click links in text for more info
SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Sudanese Armed Forces

The Sudanese Armed Forces are the military forces of the Republic of the Sudan. During the 39-month transition to democracy that started in September 2019, the August 2019 Draft Constitutional Declaration defines the Supreme Commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces to be the mixed civilian–military Sovereignty Council. In 2011, IISS estimated the regular forces' numbers at 109300 personnel, while in 2016–2017, the Rapid Support Forces had 40000 members participating in the Yemeni Civil War. During the Omar al-Bashir era, the Sudanese armed forces consisted of the Land Forces, the Sudanese Navy, the Sudanese Air Force, the Popular Defence Forces, they previously had Joint Integrated Units formed together with rebels of the Sudan People's Liberation Army. The Armed Forces operated under the authority of the People's Armed Forces Act 1986. In 1991, the Library of Congress used the term "Sudan People's Armed Forces" to refer to the entire armed forces, but by the late 2000s, the "Sudanese Armed Forces" term was most widespread.

In 2004, the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress estimated that the Popular Defence Forces, the military wing of the National Islamic Front, consisted of 10,000 active members, with 85,000 reserves. The Popular Defence Forces were deployed alongside regular army units against various rebel groups. Article 10. of the August 2019 Draft Constitutional Declaration of the 2019 Sudanese transition to democracy states that the mixed civilian–military "Sovereignty Council is the head of state, the symbol of its sovereignty and unity, the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, Rapid Support Forces, other uniformed forces." Article 34. States that the "armed forces and Rapid Support Forces are a national military institution that protect the unity and sovereignty of the nation" and Article 34. States that the relationship between the military institution and executive authority is to be organised by the "Armed Forces Law and the Rapid Support Forces Law". On 28 October 2019, the chair of the Sovereignty Council, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, issued a decree appointing a new military top-level command, called the General Staff, including Lt. Gen. Mohamed Osmana al-Hassan as Chief of General Satff.

Sudan Tribune interpreted the changes in military leadership as a strategy by al-Burhan to "tighten his grip on the army after the removal of Islamist generals." Sudan receives most of its military equipment from the People's Republic of Russia. Sudan has a weapons production company called the Military Industry Corporation; the origins of the Sudanese Army can be traced to Sudanese soldiers recruited by the British during the reconquest of Sudan in 1898. Sudan became the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1899; the highest-ranking British officer in Egypt, known as the Sirdar served as Governor General of the Sudan. In 1922, after nationalist riots stimulated by Egyptian leader Saad Zaghloul, Egypt was granted independence by the United Kingdom; the Egyptians wanted more oversight in the Sudan and created specialized units of Sudanese auxiliaries within the Egyptian Army called Al-Awtirah. This became the nucleus of the modern Sudanese Army; the British Army formed the Sudan Defence Force as local auxiliaries in 1925.

The SDF consisted of a number of separate regiments. Most were made up of Muslim soldiers and stationed in the north, but the Equatoria Corps in the south was composed of Christians. During World War II, the SDF augmented allied forces engaging Italians in Ethiopia, they served during the Western Desert Campaign, supporting Free French and Long Range Desert Group operations at Kufra and Jalo oases in the Libyan Desert. "In 1947, the Sudanese military schools were closed, the number of Sudanese troops was reduced to 7,570. In 1948, the first Arab-Israeli War broke out. Sudanese Colonel Harold Saleh Al-Malik selected 250 combat-seasoned soldiers who had seen action in World War II, they arrived in Cairo to participate in a parade and were dispatched to various units of the Egyptian army. This was a grave mistake, for the Sudanese had fought together in World War II and this broke unit cohesion; the decision was indicative of Egyptian military planners of the period. Forty-three Sudanese were killed in action in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

In 1953, the British and the new Egyptian government reached an agreement that Sudan was to be put on the path of independence. General Ahmed Mohammed became Sudan's first army chief in August 1954; this is significant for the Sudanese, for it was the first time it had an independent army, not governed by Britain or Egypt." In March 1954 British troops in the Sudan consisted of one battalion stationed in Khartoum, reporting to the Governor-General. The Governor-General's military commander was the Major-General Commanding British Troops in the Sudan, Commandant of the Sudan Defence Force. In this post from 1950 onward was Major General Reginald'Cully' Scoons; the last British troops, 1st Battalion Royal Leicestershire Regiment, left the country on 16 August 1955. All of the British troops were gone by the end of August 1955; the Equatoria Corps mutinied at Torit on 18 August 1955, just before independence, prompting the formation of the Anyanya guerilla movement and the First Sudanese Civ

Commissioner of deeds

A Commissioner of Deeds is an officer having authority to take affidavits, acknowledgments of deeds, etc. for use in the state by which the person is appointed. The office is similar to that of Notaries Public; the office of Commissioner of Deeds is one unique to the United States. During the 19th century, deeds concerning property located in a particular state could only be acknowledged before a Notary Public in that state; because of the difficulty in finding a judge, most states created the office of Commissioner of Deeds to allow state officials to be present in other states to assist with the acknowledgment of instruments intended to be used in the state by which the commissioner was appointed. Over time, states began to accept the notarial acts of notaries in other states and the need for commissioners became eradicated; as a result, most of the states abolished the office during the 20th century. Although at one time at least half of all states appointed such commissioners the only states whose statutes authorize such appointment are the states of Colorado, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

The appointment and commission is granted by the state governor or secretary of state. However in the states which have laws allowing the appointment of commissioners, the majority of these states no longer grant appointments. Only Florida, New Hampshire, New York and West Virginia still allow the appointment of commissioners. In the state of Florida, Commissioners of Deeds are officers appointed by the Governor to take acknowledgments and administer oaths on documents executed outside Florida, but to be used or recorded in connection with a timeshare property located in Florida. Commissioners are appointed to serve in a particular country and may only act in the country to which they are appointed, but they are not required to reside in that country; the office of Commissioners of Deeds in the state of Florida was first created on January 28, 1831, at that time such commissioners could authenticate any document to be used in Florida. The commissioner was appointed to one particular U. S. state or a foreign country, was required to live in that state/country.

However, the Governor at that time requested that the office be abolished, because he claimed that the office had "been used to facilitate fraudulent acts on some occasions." The office in its then-current form was abolished and replaced by the new form of "Timeshare Commissioner of Deeds" on April 30, 1998. In the state of New Hampshire, Commissioners of Deeds are officers appointed by the Governor to a term of five years, who are authorized to administer oaths, take depositions and affidavits, take acknowledgments of deeds and other instruments of writing, for documents intended to be used or recorded in the state of New Hampshire; such commissioners may not be residents of New Hampshire. In the state of New York, a Commissioner of Deeds is an official with duties similar to that of a Notary Public, it is not a paid office. He or she must pass an examination. Commissioners of deeds are appointed en masse in periodic acts of the city council; the powers and rules and regulations are identical to those of a Notary Public, except that the Commissioner of Deeds' authority exists only within the limits of the city for which he or she is appointed, does not extend to the area of the whole state.

Despite the name, their powers are not restricted to certifying signatures on property transfers. A large number of political party officials and activists apply to become commissioners of deeds to certify signatures on nominating petitions in New York's notoriously complex elections process, as the application is cheaper and the registration process less cumbersome than for a notary. New York law authorizes the appointment of commissioners to act in foreign jurisdictions, who are required to use a seal, bearing their name as commissioned, the words "Commissioner of Deeds for the state of New York", the name of the city, country, or other political subdivision in which they have been appointed to act, to authenticate their official acts; such commissioners are appointed to act in a particular city or county, or in a particular foreign country, they may only act within the region to which they are appointed. They are authorized to take acknowledgments to be used or read into evidence within the State of New York.

The executive powers in New York are not appointing any out-of-state commissioners. Prior to July 1, 2003, the executive powers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania required that notaries public be residents of the state. Non-residents were appointed as Commissioners of Deeds, an identical position; the law allows for any person maintaining a regular office located in Pennsylvania to be appointed

Ch√Ęteau de Bourdeilles

The Château de Bourdeilles is a castle located in the commune of Bourdeilles in the Dordogne département in southwestern France. A castle may have existed at Bourdeilles in the 9th century, but the oldest parts of the current castle date from the early 14th century; the castle consists of an octagonal keep, connected to a two-story building of which only the outer walls remain. Next to the old castle, a Renaissance palace was built at the end of the 16th century. Much of the interior decoration has been preserved; the castle and the palace are surrounded by a wall. The entrance gate is protected by two round towers. Since 1919, the château has been listed as a monument historique by the French Ministry of Culture. Dominique Audrerie, Visiter le château de Bourdeilles, Éditions Sud-Ouest, Paris, 2005 ISBN 2-87901-264-3. Marquis de Bourdeille, La maison de Bourdeille, Troyes, 1893. Brigitte et Gilles Deluc, Maurice Lantonnat, Pierre Vidal, "Découverte de bas-reliefs au château de Bourdeilles", B. S.

H. A. P tome XCV-1968. Géraud Lavergne, "Le château de Bourdeilles", in Congrès archéologique de Périgueux de 1927, Paris, 1928. Pierre Pommarède, Brantôme et Bourdeilles oubliés, Éditions Pierre Fanlac, Périgueux, 1980. Jean Secret, Le château de Bourdeilles, Departmental Tourism Office, Périgueux, 1980. Http://www.bourdeilles.com/ Homepage of the château de Bourdeilles at the Semitour Périgord website Ministry of Culture photos

Tre Pievi

The Tre Pievi are a historical territory on the shores of Lake Como, consisting of the villages of Dongo and Gravedona, now part of the Province of Como, Italy. The villages were owned by the city-state of Como from the early medieval period, along with Como passed to the Duchy of Milan in 1335. In 1512, the three villages sought the protection of the Three Leagues. From this time, the villages were administrated by a bailiff designated by the Three Leagues. After the Swiss defeat at the Battle of Marignano in 1515, the three villages again declared their allegiance to the Duchy of Milano, but the Three Leagues refused to recognize this and sent an occupying force. In Perpetual Peace of 1516 between France and Switzerland, the villages were not named so that their de jure affiliation remained uncertain, the king of France demanded that the Three Leagues return the villages to Milan; the Milanese steward of Musso occupied Sorico and Gravedona, resulting in the armed conflict known as Müsserkrieg.

The Three Leagues were forced to abandon their claim on the territory in 1526, it remained part of the Duchy of Milan during the Early Modern period. Martin Bundi: Tre Pievi in German and Italian in the online Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, 2012. Mariuccia Zecchinelli, Ricerche su la Repubblica delle Tre Pievi nel Medioevo, Società storica comense, 1954

Silius Titus

Silius Titus, of Bushey, was an English politician, Captain of Deal Castle, Groom of the Bedchamber to King Charles II. Colonel Titus was an organiser in the attempted escape of King Charles I from Carisbrooke Castle, he was born in the son of Silas Titus, a salter and Constatia Colley. He was educated at Christ Church, where he matriculated in 1638, the Middle Temple. Titus began his political aspirations by writing a pamphlet titled Killing No Murder in 1657 during The Protectorate period of the English Interregnum era of English history; the pamphlet advocated the assassination of Oliver Cromwell. Due to the danger involved in writing such a politically charged opinion against the Protector, Killing No Murder was published under the pseudonym'William Allen'. Cromwell was said to have been so disturbed after the publication of Killing No Murder that he never spent more than two nights in the same place and always took extreme precaution in planning his travel. Titus's authorship of this pamphlet has been disputed in some circles.

These attributions are unfounded as King Charles II awarded Titus the title of Groom of the Bedchamber for his service in authoring the work. Silius Titus first took up arms for the Parliament. Although he was a strong Presbyterian Titus became an ardent Royalist devoted to Charles I and King Charles II, he became a member of parliament, successively representing Ludgershall, Hertfordshire and Ludlow. Though not eloquent, he would illustrate his speeches with a humor that rendered them effective. For instance, when it was complained that Titus made sport of the House of Commons of England, he retorted that "things were not serious because they were dull". Once again, when Charles II offered to impose limitations on a Roman Catholic Church sovereign rather than exclude his brother from the throne, Titus likened such a plan to "having a lion in the lobby and voting to secure ourselves by letting him in and chaining him, rather than by keeping him out". Titus served King James II but transferred his allegiance to William III.

During his life he held a number of royal appointments: Keeper of Deal Castle, Colonel of the Cinque Ports Militia, Commissioner for Assessment for Middlesex, for Kent, for Leicestershire, for Hertfordshire, for Huntingdonshire, Royal Adventurers into Africa, Royal Fishing Company, captain of a company in the Admiral's Regiment, Privy Councillor, Commissioner for Trade and Plantations, Conservator of the Bedford Level, deputy-lieutenant of Hertfordshire and Commissioner for Inquiry into Recusancy Fines. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in January 1669; when he died in 1704, Titus was buried at Bushey. He had married c. 1645 Katherine, daughter of James Winstanley, Counsellor-at-law, of Gray's Inn and Braunstone, Leicestershire. Captain Titus was mentioned in the diary kept by Samuel Pepys on two occasions; the following excerpts come from the entries of those days. 7 May 1660"Very great deal of company come today, among others Mr. Bellasses, Sir Thomas Lenthropp, Sir Henry Chichley, Colonel Philip Honiwood, Captain Titus, the last of whom my Lord showed all our cabins, I suppose he is to take notice what room there will be for the King's entertainment."

11 October 1664"This day with great joy Captain Titus told us the particulars of the French's expedition against Gigery upon the Barbary Coast, in the Straights, with 6,000 chosen men. They have taken the Fort of Gigery, wherein were five men and three guns, which makes the whole story of the King of France's policy and power to be laughed at." Leigh Rayment's Historical List of Charles Harding. "Titus, Silius". Dictionary of National Biography. 56. Pp. 420–422. Edgar Allan Poe Marginalia – Part IV Sixty Years of an Agitator's Life University of Western Ontario: Books Online

Vatsouras and Koupatantze v ARGE

Vatsouras and Koupatantze v ARGE is a case decided by the European Court of Justice which deals with the concepts of'worker' and'social assistance' under European Union law. Two Greek nationals, Mr. Vatsouras and Mr. Koupatantze, took up work in the Federal Republic of Germany, of both a low paid nature and a limited period of time. After this period of employment, they both became involuntarily unemployed; because of their unemployment, they were granted social assistance by the ARGE. After a short period of time however, their assistance was withdrawn, with the ARGE citing a provision of German law which excludes foreign nationals from receiving social assistance if their right of residence arises out of the search of employment; this German provision was based upon Article 24 of the Union Citizenship Directive, which states that Member States are not obliged to provide assistance for more than three months to foreign jobseekers whose right of residence arises out of the search for employment.

Both men unsuccessfully filed an objection against this decision of withdrawal of benefits, after which they appealed to the decision at the Social Court in Nuremberg. The Nuremberg judge decided to refer the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling; the first legal question posed by the Nuremberg Court was Is Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 compatible with Article 18 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 45 TFEU? It is important to note that this legal question relies on the presumption that Mr. Vatsouras and Mr. Koupatantze were not workers within the meaning of article 45 TFEU. If they had been qualified as workers by the German employment agency, they would have been entitled to all German benefits on the basis of Article 24 of the Citizenship Directive, which guarantees equal treatment for workers and prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. However, following the domestic employment agency's assertion that they were not workers, this legal question asks whether or not the refusal of benefits on the basis of article 24 of the Citizenship Directive was compatible with a long line of case law established on the basis of primary EU law articles 18 and 45 TFEU.

Although the Nuremberg Court relied on the presumption that Mr. Vatsouras and Mr. Koupatantze were not workers within the meaning of article 45 TFEU, the European Court of Justice nonetheless expanded on the question of whether or not they should have been qualified as workers; the referring court came to the conclusion that they were not workers on the grounds that Mr. Vatsouras' professional activity did not ensure him a livelihood, Mr. Koupatantze's employment lasted over one month; the short lived and low paid nature of employment therefore prevented a qualification as'worker' within the meaning of article 45 TFEU. The European Court of Justice however, although reaffirming the principle that it is up to the national court to determine if the factual conditions triggering the application of a European Union rule are fulfilled, proceeds to cite several former ECJ rulings that deal with the status of worker. In these cited rulings, the broad nature of the concept of'worker' is emphasised, reiterating the Court's official viewpoint that anybody performing services for a certain period of time for and under the direction of another person, in return of which he receives remuneration, is to be considered a worker within the meaning of article 45 TFEU.

As a consequence, anyone pursuing a real and genuine activity, not purely marginal or ancillary, is to be regarded as a worker, neither the limited amount of remuneration, nor the limited duration of the activity, can be deemed sufficient to exclude a person from falling within the scope of article 45 TFEU. Following the domestic court's hypothesis that Mr. Vatsouras and Mr. Koupatantze were not workers, the European Court of Justice now inquires whether or not the refusal of benefits on the basis of Article 24 of the Citizenship Directive is compatible with the EU primary law provisions articles 18 and 45 TFEU; this question of compatibility between a provision of EU secondary law and the provisions of EU primary law arises because of a long line of case law established by the ECJ on the basis of the latter provisions, which give a broad protection to jobseekers who aren't workers. The Court's reasoning as regards to this main legal question can be subdivided into two separate inferences.

First, the Court cites a multitude of former ECJ case law to define the conditions jobseekers who aren't workers need to fulfill to merit protection under EU primary law. It does so by stating that EU citizens seeking employment in other Member States are workers under article 45 TFEU, that benefits designed to facilitate access to employment in the labour markets of those Member States must be protected under that article as well. However, the Court recalls, a Member State can require a'real link' between the jobseeker and the labour market of the pertaining Member State, a link that can be established if the person concerned has genuinely sought work in the Member State in question for a reasonable period; as a result, the Court comes to two conditions that must be present in order for jobseekers who aren't workers to fall under the protection of EU primary law: they must on the one hand establish a real link with the Member State, on the other hand, only benefits intended to facilitate access to the labour market can qualify.

Second, the Court jumps back to the main compatibility issue, the question of whether or not the fact that Vatsouras and Koupatantze were refused benefits under A