted to function as police) were added to the existing 30,000. The home minister promised to hire 175,000 policemen over the next five years. (It's a good model for an employment guarantee scheme: hire half the population to shoot the other half. You can fool around with the ratios if you like.) Two days later the army chief told his senior officers to be "mentally prepared to step into the fight against Naxalism . . . It might be in six months, or in a year or two, but if we have to maintain our relevance as a tool of the state, we will have to undertake things that the nation wants us to do." By August, newspapers were reporting that the on-again-off-again air force was on again: "The Indian air force [IAF] can fire in self-defence in anti-Maoist operations." The Hindustan Times said, "The permission has been granted but with strict conditionalities. We cannot use rockets or the integral guns of the helicopters and we can retaliate only if fired upon . . . To this end, we have side-mounted machine-guns on our choppers that are operated by our Garuds [IAF commandos]." That's a relief. No integral guns, only side-mounted machine-guns. Maybe "six months or in a year or two" is about as long as it will take for the brigade headquarters in Bilaspur and the airbase in Rajnandgaon to be ready. Maybe by then, in a great show of democratic spirit, the government will give in to popular anger and repeal AFSPA, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (which allows non-commissioned officers to kill on suspicion) in Manipur, Nagaland, Assam and Kashmir. Once the applause subsides and the celebration peters out, AFSPA will be recast, as the home minister has suggested, on the lines of the Jeevan Reddy report (to sound more humane but to be more deadly). Then it can be promulgated all over the country under a new name. Maybe that will give the armed forces the impunity they need to do what "the nation" wants them to do – to be deployed in the parts of India against the poorest of the poor who are fighting for their very survival. Maybe that's how Comrade Kamala will die – while she's trying to bring down a helicopter gunship or a military training jet with her pistol. Or maybe by then she will have graduated to an AK-47 or a light machine-gun looted from a government armoury or a murdered policeman. Maybe by then the media "available to the Services" will have "managed" the perceptions of those of us who still continue to be "misguided" to receive the news of her death with equanimity. So here's the Indian state, in all its democratic glory, willing to loot, starve, lay siege to, and now deploy the air force in "self-defence" against its poorest citizens. Self-defence. Ah yes. Operation Green Hunt is being waged in self-defence by a government that is trying to restore land to poor people whose land has been snatched away by Commie Corporations. When the government uses the offer of peace talks to draw the deep-swimming fish up to the surface and then kill them, do peace talks have a future? Is either side genuinely interested in peace? Are the Maoists' really interested in peace or justice, people ask? Is there anything they can be offered within the existing system that will deflect the Maoists from their stated goal of overthrowing the Indian state? The answer to that is: probably not. The Maoists do not believe that the present system can deliver justice. The thing is that an increasing number of people are beginning to agree with them. If we lived in a society with a genuinely democratic impulse, one in which ordinary people felt they could at least hope for justice, then the Maoists would be only be a small, marginalised group of militants with very little popular appeal. The other contention is that the Maoists want a ceasefire to take the heat off themselves for a while, so that they can use the time to regroup and consolidate their position. Azad, in an interview with The Hindu (14 April 2010), was surprisingly candid about this: "It doesn't need much common sense to understand that both sides will utilise the situation of a ceasefire to strengthen their respective sides." He went on to explain that a ceasefire, even a temporary one, would give respite to ordinary people who are caught in a war zone. The government, on the other hand, desperately needs this war. (Read the business papers to see how desperately). The eyes of the international business community are boring holes into its back. It needs to deliver, and fast. To keep its mask from falling, it must continue to offer talks on the one hand, and undermine them on the other. The elimination of Azad was an important victory because it silenced a voice that had begun to sound dangerously reasonable. For the moment at least, peace talks have been successfully derailed. There is plenty to be cynical about in the discussion around peace talks. The thing for us ordinary folks to remember is that no peace talks means an escalating war. Click here to continue to the second part of this essay. Subscribe For more great writing from our award-winning journalists subscribe for just £1 per month! SUBSCRIBE More


text:
Shields: Campaign 2012 deficits — Humor and humility
By MARK SHIELDS
By MARK SHIELDS
Creators Syndicate
After watching the first two 2012 presidential debates, I only wish that President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney could have personally observed New York City's 1969 election. That year, the city's handsome, charismatic mayor, John V. Lindsay, after a disappointing first term that had begun with unrealistically high expectations, made a TV commercial crafted by his political advisor David Garth, which was nothing less than a mea culpa. Standing in shirtsleeves on the porch of Gracie Mansion and looking directly into the camera, the mayor acknowledged his failures: "I guessed wrong on the weather before the city's biggest snowfall last winter.
And that was a mistake. But I put 6,000 more cops on the streets, and that was no mistake. The school strike went on too long, and we all made some mistakes. But I brought 225,000 more jobs to this town. And that was no mistake. … And we did not have a Detroit, Watts or Newark (all paralyzed by race riots). And those were no mistakes. The things that go wrong are what make this the second toughest job in America. But the things that go right are what make me want it."
After publicly eating humble pie, Mayor Lindsay won re-election. Which brings us to the 2012 presidential campaign, where I have yet to detect so much as a smidgen, let alone an iota, of humility on the part of either the Democratic or the Republican nominee. After the blunder of the Bay of Pigs in 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the press and the people that while "victory has a thousand fathers … failure is an orphan," and that he was personally responsible for the failure. Kennedy's favorable ratings rocketed to 83 percent, the highest level of his administration, prompting JFK to muse, "The worse you do, the better they like you."
To listen to the 2012 standard-bearers is to hear two exceptional individuals who, publicly at least, are total strangers to self-doubt. The first one who straightforwardly admits to having made a policy mistake or failure in judgment could well sew up this election. Also absent from both candidates is any sign of spontaneous humor. Self-deprecating humor is evidence of emotional intelligence.
Criticized for his own more abbreviated hours in the Oval Office, following the dawn-to-midnight work schedule of Jimmy Carter, his White House predecessor, Ronald Reagan could publicly kid himself: "It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figured, why take the chance?"
Don't tell me the Gipper was just delivering a scripted line. He was comfortable and convincing poking fun at himself. There were no comedy writers around when, campaigning for the White House, he was asked by a reporter to autograph a promo photo of Reagan and one of his co-stars, Bonzo the chimpanzee. He inscribed, "I'm the one with the watch." Both Romney and Obama could learn from George W. Bush, who, even though most observers believed he lost all three presidential debates to Sen. John F. Kerry, still won re-election and a majority of the popular vote in 2004. Pollster Peter D. Hart sagely explained that outcome: "Voters preferred I Like over IQ."
One of the reasons they liked Bush was that he could laugh at his own perceived foibles. Addressing his penchant for mispronunciations and occasionally mangled syntax, Bush offered to a press dinner: "You know what Garrison Keillor said the other day? He said that George Bush's lips are where words go to die." I have yet to hear an authentic self-deprecating line from either 2012 nominee. That includes both men's unmemorable routines at this year's Al Smith memorial dinner.
Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama: Instead of more PowerPoint presentations, rehearsed lines of attack and hubris, how about showing us, if you have any, some genuine humility and humor? Voters would cheer, believe me.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.


text:
Azma (Feat. Planet Asia, Phil The Agony, DJ Limegreen) - Let Me Show You [Unsigned Hype]
"Azma - "Let Me Show You" - ft. Planet Asia, Phil the Agony, DJ LimeGreen. Produced by Deville Slim. Off the "Thought You Knew" Lp now available on iTunes. Album features Talib Kweli, Ras Kass, Krondon. Copywrite, Opio, Sadat X, and more. Album now in stores. www.azmainstigater.com for details. "
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
For the people who need the versatility of an estate but want the advanced handling of a modern sports car.
Volvo Diplomatic Car Sales
+44 (0)1279 213999
When looking for a premium car at the lowest possible price, this is the perfect solution. No hustle or complications, just a flat discount off the Volvo diplomat price list. Modern Scandinavian design, world-leading Volvo safety and outstanding quality – get it all in an affordable way.
Including frameless autodimming rear view mirror, grocery bag holder, shimmer graphite aluminium trim, textile/T-Tec upholstery, cruise control and tread plates on the inside, and it is complemented by autofolding mirrors with ground lights, 17" alloy wheels and chrome window surround on the outside.
Volvo V60 T5 AWD Cross Country
Fuel Consumption
Official fuel consumption for the Volvo V60 range in MPG (l/100km): Urban
33.6 (8.4) – 61.4 (4.6), Extra Urban 47.9 (5.9) – 78.5 (3.6), Combined
39.2 (7.2) – 74.3 (3.8). CO2 Emissions 167 – 99g/km.
MPG figures are obtained from laboratory testing intended for comparisons between vehicles and may not reflect real driving results.
Terms & Conditions
Offers are valid for US specification,
left-hand-drive, model year 2017, until further notice. While we try to
make sure that all data are accurate, we are not responsible for
typographical and other errors that may appear. Images may not reflect
the exact specification as the cars on offer.
All prices are in US Dollars.