text:
Joseph Butler

Joseph Butler (18 May 1692 – 16 June 1752) was an English Anglican bishop, theologian, apologist, and philosopher, born in Wantage in the English county of Berkshire (now in Oxfordshire). His principal works are the Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel (1726) and The Analogy of Religion (1736).

He is known for critiques of Deism, Thomas Hobbes's egoism, and John Locke's theory of personal identity. The many philosophers and religious thinkers Butler influenced included David Hume, Thomas Reid, Adam Smith, Henry Sidgwick, John Henry Newman, and C. D. Broad, and is widely seen as "one of the pre-eminent English moralists." He played a major, if underestimated role in developing 18th-century economic discourse, influencing the Dean of Gloucester and political economist Josiah Tucker.

Early life and education
Butler was born on 18 May 1692. The son of a Presbyterian linen draper, Butler was destined for the ministry of that church, and with the future archbishop Thomas Secker, entered Samuel Jones's dissenting academy at Gloucester (later Tewkesbury) for the purpose. There he began a secret correspondence with the Anglican theologian and philosopher Samuel Clarke. In 1714, he decided to join the Church of England and entered Oriel College, Oxford, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1718 and named a Doctor of Civil Law on 8 December 1733.

Church career
Butler was ordained a deacon on 26 October 1718 by William Talbot, Bishop of Salisbury, in his Bishop's Palace, Salisbury, his palace chapel and a priest on 21 December 1718 by Talbot at St James's Church, Piccadilly. After holding various other high positions, he became rector of the rich living of Stanhope, County Durham.

In 1736 Butler became the head chaplain of George II's wife Caroline, on the advice of Lancelot Blackburne. He was nominated Bishop of Bristol on 19 October 1738 and consecrated a bishop on 3 December 1738 at Lambeth Palace chapel. Remaining Bishop of Bristol, Butler was installed Dean of St Paul's on 24 May 1740, keeping the office until his translation to Durham. He is said apocryphally to have declined an offer to become Archbishop of Canterbury in 1747, but he served as Clerk of the Closet to the king in 1746–1752. He was translated to Durham by the confirmation of his election in October 1750; he was then enthroned by proxy on 9 November 1750. He is buried in Bristol Cathedral.

Death and legacy
Butler died in 1752 at Rosewell House, Kingsmead Square in Bath, Somerset. His admirers have praised him as an excellent person and a diligent and conscientious churchman. Though indifferent to literature, he had some taste in the fine arts, especially architecture.

Joseph is remembered in the Church of England with a commemoration on 16 June. He had his own collection of manuscripts (e. g. Lectionary 189).

Attack on deism
During his lifetime and for many years after, Butler was best known for his Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed (1736), which according to historian Will Durant "remained for a century the chief buttress of Christian argument against unbelief." English deists such as John Toland and Matthew Tindal had argued that nature provides clear evidence of an intelligent designer and artificer, but they rejected orthodox Christianity due to the incredibility of miracles and the cruelties and contradictions recorded in the Bible.

Butler's Analogy was one of many book-length replies to the deists, and long believed to be the most effective. Butler argued that nature itself was full of mysteries and cruelties and so shared the same alleged defects as the Bible. Arguing on empiricist grounds that all knowledge of nature and human conduct is merely probable, Butler appealed to a series of patterns ("analogies") observable in nature and human affairs, which in his view make the chief teachings of Christianity likely.

Butler argued that "because nature is a mess of riddles, we cannot expect revelation to be any clearer" Today, Butler's Analogy is "now largely of historical interest," with the only part widely read being the section which deals with his criticism of John Locke's theory of personal identity.

Ethics and moral psychology
A Butler scholar, Stephen Darwall, wrote: "Probably no figure had a greater impact on nineteenth-century British moral philosophy than Butler." Butler's chief target in the Sermons was Thomas Hobbes and the egoistic view of human nature he had defended in Leviathan (1651). Hobbes was a materialist who believed that science reveals a world in which all events are causally determined and in which all human choices flow unavoidably from whatever desire is most powerful in a person at a given time. Hobbes saw human beings as being violent, self-seeking, and power-hungry. Such a view left no place for genuine altruism, benevolence or concept of morality as traditionally conceived.

In the Sermons, Butler argues that human motivation is less selfish and more complex than Hobbes claimed. He maintains that the human mind is an organized hierarchy of a number of different impulses and principles, many of which are not fundamentally selfish. The ground floor, so to speak, holds a wide variety of specific emotions, appetites and affections, such as hunger, anger, fear and sympathy. They, in properly organized minds, are controlled by two superior principles: self-love (a desire to maximize one's own long-term happiness) and benevolence (a desire to promote general happiness). The more general impulses are in turn subject to the highest practical authority in the human mind: moral conscience. Conscience, Butler claims, is an inborn sense of right and wrong, an inner light and monitor, received from God. Conscience tells one to promote the general happiness and personal happiness. Experience informs that the two aims largely coincide in the present life. For many reasons, Butler argues, unethical and self-centred people who care nothing for the public good are not usually very happy.

There are, however, rare cases where the wicked seem for a time to prosper. A perfect harmony of virtue and self-interest, Butler claimed, is guaranteed only by a just God, who in the afterlife rewards and punishes people as they deserve.

Criticism of Locke
In Appendix 1 of the Analogy, Butler offers a famous criticism of John Locke's influential theory of "personal identity", an explanation of what makes someone the "same person" from one time to the next, despite all the physical and psychological changes experienced over that period. Locke claimed that personal identity is not from having the same body or the same soul but from having the same consciousness and memory. According to Locke, memory is the "glue" that ties the various stages of our life together and constitutes sameness of person. This section of the Analogy is the only widely read part of it today.

More precisely, Locke claims, Person A is the same person as Person B only in a case where A and B share at least some of the same memories. Butler said that the way "real" memories can be distinguished from false ones is that people who had the experiences that are truly remembered. Thus, Butler claimed, memory presupposes personal identity and so cannot constitute it.

Veneration
Butler is honoured on the liturgical calendar of the Episcopal Church (USA) on 16 June.

Styles and titles

 * 1692–1718: Joseph Butler Esq.
 * 1718–1733: The Reverend Joseph Butler
 * 1733–1738: The Reverend Doctor Joseph Butler
 * 1738–1752: The Right Reverend Doctor Joseph Butler

Publications

 * Several letters to the Reverend Dr. Clarke, 1716, 1719, 1725 – reprinted in Volume 1 of Gladstone's edition of Butler's works
 * Fifteen sermons preached at the Rolls Chapel, 1726, 1729, 1736, 1749, 1759, 1765, 1769, 1774, 1792
 * The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature, 1736, 1740, 1750, 1754, 1764, 1765, 1771, 1775, 1785, 1788, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1798
 * A sermon preached before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1739
 * A sermon preached before the Right Honourable the Lord-Mayor, 1740
 * A sermon preached before the House of Lords, 1741, 1747
 * A sermon preached in the parish-church of Christ-Church, London, 1745
 * A sermon, preached before His Grace Charles Duke of Richmond, Lenox, and Aubigny, president, 1748, 1751
 * Six sermons preached upon publick occasions, 1749
 * A catalogue of the libraries [...], 1753
 * A charge delivered to the clergy at the primary visitation of the diocese of Durham, 1751, 1786 – reprinted in Volume 2 of Gladstone's edition of Butler's works

title: Joseph Butler


text:
Talk:Plutonium

Natural occurrence
"Plutonium is the element with the highest atomic number known to occur in nature" - not true, see the WIKIPEDIA sites on (1) natural nuclear reactors in Gabon, (2) the Przybylski star...Eudialytos (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Paramagnetism
Someone whose exotic-magnetism chops are less rusty than mine should express an opinion as to whether Study confirms, Plutonium has no Magnetism (currently cited under Science, but no subheading, on Google News) and/or other new Google hits indeed require updating our coverage on the accompanying article, which appears to me be satisfied (as of an unrelated edit an hour ago) with "Magnetic ordering [is] paramagnetic" (in the InfoBox) as the only magnetism-relevant fact. It also makes me wonder if the new result suggests the paramagnetism would extinguish at temperatures sufficiently low that thermal noise is lower than energy-level differences anomalously close between states differing (i presume) in more than a single quantum number ....? (I'd bet there are at least some editors who have a better idea than i about which related but more general quantum-magnetism topics are likely to have been edited by the most suitable editors for the task.) --Jerzy•t 07:51 & 07:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Applications->Mixed oxide fuel->DOE plans for MOX plant
Currently the plans to convert plutonium to MOX fuels are terminated and the proposed approach is "dilute and dispose" - dilute with reactor grade plutonium and dispote at WIPP complex. https://www.nap.edu/resource/25593/interactive/ I propose to adjust the topic accordingly

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Plutonium


text:
Juan de Oñate

Juan de Oñate y Salazar (1550–1626) was a Spanish conquistador from New Spain, explorer, and colonial governor of the province of Santa Fe de Nuevo México in the viceroyalty of New Spain. He led early Spanish expeditions to the Great Plains and Lower Colorado River Valley, encountering numerous indigenous tribes in their homelands there. Oñate founded settlements in the province, now in the Southwestern United States.

Oñate is notorious for the 1599 Acoma Massacre. Following a dispute that led to the ambush and death of thirteen Spaniards at the hands of the Ácoma, including Oñate's nephew, Juan de Zaldívar, Oñate ordered a brutal retaliation against Acoma Pueblo. The Pueblo was destroyed. Around 800–1000 Ácoma were killed.

Today, Oñate remains a controversial figure in New Mexican history: in 1998, the right foot was cut off a statue of the conquistador that stands in Alcalde, New Mexico, in protest of the massacre, and significant controversy arose when a large equestrian statue of Oñate was erected in El Paso, Texas, in 2006. On June 15, 2020, the statue of Oñate in Alcalde, New Mexico was temporarily removed by Rio Arriba County workers at the direction of officials. Civic institutions will make the final decision on the statue's future.

Early years
Oñate was born in 1550, at Zacatecas in New Spain (colonial México), to the Spanish-Basque conquistador and silver baron Cristóbal de Oñate, a descendant of the noble house of Haro. Oñate's mother, Doña Catalina Salazar y de la Cadena, had among her ancestors Jewish-origin New Christians who "served in the royal court of Spanish monarchs from the late 1300s to the mid-1500s." She was of Spanish ancestry and descended from conversos, former Jews, on at least several branches of her family tree. Among these converso relatives was her paternal grandfather, the royal physician Doctor Guadalupe de Salazar. Other family members became Christians in the 1390s, around 160 years before Oñate's birth. Her father was Gonzalo de Salazar, leader of several councils that governed New Spain while Hernán Cortés was traveling to Honduras in 1525–26.

Juan de Oñate married Isabel de Tolosa Cortés de Moctezuma, who was the granddaughter of Hernán Cortés, the conqueror of the Triple Alliance, and the great-granddaughter of the Aztec Emperor Moctezuma Xocoyotzin.

They had two children:
 * Cristóbal de Oñate who married María Gutiérrez del Castillo who had issue, Juan Pérez de Narriahondo y Castillo.
 * María de Oñate who married Vicente de Zaldívar who had issue, Nicolás de Zaldívar y Oñate.

Governorship and 1598 New Mexico expedition

In response to a bid by Juan Bautista de Lomas y Colmenares, and subsequently rejected by the King, on September 21, 1595 Philip II's Viceroy Luís de Velasco selected Oñate from two other candidates to organize the resources of the newly acquired territory.

The agreement with Viceroy Velasco tasked Oñate with two goals; the better-known aim was to explore and colonize the unknown lands annexed into the New Kingdom of León y Castilla (present day New Mexico) and the Viceroyalty of New Spain. His second goal was to capture Capt. Francisco Leyva de Bonilla (a traitor to the crown known to be in the region) as he already was transporting other criminals. His stated objective otherwise was to spread Catholicism by establishing new missions in Nuevo México. Oñate is credited with founding the Province of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, and was the province's first colonial governor, acting from 1598 to 1610. He held his colonial government at Ohkay Owingeh, and renamed the pueblo there 'San Juan de los Caballeros'.

In late 1595, the Viceroy Gaspar de Zúñiga followed his predecessor's advice, and in the summer of 1596 delayed Oñate's expedition in order to review the terms of the original agreement, signed before the previous Viceroy had left office. In March 1598, Oñate's expedition moved out and forded the Rio Grande (Río del Norte) south of present-day El Paso and Ciudad Juárez in late April.

On the Catholic calendar day of Ascension, April 30, 1598, the exploration party assembled on the south bank of the Rio Grande. In an Ascension Day ceremony, Oñate led the party in prayer, as he claimed all of the territory across the river for the Spanish Empire. Oñate's original terms would have made this land a separate viceroyalty to the crown in New Spain; this move failed to stand after de Zúñiga reviewed the agreement.

All summer, Oñate's expedition party followed the middle Rio Grande Valley to present day northern New Mexico, where he engaged with Pueblo Indians. Gaspar Pérez de Villagrá, a captain of the expedition, chronicled Oñate's conquest of New Mexico's indigenous peoples in his epic poem Historia de la Nueva México.

Oñate granted land to colonists on the expedition, and empowered them to demand tribute from Native Americans.

Ácoma Massacre
In October 1598, a skirmish erupted when a squad of Oñate's men stopped to trade for food supplies from the Acoma Pueblo. The Ácoma themselves needed their stored food to survive the coming winter. The Ácoma resisted and 11 Spaniards were ambushed and killed, including Oñate's nephew, Juan de Zaldívar. In January 1599, Oñate condemned the conflict as an insurrection and ordered the pueblo destroyed, a mandate carried out by Juan de Zaldívar's brother, Vicente de Zaldívar, in an offensive known as the Ácoma Massacre. An estimated 800–1,000 Ácoma died in the siege of the pueblo. Much later, when King Philip III of Spain heard the news of the massacre, and the punishments, Oñate was banished from New Mexico for his cruelty to the natives, and exiled from Mexico for five years, convicted by the Spanish government of using "excessive force" against the Acoma people. Oñate later returned to Spain to live out the remainder of his life.

Of the 500 or so survivors, at a trial at Ohkay Owingeh, Oñate sentenced all men and women older than 12 to twenty years of forced "personal servitude". In addition, men older than 25 (24 individuals) were to have a foot amputated. According to recent research, there is no evidence of this happening and that, at most, the prisoners lost some toes. This latter theory makes sense, for losing toes rather than a whole foot left the prisoners useful as servants. In Onate's personal journal, he specifically refers to the punishment of the Acoma warriors as cutting off "las puntas del pie" (the points of the foot, the toes).

Great Plains expedition
In 1601, Oñate undertook a large expedition east to the Great Plains region of central North America. The expedition party included 130 Spanish soldiers and 12 Franciscan priests—similar to the expedition of the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire—and a retinue of 130 American Indian soldiers and servants. The expedition possessed 350 horses and mules. Oñate journeyed across the plains eastward from New Mexico in a renewed search for Quivira, the fabled "city of gold." As had the earlier Coronado Expedition in the 1540s, Oñate encountered Apaches in the Texas Panhandle region.

Oñate proceeded eastward, following the Canadian River into the modern state of Oklahoma. Leaving the river behind in a sandy area where his ox carts could not pass, he went across country, and the land became greener, with more water and groves of Black walnut (Juglans nigra) and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) trees.

Escanjaque people
Jusepe probably led the Oñate party on the same route he had taken on the Umana and Leyba expedition six years earlier. They found an encampment of native people that Oñate called the Escanjaques. He estimated the population at more than 5,000 living in 600 houses. The Escanjaques lived in round houses as large as 90 ft in diameter and covered with tanned buffalo robes. They were hunters, according to Oñate, depending upon the buffalo for their subsistence and planting no crops.

The Escanjaques told Oñate that Etzanoa, a large city of their enemies, the Rayado Indians, was located only about twenty miles away. It seems possible that the Escanjaques had gathered together in large numbers either out of fear of the Rayados or to undertake a war against them. They attempted to enlist the assistance of the Spanish and their firearms, alleging that the Rayados were responsible for the deaths of Humana and Leyva a few years before.

The Escanjaques guided Oñate to a large river a few miles away and he became the first European to describe the tallgrass prairie. He spoke of fertile land, much better than that through which he had previously passed, and pastures "so good that in many places the grass was high enough to conceal a horse." He found and tasted a fruit of good flavor, possibly the pawpaw.

Rayado people
Near the river, Oñate's expedition party and their numerous Escanjaque guides saw three or four hundred Rayados on a hill. The Rayados advanced, throwing dirt into the air as a sign that they were ready for war. Oñate quickly indicated that he did not wish to fight and made peace with this group of Rayados, who proved to be friendly and generous. Oñate liked the Rayados more than he did the Escanjaques. They were "united, peaceful, and settled." They showed deference to their chief, named Caratax, whom Oñate detained as a guide and hostage, although "treating him well."

Caratax led Oñate and the Escanjaques across the river to Etzanoa, a settlement on the eastern bank, one or two miles from the river. The settlement was deserted, the inhabitants having fled. It contained "about twelve hundred houses, all established along the bank of another good-sized river which flowed into the large one [the Arkansas].... the settlement of the Rayados seemed typical of those seen by Coronado in Quivira in the 1540s. The homesteads were dispersed; the houses round, thatched with grass, large enough to sleep ten persons each, and surrounded by large granaries to store the corn, beans, and squash they grew in their fields." With difficulty Oñate restrained the Escanjaques from looting the town and sent them home.

The next day the Oñate expedition proceeded onward for another eight miles through heavily populated territory, although without seeing many Rayados. At this point, the Spaniards' courage deserted them. There were obviously many Rayados nearby and soon Oñate's men were warned that the Rayados were assembling an army. Discretion seemed the better part of valor. Oñate estimated that three hundred Spanish soldiers would be needed to confront the Rayados, and he turned his soldiers around to return to New Mexico.

Return to Nuevo México
Oñate had worried about the Rayados hurting or attacking his expedition party, but it was instead the Escanjaques who repelled his men on their return to New Mexico. Oñate described a pitched battle with 1,500 Escanjaques, probably an exaggeration, but many Spaniards were wounded and many natives killed. After more than two hours of fighting, Oñate himself retired from the battlefield. The hostage Rayado chief Caratax was freed by a raid on Oñate and Oñate freed several women captives, but he retained several boys at the request of the Spanish priests for instruction in the Catholic faith. The attack may have arisen from Oñate's kidnapping of Caratax and the women and children.

Oñate and his men returned to San Juan de los Caballeros, arriving there on November 24, 1601 without any further incidents of note.

Contemporary studies
The path of Oñate's expedition and the identity of the Escanjaques and the Rayados are much debated. Most authorities believe his route led down the Canadian River from Texas to Oklahoma, cross-country to the Salt Fork, where he found the Escanjaque encampment, and then to the Arkansas River and its tributary, the Walnut River at Arkansas City, Kansas where the Rayado settlement was located. Archaeological evidence favors the Walnut River site. A minority view would be that the Escanjaque encampment was on the Ninnescah River and the Rayado village was on the site of present-day Wichita, Kansas.

Authorities have speculated that the Escanjaques were Apache, Tonkawa, Jumano, Quapaw, Kaw, or other tribes. Most likely they were Caddoan and spoke a Wichita dialect. We can be virtually certain that the Rayados were Caddoan Wichitas. Their grass houses, dispersed mode of settlement, a chief named Catarax (Caddi was a Wichita title for a chief), the description of their granaries, and their location all are in accord with Coronado's earlier description of the Quivirans. However, they were probably not the same people Coronado met. Coronado found Quivira 120 miles north of Oñate's Rayados. The Rayados spoke of large settlements called Tancoa—perhaps the real name of Quivira—in an area to the north. Thus, the Rayados were related culturally and linguistically to the Quivirans but not part of the same political entity. The Wichita at this time were not unified, but rather a large number of related tribes scattered over most of Kansas and Oklahoma, so it is not implausible that the Rayados and Escanjaques spoke the same language, but were nevertheless enemies.

Colorado River expedition

Oñate's last major expedition went to the west, from New Mexico to the lower valley of the Colorado River. The party of about three dozen men set out from the Rio Grande valley in October 1604. They traveled by way of Zuñi, the Hopi pueblos, and the Bill Williams River to the Colorado River, and descended that river to its mouth in the Gulf of California in January 1605, before returning along the same route to New Mexico. The evident purpose of the expedition was to locate a port by which New Mexico could be supplied, as an alternative to the laborious overland route from New Spain.

The expedition to the lower Colorado River was important as the only recorded European incursion into that region between the expeditions of Hernando de Alarcón and Melchior Díaz in 1540, and the visits of Eusebio Francisco Kino beginning in 1701. The explorers did not see evidence of prehistoric Lake Cahuilla, which must have arisen shortly afterwards in the Salton Sink.

They mistakenly thought that the Gulf of California continued indefinitely to the northwest, giving rise to a belief that was common in the 17th century that the western coasts of an Island of California were what was seen by sailing expeditions in the Pacific.

Native groups observed living on the lower Colorado River, were, from north to south, the Amacava (Mohave), Bahacecha, Osera (Pima), at the confluence of the Gila River with the Colorado, in a location later occupied by the Quechan, Alebdoma.

Seen by Oñate below the Gila junction but subsequently reported upstream from there, in the area where Oñate had encountered the Coguana, or Kahwans, Agalle, and Agalecquamaya, or Halyikwamai, and the Cocopah.

Concerning areas that the explorers had not observed directly, they gave fantastic reports about races of human and areas said to be rich in gold, silver, and pearls.

Later life
In 1606, Oñate was recalled to Mexico City for a hearing regarding his conduct. After finishing plans for the founding of the town of Santa Fe, he resigned his post and was tried and convicted of cruelty to both natives and colonists. He was banished from New Mexico for life and exiled from Mexico City for five years.

Eventually Oñate went to Spain, where the king appointed him head of all mining inspectors in Spain. He died in Spain in 1626. He is sometimes referred to as "the Last Conquistador."

Legacy
Oñate is honored by some as an explorer but vilified by others for his cruelty to the Keres people of Acoma Pueblo.

New Mexico

Oñate Elementary School in Albuquerque, New Mexico was named after Juan de Oñate and is currently the only public school in New Mexico carrying Oñate's namesake. Oñate High School in Las Cruces, New Mexico was also named after Juan de Oñate, but in 2021, the high school's name was changed to Organ Mountain High School. Juan de Oñate Elementary School in Gallup, New Mexico, was merged with another school to become Del Norte Elementary School in 2017. The street that runs through the historic central business district of Española, New Mexico, is named Paseo de Oñate.

Alcalde statue
In the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Center (until 2017 the Oñate Monument and Visitor Center) in Alcalde, New Mexico, is a 1991 bronze statue dedicated to Oñate. In 1998, New Mexico celebrated the 400th anniversary of his arrival. Shortly before (December 29, 1997), and the close dates are no coincidence, unknown perpetrator(s) cut off the statue's right foot and left a note saying, "Fair is fair." Sculptor Reynaldo Rivera recast the foot, but a seam is still visible. Some commentators suggested leaving the statue maimed as a symbolic reminder of the foot-amputating Acoma Massacre. A local filmmaker, Chris Eyre, was contacted by one of the two perpetrators, saying "I'm back on the scene to show people that Oñate and his supporters must be shamed." The sculptor responded that chopping feet "was the nature of discipline of 400 years ago."

In 2017, the statue's left foot was painted red and the words "Remember 1680" (year of the Pueblo Revolt) were written with paint on the monument's base.

The county of Rio Arriba temporarily removed the statue on June 15, 2020, which followed wider efforts to remove controversial statues across the United States. It is unknown whether the statue will be returned to its place in the future, with a statement from Rio Arriba County Commission stating: "Rio Arriba County residents need to understand that a final policy decision has not been made about the Oñate statue other than its removal today to protect it from damage or destruction. The County Commission welcomes a respectful and civil discussion from its residents about the future of the Oñate statue."

1998 400th anniversary of arrival
A memorial for Oñate was created for the New Mexico Cuarto Centenario (the 400th anniversary of Oñate's 1598 settlement). The memorial was meant to be a tri-cultural collaboration (Hispanic, Anglo, and Tewa Pueblo Native American), with Reynaldo "Sonny" Rivera, Betty Sabo, and Nora Naranjo Morse. Because of the controversy surrounding Oñate, two separate memorials and perspectives were created. Rivera and Sabo did a series of bronze statues of Oñate leading the first group of Spanish settlers into New Mexico titled "La Jornada," while Naranjo-Morse created an abstract land art from the desert itself of a large dirt spiral representing the Native American perspective titled "Numbe Whageh" (Tewa interpretation: Our Center Place). It is located at the Albuquerque Museum.

2014 400th anniversary of exile
In 1614, Oñate was exiled from what is now New Mexico and charged with mismanagement and excessive cruelty, especially at the Acoma massacre in Acoma. In 1599, after killing 500 warriors and 300 women and children, he ordered the right foot be chopped off of all surviving 24 Acoma warriors. Males between the ages of 12 and 25 were also enslaved for 20 years, along with all of the females above the age of 12. When King Phillip of Spain heard the news from Acoma, Oñate was brought up on 30 charges of mismanagement and excessive cruelty. He was found guilty of cruelty, immorality, and false reporting and was exiled to Spain to live out the remainder of his life. 2014 marked the 400th anniversary of Juan de Oñate's exile from New Mexico. Despite his atrocities, Oñate is still celebrated today at the Española Valley Fiestas.

Texas
In 1997 the City of El Paso hired the sculptor John Sherrill Houser to create an equestrian statue of the conquistador. In reaction to protests, two city council members retracted their support for the project. The $2,000,000 statue took nearly nine years to build and was kept in the sculptor's Mexico City warehouse. The statue was completed in early 2006, transported in pieces on flatbed trailers to El Paso during the summer, and installed in October. The controversy over the statue prior to its installation was the subject of the documentary film The Last Conquistador, presented in 2008 as part of PBS's P.O.V. television series. The City of El Paso unveiled the eighteen ton, 34 ft statue in a ceremony on April 21, 2007. Oñate is mounted atop his Andalusian horse and holds the La Toma declaration in his right hand. It is one of the tallest statues in the United States. According to Houser, it is the largest and heaviest bronze equestrian statue in the world.

The statue precipitated controversy due to Oñate being tried and convicted for many crimes including brutality against the Ácoma Pueblo tribe, and was protested by groups such as the Ácoma tribe during the development of the project as well as at the inauguration. To defuse some of the controversy, the statue was renamed "The Equestrian". The statue, however, was welcomed by segments of the local population (including portions of the Hispanic community), and the Spanish ambassador to the United States, Carlos Westendorp. The statue was vandalized in June 2020.

title: Juan de Oñate


text:
Court of Chancery

The Court of Chancery was a court of equity in England and Wales that followed a set of loose rules to avoid a slow pace of change and possible harshness (or "inequity") of the common law. The Chancery had jurisdiction over all matters of equity, including  trusts,  land law, the estates of  lunatics and the guardianship of infants.

Its initial role differed somewhat: as an extension of the lord chancellor's role as Keeper of the King's Conscience, the court was an administrative body primarily concerned with conscientious law. Thus the Court of Chancery had a far greater remit than the common-law courts (whose decisions it had the jurisdiction to overrule for much of its existence) and was far more flexible.

Until the 19th century, the Court of Chancery could apply a far wider range of remedies than common law courts, such as specific performance and injunctions, and had some power to grant damages in special circumstances. With the shift of the Exchequer of Pleas towards a common law court and loss of its equitable jurisdiction by the Administration of Justice Act 1841, the Chancery became the only national equitable body in the English legal system.

Academics estimate that the Court of Chancery formally split from and became independent of the curia regis in the mid-14th century, at which time it consisted of the lord chancellor and his personal staff, the Chancery. Initially an administrative body with some judicial duties, the Chancery experienced an explosive growth in its work during the 15th century, particularly under the House of York ((r. 1461 – 1485)); academics attribute this to its becoming an almost entirely judicial body. From the time of Queen Elizabeth I ((r. 1558 – 1603)) onwards the Court was severely criticised for its slow pace, large backlogs, and high costs. Those problems persisted until its dissolution, despite being mitigated somewhat by reforms, particularly during the 19th century.

Attempts at fusing the Chancery with the common law courts began in the 1850s, and finally succeeded with the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, which dissolved the Chancery and created a new unified High Court of Justice, with the Chancery Division – one of three divisions of the High Court – succeeding the Court of Chancery as an equitable body.

For much of its existence the court was formally led by the lord chancellor, assisted by the judges of the common-law courts. The staff of the court included a large number of clerks, led by the master of the rolls, who regularly heard cases on his own. In 1813 a vice-chancellor was appointed to deal with the Chancery's increasing backlogs, and two more vice-chancellors were appointed in 1841. Lord chancellors sold offices of the Chancery for much of its history, raising large amounts of money. Many of the clerks and other officials held sinecures; the holders, in lieu of wages, charged increasingly exorbitant fees to process cases – one of the main reasons for the high cost of bringing a case to the Court of Chancery.

The 19th century saw the abolition of many sinecure offices and the institution of a wage and pension for the lord chancellor to curb the sale of offices; and later the right to appoint officials was transferred from the chancellor to the Crown.

Origins

The Court of Chancery originated, as did the other high courts before 1875, in the Norman curia regis or King's Council, maintained by most early rulers of England after 1066. Under the feudal system, the council was made up of the monarch, the Great Officers of the Crown and anyone else the monarch allowed to attend. Its jurisdiction was virtually unlimited, with executive, judicial and legislative functions. This large body contained lawyers, peers, and members of the church, many of whom lived far from London. It soon became apparent that it was too unwieldy to deal with the nation's day-to-day business. As a result, a smaller curia was formed to deal with the regular business of the country, and this soon split into various courts: first the exchequer of pleas, to deal with finance, and then the Court of Common Pleas, to deal with "common" cases.

The Chancery started as the personal staff of the lord chancellor, described as "a great secretarial bureau, a home office, a foreign office, and a ministry of justice". The earliest reference to legal issues being sent to him is from 1280, when Edward I of England, annoyed with the number of cases coming to him which could have been dealt with by other elements of his administration, passed a statute saying that:

"all petitions which touch the Seal shall come first to the chancellor; and those which touch the Exchequer, to the exchequer, and those which touch the justices, or the law of the land, to the justices; and those which touch the Jews, to the justices of the Jews. And if the affairs are so great, or if they are of grace, that the chancellor and the others cannot do it without the king, then they shall bring them with their own hands to the king to know his pleasure; so that no petitions shall come before the king, and his Council, but by the hands of his said chancellor, and the other chief ministers; so that the king and his Council may, without the load of other business, attend to the great business of his realm, and of other foreign countries."

Records show dozens of early cases being sent to the lord chancellor and master of the rolls, but at the time the chancellor had no specific jurisdiction to deal with them; the cases were referred to him only as a matter of convenience. Under Edward II the chancellor dedicated set days to hearing pleas, as documented in the records of the Parliament of Lincoln in 1315, which also show that some cases were heard by his personal staff, the Chancery, and not by the chancellor. By 1320 requests were regularly sent there, and heard by the judges of the common law courts, with the rules used to settle cases being those of "law or reason", sometimes simply "reason", a far more liberal and adjustable approach than the common law.

Rise and early years
The Chancery came to prominence after the decline of the Exchequer, dealing with the law of equity, something more fluid and adaptable than the common law. The early Court of Chancery dealt with verbal contracts, matters of land law and matters of trusts, and had a very liberal view when setting aside complaints; poverty, for example, was an acceptable reason to cancel a contract or obligation. Complaints were normally brought via a bill or petition, which had to show that the common law did not provide a remedy for the problem. The Chancery writs were in French, and later English, rather than the Latin used for common law bills. In the reign of Edward III, the court found a fixed home at Westminster Hall, where it sat almost continually until its dissolution. Before this, justice was difficult to dispose because the lord chancellor had to travel with the King wherever he went.

By 1345 the lord chancellor began to be seen as the leader of the Court of Chancery, rather than as a representative of the king, and writs and bills were addressed directly to him. Under Richard II it became practice to consider the Chancery separate from the curia; academic William Carne considers this a key moment in confirming the independence of the Court of Chancery. The chancellor and his clerks often heard the cases directly, rather than having them referred to the council itself; occasionally a committee of lay and church members disposed of them, assisted by the judges of the common law courts. John Baker argues that it was the late 14th century that saw Chancery procedure become fixed, citing the work done by John Waltham as master of the rolls between 1381 and 1386, and notes that this period also saw the first complaints about the Chancery.

The Chancery and its growing powers soon came to be resented by Parliament and the nobility; Carne says that it is possible to trace a general "trend of opposition" during the Plantagenet period, particularly from members of the clergy, who were more used to Roman law than equity. From the reign of Richard II, the House of Commons regularly complained about the work of the court, and in 1390 it petitioned the king to pronounce that the court could not act contrary to the common law, nor annul a judgment without due process. At the same time, it asked that no writ could be issued that would compel a man to appear before the court; if it was, the clerk who issued it would lose his job and the lord chancellor would be fined £100. The king gave evasive answers to the requests, and made no decision. The Commons did succeed in making some changes to the court's procedure, however; in 1394 the King assented to their request that victorious defendants in the court have their costs recompensed from the other side, and in 1341 the king, on their application, allowed the lord chancellor to send cases directly to the common law courts, to avoid the common law judges having to waste time travelling. Kerly suggests that many complaints from the Commons came from lawyers of the common law, aggrieved at the Chancery's extended jurisdiction that overlapped with that of the common law. These complaints from the Commons did not prevent the court from successfully functioning; in 1393, for example, it was considered prominent enough that the House of Lords sent two cases there to be dealt with.

According to many academics, the Court of Chancery really began to expand its caseload during the 15th century; Margaret Avery reports a massive increase in cases during the 1440s, while Nicholas Pronay suggests that the real expansion came during Yorkist rule (1461–85), when the number of cases submitted each year quadrupled. He gives complaints about the perversion of justice in the common law courts, along with growing mercantile and commercial interests, as the main reason for the growth, arguing that this was the period when the Chancery changed from being an administrative body with some judicial functions to "one of the four central courts of the realm ... the growth in the number of [cases] is a primary indicator of the changing position of Chancery". This increasing role was assisted by the changing function of the court: until the late 14th century, private parties could not bring cases to the Chancery as they could to the other courts, while by the 15th century the number of private cases had increased to the point where there were many complaints in Parliament. Marsh writes that another reason for the Chancery's growing influence was the remedies available; through orders of specific performance and injunctions, the court could not only rectify previous wrongs but prevent future wrongs from occurring, while the common law courts were limited to awarding damages.

Chancery's role in development of Standard English
Chancery English, used in official documents, can be seen as the beginnings of Standard English – a national standard of spelling and grammar. By the 15th century, the City of Westminster had been the seat of government administration for about three centuries. After about 1430, the use of English in administrative documents replaced French which had been used since the Norman conquest. Consequently, the written English that developed at the Court of Chancery eventually became a standard, both in its style of handwriting ('Chancery hand') and in its grammar and vocabulary. By the 1440s and 1450s comparative regularisation of spelling had begun to emerge.

Competition with the common law

The early Elizabethan period featured a dispute between the Court of Chancery and common-law courts over who held pre-eminence. It had been the practice under Henry VI that plaintiffs in the common-law courts could not execute judgments given by the common-law judges if the lord chancellor felt their claim was "against conscience". This had been vehemently opposed by the common-law judges, who felt that if the lord chancellor had the power to override their decisions, parties to a case would flock to the Court of Chancery. The dispute over the pre-eminence of the lord chancellor continued into Elizabeth I's reign, with the judges increasing in strength; the lord chancellor was no longer a clergyman whom it was risky to offend, while the judges had grown in stature. Sir Edward Coke cites in his Reports a case at the end of Elizabeth I's reign which seems to indicate that the chancellor's prerogative had been overturned, when the judges (without opposition from the monarch) allowed a claim to proceed despite the lord chancellor's implied jurisdiction. At the same time, the common-law judges ruled that the Chancery had no jurisdiction over matters of freehold.

The lord chancellor of the time, Lord Ellesmere, was not dissuaded, and maintained that he had the jurisdiction to oversee decisions of the common-law courts and matters of freehold. In 1614, he heard the case of Courtney v. Glanvil, dictating that Glanvil should be imprisoned for deceit; this was over-ruled by Sir Edward Coke in the Court of King's Bench, who demanded that Glanvil be released and issued a writ of habeas corpus. Two years later, the Earl of Oxford's Case came before Ellesmere, who issued a judgment that directly contradicted English law based on the "Law of God". Coke and the other judges over-ruled this judgment while Ellesmere was ill, taking the case as an opportunity to completely overthrow the lord chancellor's jurisdiction. Ellesmere appealed to the Monarch, who referred the matter to the attorney general for the prince of Wales and Francis Bacon, the Attorney General for England and Wales. Both recommended a judgment in Ellesmere's favour, which the Monarch made, saying:

"as mercy and justice be the true supports of our Royal Throne; and it properly belongeth to our princely office to take care and provide that our subjects have equal and indifferent justice ministered to them; and that when their case deserveth to be relieved in course of equity by suit in our Court of Chancery, they should not be abandoned and exposed to perish under the rigor and extremity of our laws, we ... do approve, ratifie and confirm, as well the practice of our Court of Chancery."

Coke's challenge to the Chancery is seen by academic Duncan Kerly as helping him lose his position as a judge, and until its dissolution the Court of Chancery could overrule judgments issued in the common-law courts. This was not the end of the dispute, however; in his Institutes of the Lawes of England, Coke suggested that the Monarch's decree was unlawful, and his contemporary David Jenkins wrote in Eight Centuries of Reports that "the excess of Jurisdiction in Chancery, in examining Judgments at Common Law" was one of the largest abuses of the law. In the late 17th century Robert Atkyns attempted to renew this controversy in his book An Enquiry into the Jurisdiction of the Chancery in Causes of Equity, but without any tangible result. Even so, future lord chancellors were more cautious; when Francis Bacon succeeded Ellesmere, he made sure to prevent the misuse of injunctions. Horowitz writes that this was not just limited to Bacon, and that "after the dramatic confrontations between Lord Chief Justice Coke and Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, chancellors took care to circumscribe the Court's corrective jurisdiction and to focus more narrowly on territories they had staked out as peculiarly their own".

Attempted reform under the Commonwealth of England
By the time of the English Civil War, the Court of Chancery was being criticised extensively for its procedure and practice. During the 16th century the Court was vastly overworked; Francis Bacon wrote of 2,000 orders being made a year, while Sir Edward Coke estimated the backlog to be around 16,000 cases. This was partly due to the incompetence of the judges, and partially due to the procedure used; evidence was re-heard up to three times and orders were issued and then over-ruled, only to be issued again: "what was ordered one day was contradicted the next, so as in some cases there had been five hundred orders and faire more as some affirmed". The Court spent a long time on each case, which, combined with the backlog, made the pursuit of a case extremely expensive. This was exacerbated by the appointment to the Court of useless, highly paid officials by the lord chancellor or master of the rolls, many of whom were their friends. The chancellor and master both openly sold these roles, whose exorbitant pay is more surprising considering that their duties were normally such that could be easily performed by solicitor's clerks, and that they were usually performed by underclerks, not by the officials.

In 1649, during the English Civil War, Parliament published a series of orders to reform the Court. Most were from the doctrines set out by Francis Bacon as lord chancellor, but there were some more modern reforms: counsels to the defendants could deliver pleas, rather than defendants in person, thus saving the cost of a Commissioner of Oaths, and cases were to be heard in the order they were accepted by the court. Parliament also fixed the fees that officers could charge, in an attempt to reduce the expense of a case. The following year, Parliament appointed a commission to look at court reform; this made many recommendations, but none that directly affected the Chancery. In August 1653 another debate took place in Parliament, lasting two days, in which a paper titled "Observations concerning the Court of Chancery" was circulated; this concerned the costs, workings, and officers of the Court. A second paper was given out, "for the regulation or taking away of the Court of Chancery, and settling the business of Equity according to the original and primitive constitution of it; and for taking away all unnecessary fees, offices and officers and formalities now used, and for the speedy dispatch of business".

Parliament eventually proposed dissolving the court as it then stood and replacing it with "some of the most able and honest men", who would be tasked with hearing equity cases. Rather than the mass of clerks on the staff, a sufficient number of "godly, able, honest and experienced clerks, which be working attorneys and clerks and not overseeing officers" would be appointed, and the Bar would elect two supervising Chief Clerks to advise on points of practice. A far-reaching and heavily criticised draft, this was eventually replaced by an even more thorough-going bill. The judges would be six Masters, who would sit in groups of three and be appointed by Parliament, assisted by a Chief Clerk. All Justices of the Peace would be allowed to submit cases to the court, with cases to be heard within 60 days. The party that lost the case was to pay full fees to the other side; the fees would be set ludicrously low. This bill was never put into effect, as Parliament was dissolved. Oliver Cromwell did appoint a Commission to institute similar provisions in 1654, but the Commission refused to perform its duties.

Restoration
After the English Restoration, those judges and officials sacked under Cromwell were reinstated, with little modern progression; as Kerly puts it, "unjust judges presided again, and rank maladministration invaded the offices". The situation was much improved, nonetheless, because many of the faults were down to the machinery of the court rather than the spirit, which Lord Clarendon soon rectified. Upon appointment as lord chancellor he immediately published a new issue of the Orders for the Regulation of the Practice of the Court of Chancery. This was based on the code set by the Cromwellian Commissioners, and limited the fees charged by the court and the amount of time they could take on a case.

An effect of the Civil War and resulting Commonwealth of England, particularly the "liberal" values and feelings it stirred up, was the continuous modernisation and improvement of the common law courts, something that reduced the interference of the lord chancellor in common law matters, except in areas where they had wildly divergent principles and law. Under Charles II, for the first time, there was a type of common law appeal where the nature of the evidence in the initial trial was taken into account, which reduced the need to go to the Court of Chancery. As a result, the nature of the Court of Chancery changed; rather than being a major corrective system for the common law, it became primarily concerned with the administration and protection of rights, as opposed to the common law courts, which were mainly concerned with the remedy and retribution of problems. This was further enforced by the Statute of Frauds, which confirmed Chancery principles across the board, allowing people to receive the same treatment in the common law courts as they did in the Chancery.

A major reform to the Court happened soon after the restoration, with the introduction of a right of appeal to the House of Lords from the Chancery. Before this there had been no records of appeals to the Lords, and a committee had concluded that there was no precedent to give the Lords jurisdiction over equity matters, except when problems and cases were sent directly to Parliament (as occasionally had been the case). In 1660 the Convention Parliament claimed for itself the right of appellate jurisdiction over equity matters, and also the right of original jurisdiction to hear equity cases at first instance. After disputes which lasted into the next Parliament, this second measure was dropped, but the right to hear equity appeals was confirmed. Horowitz writes that despite these changes, one of the academic certainties is that the problems which had dogged the court for the last two centuries persisted; Observations on the Dilatory and Expensive Proceedings in the Court of Chancery, written in 1701, listed 25 different procedures, areas and situations which contributed to the problems of high fees and slow processes.

Further reform
Lord Somers, following his dismissal as lord chancellor, introduced the Administration of Justice Act 1705 (4 & 5 Ann. c. 3) in 1706 which "became the most important act of law reform which the 18th century produced". The act significantly amended the existing law and court procedure, and while most of it was aimed at the common-law courts, it did affect the Chancery. For equity, the act provided that a party trying to have his case dismissed could not do so until he had paid the full costs, rather than the nominal costs that were previously required; at the same time, the reforms the act made to common-law procedure (such as allowing claims to be brought against executors of wills) reduced the need for parties to go to equity for a remedy. Legal historian Wilfrid Prest writes that despite these legislative enactments, the tally of which "begins to look quite impressive", the old problems continued, albeit less frequently; one barrister of the time claimed that going to the Court with a case worth anything less than £500 was a waste of time.

Under Lord Hardwicke, Chancery procedure was further reformed with a pair of orders published in 1741 and 1747, which mandated that a claimant who brought his case to court and had it dismissed immediately should pay full costs to the other side, rather than the 40 shillings previously paid, and that parties filing bills of review should pay £50 for the privilege. At the same time, a review of the Court's costs and fees was undertaken by a Parliamentary Committee. The Committee reported that fees and costs had increased significantly since the last review under Charles I, a number of expensive honorary positions had been created, and on many occasions court officers had not known what the correct fees were. At the same time, proceedings had grown to several thousand pages in length, necessitating additional expense. The Committee concluded "that the interest which a great number of officers and clerks have in the proceedings of the Court of Chancery, has been a principal cause of extending bills, answers, pleadings, examinations and other forms and copies of them, to an unnecessary length, to the great delay of justice and the oppression of the subject". They recommended that a list of permissible fees be published and circulated to the court officials.

The recommendations were not immediately acted on, but in 1743 a list of permissible fees was published, and to cut down on paperwork, no party was required to obtain office copies of proceedings. The permissible fees list contained over 1,000 items, which Kerly describes as "an appalling example of the abuses which the unrestrained farming of the Offices of the Court, and the payment of all officials by fees had developed".

Victorian era

Despite these small reforms, the 18th century ended with continuous and unrestrained attacks on the Court. Although complaints had been common since the time of Elizabeth I, the problems had become more unrestrained, at the same time as politically neutral law reformers first arose in any great number. Many critics were barristers of the common law, ignorant of the court's workings, but some, such as Sir Samuel Romilly, had trained as a Chancery advocate and were well aware of the Chancery's procedure. The success of the Code Napoleon and the writings of Jeremy Bentham are seen by academic Duncan Kerly to have had much to do with the criticism, and the growing wealth of the country and increasing international trade meant it was crucial that there be a functioning court system for matters of equity. While the upper classes had been struggling with the Court for centuries, and regarded it as a necessary evil, the growing middle and merchant classes were more demanding. With increasing court backlogs, it was clear to many law reformers and politicians that serious reform was needed.

The first major reforms were the appointment of a vice-chancellor in 1813 to hear cases, and the extension of the Master of the Rolls' jurisdiction in 1833 to hear any and all cases. In 1824 a Chancery Commission was appointed to oversee the Court, which the political opposition maintained was simply to protect it; the membership included the lord chancellor, the master of the rolls and all senior Chancery judges. Some significant reforms were proposed; in 1829, for example, Lord Lyndhurst proposed unsuccessfully that the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer be merged with the Chancery, and that a fourth judge be appointed to hear the additional cases. A year later, when the common law courts were each gaining a judge, he repeated his proposal, but the bill was strongly opposed by judges who maintained that the court backlog did not justify the additional expense of a fourth judge. Eventually, two more vice-chancellors were appointed in 1841, and a decade later two lord justices were tasked with hearing appeals from the Court through the Court of Appeal in Chancery. These are described by Lobban as "hasty reactions to mounting arrears" rather than the result of long-term planning.

As a result of the new appointments, the court backlog was significantly reduced – the court processed 1,700 cases in 1846–49 compared to 959 in 1819–24 – but it rose again after the death of Shadwell VC and retirement of Wigram VC. Shadwell, appointed under the 1831 act of Parliament, could be replaced, but a principal in the Court of Chancery Act 1841 (5 Vict. c. 5) (under which Wigram had been appointed) meant that it provided for two life appointments to the court, not two open positions; after the retirement or death of the judges, no more could be appointed. Again, the backlog became a problem, particularly since the lord chancellor was distracted with the appellate cases through the Court of Appeal in Chancery and the House of Lords, leaving a maximum of three Chancery judges who were available to hear cases. Further structural reforms were proposed; Richard Bethell suggested three more vice-chancellors and "an Appellate Tribunal in Chancery formed of two of the vice chancellors taken in rotation", but this came to nothing.

The 1830s saw a reduction in the "old corruption" that had long plagued the court, first through the Chancery Sinecures Act 1832 (which abolished a number of sinecure offices within the court and provided a pension and pay rise for the lord chancellor, in the hope that it would reduce the need for the chancellor to make money by selling court offices) and then through the Chancery Regulation Act 1833. (which changed the appointments system so that masters in Chancery would henceforth be appointed by the Crown, not by the lord chancellor, and that they would be paid wages. ) Through the abolition of sinecures, taking into account the wages and pension, this saved the Court £21,670 a year. The government had initially intended the 1832 bill to go further and abolish the Six Clerks, but the Clerks successfully lobbied to prevent this. This did not save them, however; in 1842 the "nettle" of the Six Clerks Office was grasped by Thomas Pemberton, who attacked them in the House of Commons for doing effectively sinecure work for high fees that massively increased the expense involved in cases. As a result, the Court of Chancery Act 1842 was passed in the same year that abolished the office of the Six Clerks completely.

Some further procedural reforms were undertaken in the 1850s. In 1850, a new set of Chancery orders were produced by the lord chancellor, allowing masters to speed up cases in whatever way they chose and allowing plaintiffs to file a claim, rather than the more expensive and long-winded bill of complaint. The Suitors in Chancery Relief Act 1852 gave all court officials salaries, abolished the need to pay them fees and made it illegal for them to receive gratuities; it also removed more sinecure positions. The Master in Chancery Abolition Act 1852 abolished the masters in Chancery, allowing all cases to be heard directly by judges instead of bounced back-and-forth between judges and masters. As a result of these reforms the court became far more efficient, and the backlog decreased; in the 1860s an average of 3,207 cases were submitted each year, while the Court heard and dismissed 3,833, many of them from the previous backlog. Much of this work was carried out by the growing number of clerks, however, and members of the legal profession became concerned about the "famine" of equity judges. Despite these reforms, it was still possible for Charles Dickens, writing in 1853 in the preface to his novel Bleak House, to bemoan the inefficiencies of the Court of Chancery. His novel revolves around a fictional long-running Chancery case, Jarndyce and Jarndyce. He observed that at the time he was writing there was a case before the Chancery court "which was commenced nearly twenty years ago ... and which is (I am assured) no nearer to its termination now than when it was begun". He concluded that "If I wanted other authorities for Jarndyce and Jarndyce, I could rain them on these pages, to the shame of a parsimonious public".

Dissolution
The idea of fusing the common-law and equity courts first came to prominence in the 1850s; although the Law Times dismissed it as "suicide" in 1852, the idea gained mainstream credibility, and by the end of the year the Times was writing that there was "almost unanimity" of opinion that the existence of two separate systems was "the parent of most of the defects in the administration of our law". Much of the impetus for fusion came from pressure groups and lawyers' associations. They partially succeeded with the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 and Chancery Amendment Act 1858, which gave both courts access to the full range of remedies. Until then, the common-law courts were limited to granting damages, and the Chancery was limited to granting specific performance or injunctions. The County Courts (Equity Jurisdiction) Act 1865 gave the county courts the authority to use equitable remedies, although it was rarely used. The lord chancellors during this period were more cautious, and despite a request by the lawyers' associations to establish a royal commission to look at fusion, they refused to do so.

After the Chancery Regulation Act 1862 had gone some way toward procedural reform, in February 1867, Roundell Palmer again brought the problem of having two separate court systems to Parliament's attention, and in March 1870 Lord Hatherley introduced a bill to create a single, unified High Court of Justice. The bill was a weak one, not containing any provision addressing which court would deal with the common law and which with equity, and was also silent on the structure of the court, as Hatherley believed the difference between the common law and equity was one of procedure, not substance. As a result, the bill was heavily opposed from two sides: those who opposed fusion, and those who supported fusion but felt the provisions were too weak and vague to be of any use. As a result, the bill was eventually withdrawn.

In 1873, the idea was resurrected – again by Palmer, who was now Lord Selborne and the new lord chancellor – as the Supreme Court of Judicature bill. While still cautious, Selborne's bill was far more structured than Hatherley's, and contained more detail on what was to be done. Rather than fusing the common law and equity, which he saw as impracticable since it would destroy the idea of trusts, he decided to fuse the courts and the procedure. The final draft provided that all of the existing superior courts would be fused into one court consisting of two levels; one of first instance, one appellate. The court of first instance, to be known as the High Court of Justice, would be subdivided into several divisions based on the old superior courts, one of which, the Chancery Division, would deal with equity cases. All jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was to be transferred to the Chancery Division; Section 25 of the act provided that, where there was conflict between the common law and equity, the latter would prevail. An appeal from each division went to the appellate level, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. These provisions were brought into effect after amendment with the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, and the Court of Chancery ceased to exist. The Master of the Rolls was transferred to the new Court of Appeal, the lord chancellor retained his other judicial and political roles, and the position of vice-chancellor ceased to exist, replaced by ordinary judges. The Chancery Division remains to this day part of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

Trusts and the administration of estates
The idea of a trust originated during the Crusades of the 12th century, when noblemen travelled abroad to fight in the Holy Land. As they would be away for years at a time it was vital that somebody could look after their land with the authority of the original owner. As a result, the idea of joint ownership of land arose. The common law courts did not recognise such trusts, and so it fell to equity and to the Court of Chancery to deal with them, as befitting the common principle that the Chancery's jurisdiction was for matters where the common law courts could neither enforce a right nor administer it. The use of trusts and uses became common during the 16th century, although the Statute of Uses "[dealt] a severe blow to these forms of conveyancing" and made the law in this area far more complex. The court's sole jurisdiction over trusts lasted until its dissolution.

From its foundation, the Court of Chancery could administer estates, due to its jurisdiction over trusts. While the main burden in the 16th century fell on the ecclesiastical courts, their powers over administrators and executors was limited, regularly necessitating the Court of Chancery's involvement. Before the Statute of Wills, many people used feoffees to dispose of their land, something that fell under the jurisdiction of the lord chancellor anyway. In addition, in relation to the discovery and accounting of assets, the process used by the Court of Chancery was far superior to the ecclesiastical one; as a result, the Court of Chancery was regularly used by beneficiaries. The common law courts also had jurisdiction over some estates matters, but their remedies for problems were far more limited.

Initially, the Court of Chancery would not entertain a request to administer an estate as soon as a flaw in the will was discovered, rather leaving it to the ecclesiastical courts, but from 1588 onwards the Court did deal with such requests, in four situations: where it was alleged that there were insufficient assets; where it was appropriate to force a legatee to give a bond to creditors (which could not be done in the ecclesiastical courts); to secure femme covert assets from a husband; and where the deceased's debts had to be paid before the legacies were valid.

Insanity and guardianship
The Chancery's jurisdiction over "lunatics" came from two sources: first, the king's prerogative to look after them, which was exercised regularly by the lord chancellor, and second, the Lands of Lunaticks Act 1324 (Ruffhead: 17 Edw. 2. c. 10), which gave the King (and therefore the chancellor) custodianship of lunatics and their land; the Lord chancellor exercised the first right directly and the second in his role as head of the Court of Chancery. This jurisdiction applied to any "idiots" or "lunatics", regardless of whether or not they were British, or whether their land was within England and Wales. They were divided into two categories – idiots, "who have no glimmering of reason from their birth and are, therefore, by law, presumed never likely to attain any", and lunatics, "who have had understanding but have lost the use of it". Lunatics and idiots were administered separately by the lord chancellor under his two prerogatives; the appeal under the king's prerogative went directly to the king, and under the Lands of Lunaticks Act 1324 to the House of Lords.

Idiots and lunatics had their land looked after by a court-appointed administrator, and any profits went into a trust fund to support the insane person. Due to the vested interest of the king (who would hold the lands) the actual lunacy or idiocy was determined by a jury, not by an individual judge. Under the Lunacy Act 1845 the lord chancellor had a right to appoint a commission to investigate the insanity of an individual; as part of his role as Keeper of the king's conscience, however, he would only do this when it was beneficial to the lunatic, not simply because somebody had been found insane.

The law courts' jurisdiction over the guardianship of children is said to have come from the king's prerogative of parens patriae. The Chancery had administered this area of law from an early period, since it primarily concerned the holding of land – a form of trust. Since these were mainly dealt with orally there are few early records; the first reference comes from 1582, when a curator was appointed to deal with the property of an infant. While the common law courts regularly appointed guardians, the Chancery had the right to remove them, replace them or create them in the first place. Similarly, while there were actions against guardians which the child could undertake in the common law courts, these were regularly undertaken in the Court of Chancery. This jurisdiction was first regularly recognised from 1696 onwards, and its main focus was the welfare of the child. As such, wards of the court had certain principles: their estates had to be administered under the supervision of the Court, they had to be educated under the same supervision, and any marriage had to be sanctioned by the Court.

Charities
The lord chancellor had, since the 15th century, been tasked with administering estates where the estate was to be used for charitable purposes. In Bailiff of Burford v Lenthall, Lord Hardwicke suggested that the jurisdiction of the Court over charity matters came from its jurisdiction over trusts, as well as from the Charitable Uses Act 1601. Carne suggests that, as the Court had long been able to deal with such situations, the 1601 act was actually just the declaration of pre-existing custom. This is illustrated by the chancellor's original jurisdiction over feoffments to uses, which came from his original status as a clergyman, as charity had been originally enforced by the Church and the ecclesiastical courts. Essentially, an owner of land could dispose of it by granting the right to use it and collect fees to another, not just by selling it. This was not valid at the common law courts but was in the Court of Chancery; the lord chancellor is reported as having said, in 1492, "where there is no remedy at common law there may be good remedy in conscience, as, for example, by a feoffment upon confidence, the feoffor has no remedy by common law, and yet by conscience he has; and so, if the feoffee transfers to another who knows of this confidence, the feoffor, by means of a subpoena, will have his rights in this Court". After the reign of Edward IV, if the charitable land were to be sold (or land were to be sold to create the charity) the Court of Chancery was the only place this could be done, as ecclesiastical and probate courts did not have a valid jurisdiction.

Remedies
The Court of Chancery could grant three possible remedies – specific performance, injunctions and damages. The remedy of specific performance is, in contractual matters, an order by the court which requires the party in breach of contract to perform his obligations. The validity of the contract as a whole was not normally considered, only whether there was adequate consideration and if expecting the party that breached the contract to carry out his obligations was viable. Injunctions, on the other hand, are remedies which prevent a party from doing something (unlike specific performance, which requires them to do something). Until the Common Law Procedure Act 1854, the Court of Chancery was the only body qualified to grant injunctions and specific performance.

Damages is money claimed in compensation for some failure by the other party to a case. It is commonly believed that the Court of Chancery could not grant damages until the Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 27), which gave it that right, but in some special cases it had been able to provide damages for over 600 years. The idea of damages was first conceived in English law during the 13th century, when the Statutes of Merton and Gloucester provided for damages in certain circumstances. Despite what is normally assumed by academics, it was not just the common law courts that could grant damages under these statutes; the Exchequer of Pleas and Court of Chancery both had the right to do so. In Cardinal Beaufort's case in 1453, for example, it is stated that "I shall have a subpoena against my feoffee and recover damages for the value of the land". A statute passed during the reign of Richard II specifically gave the Chancery the right to award damages, stating:

"For as much as People be compelled to come before the King's Council, or in the Chancery by Writs grounded upon untrue Suggestions; that the Chancellor for the Time being, presently after that such Suggestions be duly found and proved untrue, shall have Power to ordain and award Damages according to his Discretion, to him which is so troubled unduly, as afore is said."

This did not extend to every case, but merely to those which had been dismissed because one party's "suggestions [are] proved untrue", and was normally awarded to pay for the innocent party's costs in responding to the party that had lied. Lord Hardwicke, however, claimed that the Chancery's jurisdiction to award damages was not derived "from any authority, but from conscience", and rather than being statutory was instead due to the lord chancellor's inherent authority. As a result, General Orders were regularly issued awarding the innocent party additional costs, such as the cost of a solicitor on top of the costs of responding to the other party's false statements.

The Court became more cautious about awarding damages during the 16th and 17th centuries; lord chancellors and legal writers considered it a common law remedy, and judges would normally only award damages where no other remedy was appropriate. Damages were sometimes given as an ancillary remedy, such as in Browne v Dom Bridges in 1588, where the defendant had disposed of waste inside the plaintiffs woods. As well as an injunction to prevent the defendant dumping waste in the woods, damages were also awarded to pay for the harm to the woods." This convention (that damages could only be awarded as an ancillary remedy, or where no others were available) remained the cause until the 18th and early 19th centuries, when the attitude of the Court towards awarding damages became more liberal; in Lannoy v Werry, for example, it was held that where there was sufficient evidence of harm, the Court could award damages in addition to specific performance and other remedies. This changed with Todd v Gee in 1810, where Lord Eldon held that "except in very special cases, it was not the course of proceeding in Equity to file a Bill for specific performance of an agreement; praying in the alternative, if it cannot be performed, an issue, or an inquiry before the Master, with a view to damages. The plaintiff must take that remedy, if he chooses it, at Law." This was followed by Hatch v Cobb, in which Chancellor Kent held that "though equity, in very special cases, may possibly sustain a bill for damages, on a breach of contract, it is clearly not the ordinary jurisdiction of the court".

The Court's right to give damages was reiterated in Phelps v Prothero in 1855, where the Court of Appeal in Chancery held that if a plaintiff starts an action in a court of equity for specific performance and damages are also appropriate, the court of equity may choose to award damages. This authorisation was limited to certain circumstances, and was again not regularly used. Eventually, the Chancery Amendment Act 1858 gave the Court full jurisdiction to award damages; the situation before that was so limited that lawyers at the time commented as if the Court had not previously been able to do so.

Lord chancellor
The lord chancellor was the official head of the Court of Chancery. For much of its early existence he was closely linked with the curia regis; even after the Court became independent around 1345, petitions were addressed to "the king and others". By the time of Edward IV, however, petitions were issued in the name of the lord chancellor and the Court of Chancery. In the early years, the lord chancellor made most of the decisions himself; he summoned the parties, set a date for hearings, addressed questions from the parties to the case and announced the verdict. He regularly called for assistance from the common law judges, who complained that this prevented them from doing the work of the common law courts, and early records frequently say that the decision was made "with the advice and consent of the justices and servants of our Lord the King in the Chancery".

In one period, particularly under Edward III, the lord chancellor also possessed some common law jurisdiction, able to hear cases for petitions of right and the repeal of letters patent, as well as other cases in which the King was a party. He heard cases on recognizances, the execution of acts of Parliament and any case in which an officer of the Court of Chancery was involved. Records show that he enrolled recognizances and contracts, and also issued writs commanding a sheriff to enforce them. Carne considers that this common law jurisdiction was likely down to a failure to separate the common law jurisdiction and the equity jurisdiction possessed by the lord chancellor, a failure that continued into the 16th century; Sir Edward Coke wrote that in the Chancery there was both an ordinary court and an "extraordinary" one.

Most of the early lord chancellors were members of the clergy; the first legally trained lord chancellor was Robert Parning SL, who was appointed in 1341 and held the office for two years. His successors were again clerics until the appointment of Robert Thorpe in 1371, probably due to pressure from Parliament. The precedent of appointing legally trained Lord Chancellors was not followed strongly, although others such as Nicholas Bacon did hold the office; one lord chancellor is said to have been appointed because the Queen was impressed with his skill at dancing. According to William Carne, Thomas Egerton was the first "proper" lord chancellor from the Court of Chancery's point of view, having recorded his decisions and followed the legal doctrine of precedent. Marsh writes that the use of clergymen as lord chancellors had a tremendous influence on the Court's actions, tracing the idea of following natural law in the Court back to the chancellors' Christian roots. Following the dissolution of the Court of Chancery in 1873, the lord chancellor failed to have any role in equity, although his membership of other judicial bodies allowed him some indirect control.

Other officers of the Court

When the Court was a part of the curia regis, the officers were fluid; they could include doctors of civil law, members of the curia and "those who ought to be summoned". As the members of the curia ceased to sit as Officers, however, the composition of the court became more solid. From an early period, the lord chancellor was assisted by twelve Clerks in Chancery, known as the Masters in Chancery. It was said that these positions had existed since before the Norman Conquest, sitting as part of the Witenagemot. After the conquest they gradually lost their authority, and became advisers and assistants to the lord chancellor. It was the masters who started court cases, issuing the initial writs without which parties could not begin cases in the common law courts. In addition, they took depositions and acted as secretaries to the lord chancellor, maintaining the plea rolls. In the early years they were almost always members of the clergy, called the "clericos de prima forma"; it was not until the reign of Edward III that they were referred to as Masters in Chancery.

The twelve Masters in Chancery were led by one of their number, known as the master of the rolls. He was almost as powerful as the lord chancellor, and had wielded judicial power since the time of Edward I. He was sometimes known as the "vice-chancellor", and was given the title "The Right Worshipful". The master of the rolls assisted the Court's judges in forming judgments, and regularly sat in place of the lord chancellor. The first reference to the Master of the Rolls comes from 1286, although it is believed that the position probably existed before that; the first reference to his having independent judicial authority is from 1520. The master of the rolls had six clerks, who helped keep the records; they were independently accountable for any mistakes. These were initially solicitors for the people suing in the Court, and no other counsel was allowed, but by the time of Francis Bacon claimants were allowed their own counsel. The master of the Rolls and his clerks were housed in the Rolls Office, along with the Six Clerks' clerks, who numbered sixty. The Six Clerks were abolished in 1843, the masters in Chancery in 1852, and when the Court of Chancery was abolished, the master of the rolls moved to the newly established Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

From an early period, the Court was also assisted by two registrars, who enrolled decrees of the court and orders; their books documented the legal precedent set by the court. At the same time, two examiners were appointed to assist the master of the rolls in examining witnesses. The positions were regularly and openly sold by the master of the rolls and lord chancellor – masters in Chancery went for £6,000 in 1625. To avoid the sale of offices, and due to the corruption of many court officials, an act was passed that year requiring that fees be paid directly into the Bank of England, and creating an Accountant-General to oversee the financial aspects of the court. In 1813 the first vice-chancellor was appointed to deal with the increasing number of cases submitted to the Court. With the backlog growing larger, two more were appointed in 1841 under the Court of Chancery Act 1841 (5 Vict. c. 5), although this provided for two life appointments, not two new positions; when the new vice-chancellors died, there could be no replacements. With the dissolution of the Court in 1873, the position of vice-chancellor ceased to exist.

title: Court of Chancery


text:
Kerri Strug

Kerri Allyson Strug (born November 19, 1977) is a retired American gymnast from Tucson, Arizona. She was a member of the Magnificent Seven, the victorious all-around women's gymnastics team that represented the United States at the 1996 Summer Olympics. Strug performed the vault that clinched the gold for the U.S. team despite having injured her ankle.

Pre-1996 Olympics
Strug began training in gymnastics at the age of three. She began competing in gymnastics at the age of eight. Her sister Lisa was already competing in gymnastics at the time that Strug was born. Strug was trained by American coach Jim Gault until January 1991, when she moved to Houston, Texas, to train with coach Béla Károlyi. At that time, she also joined the United States National Team. In 1992, as the youngest member of the entire U.S. team at age 14, she won a team bronze medal at the Barcelona Olympics. Throughout the Team Compulsories and Optionals, she and Kim Zmeskal competed for the final US available spot to compete in the all-around. She was eventually edged out by Zmeskal, with Shannon Miller and Betty Okino as the other two American gymnasts to qualify for the all-around.

After the 1992 Games, Strug chose to move to Edmond, Oklahoma, to train under the coaching of Steve Nunno at the Dynamo Gymnastics Club, where she trained with Shannon Miller. There, she struggled with a serious injury to her stomach.

At the 1993 Nationals, Strug placed 3rd in the all-around, 2nd on the uneven bars, and 3rd on floor exercise. She completed the Yurchenko ½ vault. However, she had a weak second vault and did not medal in that event. After this competition, Strug left Edmond to return home to Tucson, Arizona, where she trained with Arthur Akopian, who flew in from California to train her, with the assistance of Jim Gault. Gault was Strug's coach when she started gymnastics at age 3.

While performing the compulsory uneven bars set in 1994, she pinged off the bar, subsequently releasing too early to be able to make the transition to low bar. She lost control and flew off the high bar backwards, landing in a twisted position on her side beneath the low bar. She was carried out of the gym on a stretcher and was taken to Desert Regional Hospital. The injury turned out to be a badly pulled back muscle, which required extensive rehabilitation. She recovered in time for the 1994 World Championships.

In 1995, Strug graduated from Green Fields Country Day School in Tucson, Arizona. Eventually, the coaching arrangement with Gault and Akopian became untenable as Gault was restricted in his coaching by NCAA recruiting rules. Strug once again left home, in July 1995, to train at Aerials Gymnastics in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with Tom and Lori Forster. Later that year, at the 1995 Nationals, Strug placed 5th in the all-around and came in 3rd on the uneven bars. At the 1995 World Championships, she was a member of the bronze medal-winning U.S. team, and she placed 7th in the all-around.

She trained with the Forsters from July 1995 until December 1995. She then moved back to Houston to train with Károlyi again in preparation for the 1996 Olympics. She beat the competition at the 1996 American Cup in the all-around by almost a half point, a huge margin with the scoring system at that time. She also placed 1st on floor exercises and balance beam and 2nd on vault and uneven bars in the event finals. At the 1996 U.S. Nationals, Strug placed 5th in the all-around and came in 2nd on both vault and floor.

1996 Olympics
Strug participated in the 1996 Olympics as a member of the U.S. women's team, often referred to as the Magnificent Seven. After compulsories, Strug was ranked 9th overall and had placed high enough to qualify herself for the all-around. She posted the second-highest score on floor exercise—but qualified first in floor exercise event finals after the team final and ahead of eventual floor exercise gold medalist Lilia Podkopayeva—and fourth-highest on vault, which would qualify her for event finals in her two strongest events. In the team competition, an event dominated by the Soviets for decades and never won by the United States, the U.S. competed with the Russian, Romanian, and Ukrainian teams. The Russians came into the team competition with a very narrow lead. The event came down to the final rotation on the final day of the team competition, July 23, 1996.

Going into the final rotation, with the Russians on floor exercise and the U.S. on vault, the U.S. women held a commanding 0.897-point lead over the Russian team. However, it was still possible for the Russians to take the gold if the U.S. women collapsed. The first four U.S. gymnasts landed their vaults, but struggled to land them cleanly, taking steps and hops. Adding to the drama, Strug's teammate Dominique Moceanu fell twice, registering a poor score. Strug was the last to vault for the United States.

Strug under-rotated her first attempt, causing her to fall and injure her ankle. As a result, the attempt was awarded 9.162 points. Russian gymnast Elena Dolgopolova finished her floor routine about 10 seconds after Strug sat her first vault, with 1994 floor world champion Dina Kochetkova and reigning Russian national floor champion Roza Galieva still to perform their routines. Moceanu's score (9.200) may have been sufficient to beat the Russians if Strug did not perform a second vault. However, with the top two Russian floor workers left to perform, and Dolgopolova's score yet to be posted, the Russian team could have won gold if those last three scores averaged over 9.816. Strug, Moceanu, Dominique Dawes, Romanian gymnasts Simona Amânar and Gina Gogean, and Chinese gymnast Ji Liya had all received floor scores of 9.825 or higher earlier that night. After leading the entire night, the U.S. was at risk of losing to Russia, and Strug needed a second vault score of 9.762 to mathematically clinch the gold.

In the time interval between Strug's two vaults, she asked, "Do we need this?" Károlyi replied, "Kerri, we need you to go one more time. We need you one more time for the gold. You can do it, you better do it." Strug thus limped slightly to the end of the runway to make her second attempt. She landed the vault briefly on both feet, almost instantly hopping onto only her uninjured foot, saluting the judges. She then collapsed onto her knees and needed assistance off the landing platform, to which sportscaster John Tesh commented, "Kerri Strug is hurt! She is hurt badly." The completed vault received a score of 9.712. As Strug landed the second vault, Dolgopalova's 9.750 floor score was posted, making Strug's 9.712 enough to guarantee the Americans the gold medal.

The rest of the Magnificent Seven refused to walk out to the medal ceremony without Strug, and eventually Béla Károlyi carried her onto the medals podium to join her team, after which she was treated at a hospital for a third-degree lateral sprain and tendon damage. Due to her injury, she was unable to compete in the individual all-around competition and event finals, despite having qualified for both. This allowed her teammates who had qualified for finals, but were eliminated due to rules limiting the number of gymnasts per country, to take Strug's place. Moceanu replaced Strug in the all-around, Dawes took her place in the floor final, and Shannon Miller took her place in the vault final.

Strug became a national sports hero for her final vault, visiting President Bill Clinton, appearing at various television talk shows, making the cover of Sports Illustrated and appearing on a Wheaties cereal box with other team members. Actor Chris Kattan notably parodied her adolescent-sounding voice (as her "brother" Kippi Strug), and appeared on Saturday Night Live (in a segment in which she appeared alongside him). ESPN's "This is SportsCenter" ad campaign poked good-natured fun at her injury with two ads featuring various ESPN workers carrying her around.

Professional career and college
Shortly after her feat, Strug participated in the Ice Capades and Disney's World On Ice, then announced her retirement and enrolled in UCLA where she was a member of the Kappa Alpha Theta women's fraternity. As a professional, she could not compete in NCAA gymnastics events, so she worked for a time as team manager instead, a behind-the-scenes role. She later transferred to Stanford University where she earned a master's degree in social psychology. Strug also took part in a Semester at Sea in the fall of 2000.

After gymnastics
In 2000, she was inducted into the International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame.

After graduation, Strug worked as an elementary school teacher at Tom Matsumoto Elementary School in San Jose, California, before moving to Washington, D.C. in 2003.

She worked as a staff assistant with the White House Office of Presidential Student Correspondence, moved to a job at the General Counsel in the Treasury Department, and in March 2005, joined the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention staff as a presidential appointee. Strug has competed in marathons in Houston, New York, Boston and Chicago.

During the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Strug was a correspondent for Yahoo! in artistic gymnastics. In 2008, she appeared in a television commercial for the Zaxby's restaurant chain. Also in 2008, her history-making ordeal at the 1996 Olympic Games was featured in a commercial, narrated by actor Morgan Freeman for the "Go World" campaign.

Personal life
Strug was born in Tucson, Arizona, the daughter of Melanie Barron and Dr. Burt Strug, a cardiovascular surgeon. Strug is Jewish. She married attorney Robert Fischer at the Skyline Country Club in Tucson, Arizona, on April 25, 2010. In March 2012, Strug gave birth to the couple's son. In 2014, she gave birth to their daughter.

Popular culture

 * Strug did a cameo on Beverly Hills, 90210 in 1996.
 * Strug was shown in Marie Claire magazine's "The 8 Greatest Moments for Women in Sports".
 * Strug is referenced in Sabrina: The Teenage Witch Season 1, Episode 10.
 * Strug is referenced in the animated series Bojack Horseman Season 5, Episode 5. When BoJack is challenged for his reference to Strug being outdated, he insists that he will update his references once we see the likes of Strug again.
 * Strug had a voice cameo in King of the Hill Season 2, Episode 14, "I Remember Mono", appearing in a dream sequence with Bobby Hill.
 * Strug is referenced in Community Season 4, Episode 7, Economics of Marine Biology.
 * Strug is referenced in Murphy Brown Season 9, Episode 11.
 * Strug is referenced in Home Economics (TV series) Season 3, Episode 3, Sushi for Twelve, $482 Plus Delivery.
 * Strug is referenced in an episode of the online YouTube show Demo Disk made by Funhaus.
 * Strug is referenced in the Season 9 episode of Roseanne entitled " Roseambo" when Roseanne, after flipping off the roof of a train car and landing on her feet, delivers the line, "Eat your heart out, Kerri Strug."
 * In 2020, Olivia Wilde announced she would be directing a biopic based on the book Landing on My Feet: A Diary of Dreams. Thomasin McKenzie has been cast to portray Kerri.
 * Strug is mentioned in the Apple TV+ show Mythic Quest during a special episode bridging the first two seasons.
 * She is referenced in a season two episode of the Saved by the Bell reboot. A character falls and gets injured, but says he will "Kerri Strug it."
 * Strug had a voice cameo in Birdgirl Season 2, Episode 4, "Shoot from the Foop".

title: Kerri Strug


text:
User:Agremon

Antonio Gregorio, live in 43º30'N, 7º5'W (Ribadeo, Galicia)

Embassy of 'Galipedia, the Galician Wikipedia

weblog 'Ribadeando', weblog about Ribadeo

Comments: better in

Colaborator in [wikipedia galega] and [Enciclopedia libre en Español 'enciclopedia libre'].

gl:user:Agremonast:user:Agremonca:user:Agremonde:user:Agremonen:user:Agremones:user:Agremonfr:user:Agremonit:user:Agremonpt:user:Agremon

title: User:Agremon