text:
Guarantee

A guarantee is a form of transaction in which one person, to obtain some trust, confidence or credit for another, agrees to be answerable for them. It may also designate a treaty through which claims, rights or possessions are secured. It is to be differentiated from the colloquial "personal guarantee" in that a guarantee is a legal concept which produces an economic effect. A personal guarantee, by contrast, is often used to refer to a promise made by an individual which is supported by, or assured through, the word of the individual. In the same way, a guarantee produces a legal effect wherein one party affirms the promise of another (usually to pay) by promising to themselves pay if default occurs.

In legal terminology, the giver of a guarantee is called the surety or the "guarantor". The person to whom the guarantee is given is the creditor or the "obligee"; while the person whose payment or performance is secured thereby is termed "the obligor", "the principal debtor", or simply "the principal".

Sureties have been classified as follows:

 * 1) Those in which there is an agreement to constitute, for a particular purpose, the relation of principal and surety, to which agreement the secured creditor is a party;
 * 2) those in which there is a similar agreement between the principal and surety only, to which the creditor is a stranger;
 * 3) those in which, without any such contract of suretyship, there is a primary and a secondary liability of two persons for one and the same debt, the debt being, as between the two, that of one of those persons only, and not equally of both, so that the other, if they should be compelled to pay it, would be entitled to reimbursement from the person by whom (as between the two) it ought to have been paid.

Etymology
Guarantee is sometimes spelt "guarantie" or "guaranty". It is from an Old French form of "warrant", from the Germanic word which appears in German as wahren: to defend or make safe and binding.

England
In English law, a guarantee is a contract whereby the person (the guarantor) enters into an agreement to pay a debt, or effect the performance of some duty by a third person who is primarily liable for that payment or performance. The extent of the debt that the guarantor is liable to this debt is co-extensive to the obligation of the third-party. It is a collateral contract, which does not extinguish the original obligation for payment or performance and is secondary to the primary obligation. It is rendered null and void if the original obligation fails. Two forms of guarantee exists in England:
 * 1) guarantees creating a conditional payment, wherein if the principal fails, the guarantor will pay. Under this form, the guarantee is not enforceable until failure occurs.
 * 2) a "see-to-it" obligation, where the guarantor's obligation is to ensure that the principal will carry out the obligation. Failure of the principal to do so will automatically make the guarantor in breach of his contractual obligation, on which the creditor can sue.

The liabilities of a guarantor in law depend upon those of the principal debtor, and when the principal's obligations cease the guarantor's do too, except in certain cases where the discharge of the principal debtor is by the operation of the law. The co-extensive, secondary nature of the liability of the guarantor along with the fact that the guarantee is a contract to answer default, debt, or miscarriage; crucially differentiates the guarantee from an indemnity. If, for example, a person wrongly supposes that someone is liable to them, and a guarantee is given on that erroneous basis, the guarantee is invalid by virtue of the law of contracts, because its foundation (that another was liable) failed.

No special phraseology is necessary to form a guarantee. What distinguishes a guarantee from insurance is not any difference between the words "insurance" and "guarantee", but the substance of the contract entered into by the parties.

The statutory requisites of a guarantee are, in England, prescribed firstly by the statute of frauds, which provides in section 4 that "no action shall be brought whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriages of another person, unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized". This in effect means that a guarantee is not invalid but are merely unenforceable through a chose in personam. The requirement for a signature in writing was clarified in Elpis Maritime Co v. Marti Chartering Co Inc (the "Maria D") [1992] 1 AC 21 and J Pereia Fernandes SA v. Mehta [2006] EWHC 813 (Ch). In the former, an agreement had been signed by a party purporting to have signed only as an agent, but this fact was considered insignificant. In the latter, it was held that a contract was enforceable either by written agreement signed by the guarantor or his agent OR; if the guarantee was oral, a separate note or memorandum of the agreement could make the guarantee similarly enforceable. In the former, the court held it was sufficient that it was written or printed by the guarantor, an initial within an email was sufficient but a standard header name in an email was not. The court believed that the minor action was sufficient to engage the Statute as it had long been held that a single fingerprint, or "X" was sufficient. The Electronic Communications Act 2000 created a power to issue statutory instruments to modify legislation so as to be congruent with modern use of electronic communications. This is congruent with Article 9 of the EU Directive on Electronic Commerce 2000, this specifically allowed exceptions to the 'in writing' requirement of a guarantee. It has even been held that clicking a button to confirm personal details sufficiently discharges the Statute of Frauds requirement.

The second requisite is Lord Tenterden's Act (9 Geo. 4. c. 14), which enacts that "no action shall be brought whereby to charge any person upon or by reason of any representation or assurance made or given concerning or relating to the character, conduct, credit, ability, trade or dealings of any other person, to the intent or purpose that such other person may obtain credit, money or goods upon unless such representation or assurance be made in writing signed by the party to be charged therewith". Lord Tenterden's Act, which applies to incorporated companies and to individual persons, was rendered necessary by an evasion of the statute of frauds, treating the guarantee for a debt, default or miscarriage, when not in writing as a fraudulent representation, giving rise to damages for a tort.

Statute of frauds
The statute of frauds does not invalidate a verbal guarantee, but renders it unenforceable. It may therefore be available to support a defense to an action, and money paid under it cannot be recovered. An indemnity is not a guarantee within the statute, unless it contemplates the primary liability of a third person. It need not, therefore, be in writing when it is only a promise to become liable for a debt if the person to whom the promise is made should become liable.

Neither does the statute apply to the promise of a del credere agent to make no sales on behalf of his principal except to persons who are absolutely solvent, and renders the agent liable for any loss that may result from the non-fulfilment of his promise. A promise to give a guarantee is within the statute, though not one to procure a guarantee. The general principles which determine what are guarantees within the statute of frauds are: (1) the primary liability of a third person must exist or be contemplated; (2) the promise must be made to the creditor; (3) there must be no liability by the surety independent of an express promise of guarantee; (4) the main object of the parties to the guarantee must be the fulfilment of a third party's obligation; and (5) the contract entered into must not amount to a sale by the creditor to the promiser of the security for a debt or of the debt itself.

As regards the kind of note or memorandum of the guarantee that will satisfy the statute of frauds, "no special promise to be made, by any person after the passing of this act, to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person, being in writing and signed by the party to be charged, or some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized, shall be deemed invalid to support an action, suit or other proceeding, to charge the person by whom such promise shall have been made, by reason only that the consideration for such promise does not appear in writing or by necessary inference from a written document." Any writing embodying the terms of the agreement between the parties and signed by the party to be charged is sufficient; and the idea of agreement need not be present to the mind of the person signing. It is, however, necessary that the names of the contracting parties should appear somewhere in writing; that the party to be charged, or his agent, should sign the agreement or another paper referring to it; and that, when the note or memorandum is made, a complete agreement shall exist. The memorandum need not be contemporaneous with the agreement itself.

United States
In the United States, but not apparently elsewhere, there is a distinction between a surety and a guarantor. A surety is usually bound with the principal, at the same time and on the same consideration, while the contract of a guarantor is his own separate undertaking and the guarantor is not liable until due diligence has been exerted to compel the principal debtor to make good any default. There is no privity of contract between a surety and the principal debtor. Rather, the surety contracts with the creditor and is not jointly liable to the creditor.

Other common law jurisdictions
In India, a guarantee may be either oral or written, while in Australia, Jamaica and Sri Lanka it must be in writing.

The Irish Statute of Frauds has provisions identical to those found in the English Statute of Frauds.

Civil law
According to various existing civil codes, a suretyship, when the underlying obligation is "non-valuable", is null and void unless the invalidity is the result of personal incapacity of the principal debtor In some countries, however, the mere personal incapacity of a minor to borrow suffices to eliminate the guarantee of a loan made to him The Egyptian codes sanction guarantees expressly entered into "in view of debtor's want of legal capacity" to contract a valid principal obligation The Portuguese code retains the surety's liability, in respect of an invalid principal obligation, until the latter has been legally rescinded.

According to several codes civil sureties are divided into conventional, legal and judicial, while the Spanish code further divides them into gratuitous and for valuable consideration.

The German code civil requires the surety's promise to be verified by writing where he has not executed the principal obligation. The Portuguese code renders a guarantee provable by all the modes established by law for the proof of the principal contract According to most civil codes civil a guarantee like any other contract can usually be made verbally in the presence of witnesses and in certain cases (where for instance considerable sums of money are involved) sous signature privee or by a judicial or notarial instrument. The French and Belgian Codes, moreover, provide that suretyship is not to be presumed but must always be expressed.

Contract law
In England the common-law requisites of a guarantee are the same as any other contract. The mutual assent of two or more parties, competency to contract and valuable consideration. An offer to guarantee must be accepted, either by express or implied acceptance.

If a surety's assent to a guarantee has been procured by fraud by the person to whom it is given, there is no binding contract. Fraud may consist of suppression, concealment or misrepresentation. However, only facts that are really material to the risk undertaken need be spontaneously disclosed. The competency of the parties to enter into a contract of guarantee may be affected by insanity or intoxication of the surety, if known to the creditor, or by any disability. The ordinary disabilities are those of minors.

In some guarantees the consideration is "entire". For example, in consideration for a lease being granted, the surety becomes answerable for the performance of the covenants of the lease. In other cases it is "fragmentary" or supplied from time to time, as where a guarantee is given to secure the balance of a running account at a bank, for goods supplied When the consideration is "entire", the guarantee runs on through the duration of the lease and is irrevocable. When the consideration is "fragmentary", unless the guarantee stipulates to the contrary, the surety may at any time terminate his liability under the guarantee.

Total failure of consideration or illegal consideration by the party giving a guarantee will prevent its being enforced. Though in all countries the mutual assent of two or more parties is essential to the formation of any contract, a consideration is not everywhere regarded as a necessary element. Thus in Scotland a contract may be binding without a consideration to support it.

Cross guarantees
Cross guarantees are created where two or more related businesses or individuals agree to guarantee each others' liabilities and obligations. Cross guarantees enable businesses within a corporate group to support each other with raising finance, reducing risk to lenders, or to win contracts based on a stronger financial position.

Liability
The liability incurred by a surety under his guarantee depends upon its terms, and is not necessarily coextensive with that of the principal debtor. It is, however, obvious that the surety's obligation cannot exceed that of the principal. By many existing civil codes, however, a guarantee which imposes on the surety a greater liability than that of the principal is not invalidated but is merely reducible to that of the principal. However, in India the liability of the surety is, unless otherwise provided by contract, coextensive with that of the principal.

Where the liability of the surety is less extensive in amount than that of the principal debtor, questions have arisen in England and America as to whether the surety is liable only for part of the debt equal to the limit of his liability, or, up to such limit, for the whole debt. The surety cannot be made liable except for a loss sustained by reason of the default guaranteed against. Moreover, in the case of a joint and several guarantee by several sureties, unless all sign it none are liable thereunder. The limit of the surety's liability must be construed so as to give effect to what may fairly be inferred to have been the intention of the parties as expressed in writing. In cases of doubtful import, recourse to parol evidence is permissible, to explain, but not to contradict, the written evidence of the guarantee.

As a general rule, the surety is not liable if the principal debt cannot be enforced. It has never been actually decided in England whether this rule holds good in cases where the principal debtor is a minor and on that account is not liable to the creditor. When directors guarantee the performance by their company of a contract which is beyond their authority, and therefore not binding on the company, the directors' liability is enforceable against them personally.

Termination of liability
It is not always easy to determine for how long liability under a guarantee endures. Sometimes a guarantee is limited to a single transaction, and is obviously intended to be security against one specific default only. On the other hand, it as often happens that it is not exhausted by one transaction on the faith of it, but extends to a series of transactions, and remains a standing security until it is revoked, either by the act of the parties or by the death of the surety. It is then termed a continuing guarantee.

No fixed rules of interpretation determine whether a guarantee is a continuing one or not, but each case must be judged on its individual merits. Frequently, in order to achieve a correct construction, it becomes necessary to examine the surrounding circumstances, which often reveal what was the subject matter which the parties contemplated when the guarantee was given, and what was the scope and object of the transaction between them. Most continuing guarantees are either ordinary business securities for advances made or goods supplied to the principal debtor or else bonds for the good behavior of persons in public or private offices or employment. With regard to the latter class of continuing guarantees, the surety's liability is, generally speaking, revoked by any change in the constitution of the persons to or for whom the guarantee is given. In England the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury may vary the character of any security, given for good behavior by the heads of public departments given by companies for the due performance of the duties of an office or employment in the public service.

Limitation of liability
Before the surety can be rendered liable on his guarantee, the principal debtor must have made default. When, however, this has occurred, the creditor, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, may sue the surety, without informing him of such default having taken place before proceeding against the principal debtor or resorting to securities for the debt received from the latter. In those countries where the municipal law is based on the Roman law, sureties usually possess the right (which may, however, be renounced by them) of compelling the creditor to insist on the goods, etc. (if any) of the principal debtor being first "discussed", i.e., appraised and sold, and appropriated to the liquidation of the debt guaranteed before having recourse to the sureties. This right "accords with a common sense of justice and the natural equity of mankind". In England this right has never been fully recognized, nor does it prevail in America and Scotland.

In England, however, before any demand for payment has been made by the creditor on the surety, the latter can, as soon as the principal debtor has made default, compel the creditor, on giving him an indemnity against costs and expenses, to sue the principal debtor if the latter is solvent and able to pay. and a similar remedy is also open to the surety in America. In neither of these countries nor in Scotland can one of several sureties, when sued for the whole guaranteed debt by the creditor, compel the latter to divide his claim among the sureties, and reduce it to the share and proportion of each surety. However, this beneficium divisionis, as it is called in Roman law, is recognized by many existing codes.

Enforcement of liability
The usual mode in England of enforcing liability under a guarantee is by action in the High Court or the County Court. It is also permissible for the creditor to obtain redress by means of a set-off or counterclaim, in an action brought against him by the surety. On the other hand, the surety may now, in any court in which the action on the guarantee is pending, avail himself of any set-off which may exist between the principal debtor and the creditor. Moreover, if one of several sureties for the same debt is sued by the creditor or his guarantee, he can, by means of a third-party complaint, claim contribution from his co-sureties towards the common liability. Independent proof of the surety's liability under his guarantee must always be given at the trial. The creditor cannot rely on admissions made by or a judgment or award against the principal debtor.

A person liable as a surety for another under a guarantee possesses rights against the person to whom the guarantee was given. As regards the surety's rights against the principal debtor, where the guarantee was made with the debtors consent but not otherwise, after he has made default, be compelled by the surety to exonerate him from liability by payment of the guaranteed debt. If the surety has paid any portion of the guaranteed debt, the surety is entitled to rank as a creditor for the amount paid and to compel repayment.

In the event of the principal debtor's bankruptcy, the surety can in England act against the bankrupt's estate, not only in respect of payments made before the bankruptcy of the principal debtor, but also, it seems, in respect of the contingent liability to pay under the guarantee. If the creditor has already acted, the surety who has paid the guaranteed debt has a right to all dividends received by the creditor from the bankrupt in respect to the guaranteed debt, and to stand in the creditor's place as to future dividends. The rights of the surety against the creditor are in England exercisable even by one who in the first instance was a principal debtor, but has since become a surety, by arrangement with his creditor.

Rights of surety against the creditor
The surety's principal right against the creditor entitles him, after payment of the guaranteed debt, to the benefit of all securities which the creditor held against the principal debtor. If the creditor has lost these securities by default or laches or rendered them otherwise unavailable, the surety is discharged pro tanto. This right, which is not in abeyance till the surety is called on to pay extends to all securities, whether satisfied or not. "[E]very person who being surety for the debt or duty of another, or being liable with another for any debt or duty, shall pay such debt or perform such duty, shall be entitled to have assigned to him, or to a trustee for him, every judgment, specialty, or other security, which shall be held by the creditor in respect of such debt or duty, whether such judgment, specialty, or other security shall or shall not be deemed at law to have been satisfied by the payment of the debt or performance of the duty, and such person shall be entitled to stand in the place of the creditor, and to use all the remedies, and, if need be, and upon a proper indemnity, to use the name of the creditor, in any action or other proceeding at law or in equity, in order to obtain from the principal debtor, or any co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor, as the case may be, indemnification for the advances made and loss sustained by the person who shall have so paid such debt or performed such duty; and such payment or performance so made by such surety shall not be pleadable in bar of any such action or other proceeding by him, provided always that no co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor shall be entitled to recover from any other co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor, by the means aforesaid, more than the just proportion to which, as between those parties themselves, such last-mentioned person shall be justly liable". The right of the surety to be subrogated on payment by him of the guaranteed debt, to all the rights of the creditor against the principal debtor is recognized in America and many other countries.

Rights of surety against other sureties
A surety is entitled to contribution from a co-surety in respect of their common liability. This particular right is not the result of any contract, but is derived from an equity, on the ground of equality of burden and benefit, and exists whether the sureties be bound jointly, or jointly and severally, and by the same, or different, instruments. There is, however, no right of contribution where each surety is severally bound for a given portion only of the guaranteed debt; nor in the case of a surety for a surety; nor where a person becomes a surety jointly with another and at the latter's request. Contribution may be enforced, either before payment, or as soon as the surety has paid more than his share of the common debt; and the amount recoverable is now always regulated by the number of solvent sureties, though formerly this rule only prevailed in equity. In the event of the bankruptcy of a surety, proof can be made against his estate by a co-surety for any excess over the latter's contributive share. The right of contribution is not the only right possessed by co-sureties against each other, but they are also entitled to the benefit of all securities which have been taken by any one of them as an indemnity against the liability incurred for the principal debtor.

The Roman law did not recognize the right of contribution among sureties. It is, however, sanctioned by many existing codes.

Discharge of liability
The most prolific ground of discharge of a guarantor usually arises from the creditor's conduct. The governing principle is that if the creditor violates any rights which the surety possessed when he entered into the suretyship, even though the damage is only nominal, the guarantee cannot be enforced. The surety's discharge may be accomplished (1) by a variation of the terms of the contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, or of that between the creditor and the surety; (2) by the creditor taking a new security from the principal debtor in lieu of the original one; (3) by the creditor discharging the principal debtor from liability; (4) by the creditor binding himself to give time to the principal debtor for payment of the guaranteed debt; or (5) by loss of securities received by the creditor in respect of the guaranteed debt. The first four of these acts are collectively termed a novation. In general whatever extinguishes the principal obligation necessarily determines that of the surety, not only in England but elsewhere. By most civil codes the surety is discharged by conduct of the creditor inconsistent with the surety's rights, although the rule prevailing in England, Scotland, America and India which releases the surety from liability when the creditor extends without the surety's consent the time for fulfilling the principal obligation, while recognized by two existing codes civil, is rejected by the majority of them. A revocation of the contract of suretyship by act of the parties, or in certain cases by the death of the surety, may also operate to discharge the surety.

The death of a surety does not per se determine the guarantee, but, save where from its nature the guarantee is irrevocable by the surety himself, it can be revoked by express notice after his death, or by the creditor becoming receiving constructive notice of the death; except where, under the testator's will, the executor has the option of continuing the guarantee, in which case the executor should specifically withdraw the guarantee in order to terminate it. If one of a number of joint and several sureties dies, the future liability of the survivors continues, at least until it has been terminated by express notice. In such a case, however, the estate of the deceased surety would be relieved from liability. The statute of limitations may bar the right of action on guarantees subject to variation by statute in any U.S. state where the guarantee is sought to be enforced.

Personal liability
In Manches LLP v Carl Freer (2006) EWHC 991, a company director guaranteed his companies' payments of solicitors' fees in the event that his companies failed to pay them. The High Court found that he had signed the guarantee on behalf of his companies and not in a personal capacity, and he was therefore not personally liable for the unpaid debts. This ruling can be contrasted with the ruling based on different facts in Young v Schuler (1883) 11 QBD 651, where "the issue was whether Schuler had signed an agreement simply under a power of attorney on behalf of one of the named parties or, additionally, on his own behalf as a guarantor".

title: Guarantee


text:
SN 1006

SN 1006 was a supernova that is likely the brightest observed stellar event in recorded history, reaching an estimated −7.5 visual magnitude, and exceeding roughly sixteen times the brightness of Venus. Appearing between April 30 and May 1, 1006, in the constellation of Lupus, this "guest star" was described by observers across China, Japan, modern-day Iraq, Egypt, and Europe, and was possibly recorded in North American petroglyphs. Some reports state it was clearly visible in the daytime. Modern astronomers now consider its distance from Earth to be about 7,200 light-years or 2,200 parsecs.

Historic reports
Egyptian astrologer and astronomer Ali ibn Ridwan, writing in a commentary on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, stated that the "spectacle was a large circular body, 2$1/2$ to 3 times as large as Venus. The sky was shining because of its light. The intensity of its light was a little more than a quarter that of Moon light" (or perhaps "than the light of the Moon when one-quarter illuminated"). Like all other observers, Ali ibn Ridwan noted that the new star was low on the southern horizon. Some astrologers interpreted the event as a portent of plague and famine.

The most northerly sighting is recorded in the Annales Sangallenses maiores of the Abbey of Saint Gall in Switzerland, at a latitude of 47.5° north. Monks at St. Gall provided independent data as to its magnitude and location in the sky, writing that This description is often taken as probable evidence that the supernova was of type Ia.
 * "[i]n a wonderful manner this was sometimes contracted, sometimes diffused, and moreover sometimes extinguished ... It was seen likewise for three months in the inmost limits of the south, beyond all the constellations which are seen in the sky".

In The Book of Healing, Iranian philosopher Ibn Sina reported observing this supernova from northeastern Iran. He reported it as a transient celestial object which was stationary and/or tail-less (a star among the stars), that it remained for close to 3 months getting fainter and fainter until it disappeared, that it threw out sparks, that is, it was scintillating and very bright, and that the color changed with time.

Some sources state that the star was bright enough to cast shadows; it was certainly seen during daylight hours for some time.

According to Songshi, the official history of the Song Dynasty (sections 56 and 461), the star seen on May 1, 1006, appeared to the south of constellation Di, between Lupus and Centaurus. It shone so brightly that objects on the ground could be seen at night.

By December, it was again sighted in the constellation Di. The Chinese astrologer Zhou Keming, who was on his return to Kaifeng from his duty in Guangdong, interpreted the star to the emperor on May 30 as an auspicious star, yellow in color and brilliant in its brightness, that would bring great prosperity to the state over which it appeared. The reported color yellow should be taken with some suspicion, however, because Zhou may have chosen a favorable color for political reasons.

There appear to have been two distinct phases in the early evolution of this supernova. There was first a three-month period at which it was at its brightest; after this period it diminished, then returned for a period of about eighteen months.

Petroglyphs by the Hohokam in White Tank Mountain Regional Park, Arizona, and by the Ancestral Puebloans in Chaco Culture National Historical Park, New Mexico, have been interpreted as the first known North American representations of the supernova, though other researchers remain skeptical.

Earlier observations discovered from Yemen may indicate a sighting of SN 1006 on April 17, two weeks before its previously assumed earliest observation.

Remnant
SN 1006's associated supernova remnant from this event was not identified until 1965, when Doug Milne and Frank Gardner used the Parkes radio telescope to demonstrate a connection to known radio source PKS 1459−41. This is located near the star Beta Lupi, displaying a 30 arcmin circular shell. X-ray and optical emission from this remnant have also been detected, and during 2010 the H.E.S.S. gamma-ray observatory announced the detection of very-high-energy gamma-ray emission from the remnant. No associated neutron star or black hole has been found, which is the situation expected for the remnant of a Type Ia supernova (a class of explosion believed to completely disrupt its progenitor star). A survey in 2012 to find any surviving companions of the SN 1006 progenitor found no subgiant or giant companion stars, indicating that SN 1006 most likely had double degenerate progenitors; that is, the merging of two white dwarf stars.

Remnant SNR G327.6+14.6 has an estimated distance of 2.2 kpc from Earth, making the true linear diameter approximately 20 parsecs.

Effect on Earth
Research has suggested that type Ia supernovae can irradiate the Earth with significant amounts of gamma-ray flux, compared with the typical flux from the Sun, up to distances on the order of 1 kiloparsec. SN 1006 lies well beyond 1 kiloparsec, and it did not appear to have significant effects on Earth. However, a signal of its outburst can be found in nitrate deposits in Antarctic ice.

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

title: SN 1006


text:
Crockett Johnson

Crockett Johnson (October 20, 1906 – July 11, 1975) was the pen name of the American cartoonist and children's book illustrator David Johnson Leisk. He is best known for the comic strip Barnaby (1942–1952) and the Harold series of books, beginning with Harold and the Purple Crayon.

From 1965 until his death in 1975, Johnson created more than 100 paintings relating to mathematics and mathematical physics, and 80 of them are found in the collections of the National Museum of American History.

Biography
Born in New York City, Johnson grew up in Corona, Queens, New York, attended PS 16 and Newtown High School. His father was from the Shetland Islands in Scotland and his mother was an immigrant from Germany. Johnson studied art at Cooper Union in 1924, and at New York University in 1925. He explained his choice of pseudonym as follows: "Crockett is my childhood nickname. My real name is David Johnson Leisk. Leisk was too hard to pronounce -- so -- I am now Crockett Johnson!"

By the late 1920s, Johnson was art editor at several McGraw-Hill trade publications. With the Great Depression, he became politicized and turned leftward, joining the radical Book and Magazine Writers Union. In 1934, Johnson began his cartooning career by contributing to the Communist Party publication New Masses and subsequently joined the publication's staff, becoming its art editor and redesigning the magazine's layout. He remained with the magazine until 1940 and embarked on a career drawing comic strips in a series in Collier's magazine named "The Little Man with the Eyes". In 1942, Johnson developed the Barnaby strip which would make him famous for the left-wing daily newspaper PM.

In 1939 Johnson married writer Ruth Krauss. They had no children together, nor did they have children with their first spouses. They lived in Westport, Connecticut. Together, they collaborated on several children's books.

The children's book Harold and the Purple Crayon was published in 1955.

Johnson died on July 11, 1975 at Norwalk Hospital in Norwalk, Connecticut of lung cancer; he was 68 years old.

Children's books
Johnson collaborated on four children's books with his wife, Ruth Krauss. The books were: The Carrot Seed, How to Make an Earthquake, Is This You?, and The Happy Egg.

The books Harold and the Purple Crayon, Harold's Fairy Tale, and A Picture for Harold's Room have been adapted for animation by Gene Deitch.

Mathematical paintings

Johnson created his series of more than 100 mathematical paintings inspired by geometric principles and mathematicians. He painted layered geometric shapes in the paintings, based on classic mathematical theorems and diagrams in James R. Newman's The World of Mathematics as well as other mathematics books. The paintings were inspired by famous mathematicians such as Galileo, Euclid, Descartes, and many more, and the titles of said paintings are references to each mathematician--"Proof of the Pythagorean Theorem" for Euclid, "Pendulum Momentum" for Galileo, and "Square Root of Two" after Descartes. Later, he began to construct using his own inventions. Most of Johnson's abstract images are painted with house paint on the rough side of a two-by-three foot piece of masonite, save those he enlarged to four-by-four, he explained in a letter.

Johnson made an effort to differentiate his paintings from contemporary art in that his are based on the mathematics of geometry, not solely the shapes. In his 1971 article titled "Geometric Geometric Painting", published in Leonardo, Johnson describes this type of geometric painting as using shapes and lines to experiment with color and optic illusion for decoration, the evocation of emotion, representation of ancient symbols or other purposes unrelated to geometry.

From 1965 until his death in 1975, Johnson painted over 100 works relating to mathematics and mathematical physics.

Works

 * Barnaby (1943)
 * Barnaby and Mr. O'Malley (1944)
 * Willie's Adventures, Three Stories by Margaret Wise Brown, (1944), illus. by Johnson
 * Ruth Krauss, The Carrot Seed (1945), illus. by Johnson
 * Harold and the Purple Crayon (1955)
 * Is This You? (1955), co-written with Ruth Krauss
 * Franklyn M. Branley, Eleanor K. Vaughn, Mickey's Magnet (1956), illus. by Johnson
 * Barkis: Some precise and some speculative interpretations of the meaning of a dog's bark at certain times and in certain (illustrated) circumstances (1956)
 * Harold's Fairy Tale (Further Adventures with the Purple Crayon) (1956)
 * Harold's Trip to the Sky (1957)
 * Terrible, Terrifying Toby (1957)
 * Time for Spring (1957)
 * Bernadine Cook, The Little Fish That Got Away (1957)
 * Harold at the North Pole (1958)
 * The Blue Ribbon Puppies (1958)
 * Ellen's Lion: Twelve Stories (1959)
 * The Frowning Prince (1959)
 * Harold's Circus (1959)
 * Will Spring Be Early? or Will Spring Be Late? (1959)
 * A Picture for Harold's Room (1960)
 * Harold's ABC (1963)
 * The Lion's Own Story: Eight New Stories about Ellen's Lion (1963)
 * We Wonder What Will Walter Be? When He Grows Up (1964)
 * Castles in the Sand (1965), illus. by Betty Fraser
 * The Emperor's Gifts (1965)
 * Barnaby #1: Wanted, A Fairy Godfather (1985)
 * Barnaby #2: Mr. O'Malley and the Haunted House (1985)
 * Barnaby #3: Jackeen J. O'Malley for Congress (1986)
 * Barnaby #4: Mr. O'Malley Goes for the Gold (1986)
 * Barnaby #5: Mr. O'Malley, Wizard of Wall Street (1986)
 * Barnaby #6: J.J. O'Malley Goes Hollywood (1986)
 * Magic Beach (2005), with an appreciation by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by Philip Nel
 * Barnaby, Volume One: 1942-1943 (2013), with a Foreword by Chris Ware and essays by Jeet Heer, Dorothy Parker, and Philip Nel
 * Barnaby, Volume Two: 1944-1945 (2014), with a Foreword by Jules Feiffer and essays by R.C. Harvey, Max Lerner, and Philip Nel
 * Barnaby, Volume Three: 1946-1947 (2016), with a Foreword by Jeff Smith (cartoonist) and essays by Nathalie op de Beeck, Coulton Waugh, and Philip Nel

The Barnaby #1 to #6 books, published in paperback by Ballantine Books under the Del Rey imprint in 1985, were compilations of the first few years of the comic strip. Additional books were supposed to appear, but publication was suspended upon the death of Judy Lynn Del Rey. In 2013, Fantagraphics began republishing Barnaby. The five-volume collection, featuring all 10 years of Barnaby, is expected to be complete in 2019.

A 1946 play, "Barnaby and Mr. O'Malley", was based on the comic strip. Despite initial funding of $85,000 (approximately $1.28M in 2023), it ran for four performances before it "closed for repairs", never to return.

title: Crockett Johnson


text:
Amanda Jones (inventor)

Amanda Theodosia Jones (October 19, 1835 – March 31, 1914) was an American author and inventor, most noted for inventing a vacuum method of canning called the Jones Process.

Jones was descended from Puritan, Huguenot, Quaker and Methodist ancestors. Her forefathers were among the patriots of the American Revolution. She wrote a number of war poems during the Civil War. These were published, with others, in book form. Ill health for a number of years made it impossible for her to keep up her literary work. Some of her poems appeared in Scribner's Magazine while others were published in the Century, Our Continent, and other journals. She published a volume of verse entitled A Prairie Idyl and Other Poems. She made her home in Chicago, Illinois.

Early life and education
Jones was born in East Bloomfield, New York, on October 19, 1835, the fourth child of Henry and Mary Alma (Mott) Jones. She attended district schools in East Bloomfield and Black Rock, New York; she completed normal school training at the East Aurora Academy in New York and began teaching at the age of fifteen. In 1859, she contracted tuberculosis and spent over a year and a half recovering from the illness. Although she overcame the primary phase of the illness, Jones never fully recovered and would undergo spa treatments and alternative medicine practices to deal with the long term difficulties.

Influence of spiritualism
Influenced by the writings of Thomas Dick and the spiritualism movement, Jones became a convert to spiritualism in 1854 and believed herself to be a medium. In 1869, believing that the spirits wanted her there, she moved to Chicago, where she wrote for a number of periodicals, including Western Rural, Universe, Interior, and Bright Sides.

Patents and inventions – 1872–1880
While working as an editor in Chicago, Jones allegedly befriended a doctor by the name of Johnathon Andrews. He often was known as an advocate and practitioner of unorthodox healing methods on the basis that “love transcended death”. Jones, with her interest and background in spirituality, was enthusiastic about Andrews’’ views on medicine and enlisted his help in battling her ailments following her bout with tuberculosis. For five years, Andrews allegedly treated Jones using air baths, a treatment where the patient would spend a period of time in a tank full of compressed air.

In 1872, Jones developed a vacuum canning process for preserving food, with the help of Professor Leroy C. Cooley of Albany, who was the brother-in-law of her sister Emily. At the time, food safety and preservation was only beginning to be understood. While canning food had been relatively popular for European militaries, the system had its problems. The popular system of canning at that time, invented in 1810 by Nicolas-Francois Appert, required food to be thoroughly cooked before being stored, often leaving the food mushy and tasteless. This preserved food was also often canned in tin cans, which posed difficulty for consumers since can openers had not yet been invented. This process was only attainable using large machinery and manufacturing resources, causing consumers to rely on purchasing preserved foods instead of being able to do it at home.

The Jones Method involved steaming sealed jars filled with fruits and vegetables in a light syrup, fruit juice, or water, to an internal temperature of 120०F, forcing the air out of the jar and thus creating an airtight seal which would protect the food from oxygen that fuels the growth of bacteria. Jones’ invention would allow for food to be preserved uncooked, allowing fresh fruits and vegetables to be enjoyed later in the season. Her invention allowed for easier opening, using a glass jar and vacuum sealed lid instead of a seam sealed tin can, and made the act of food preservation more attainable to people at home.

On June 3, 1873, Cooley obtained a patent on an apparatus for preserving fruit which he assigned to Jones. On the same day, a second patent was issued to both Cooley and Jones for their process, and two more patents were issued solely to Jones for her improved jar. Later, on June 24 of the same year, Cooley obtained a patent for the device that removes air from jars, making the patent the fifth and final to constitute the Jones Preserving Process.

In 1910, Jones published A Psychic Autobiography where it was revealed Jones’ two primary advisors, one of which was Andrews, had been dead at the time they allegedly advised her. Jones claims their influence and guidance had been gained through seances which she frequently attended.

Again following the advice of the spirits she communicated with, she developed another invention, an oil burner, which she patented in 1880. However, her attempts to establish businesses based on her inventions were unsuccessful, and she returned to writing, publishing A Prairie Idyll in 1882. There is one reference (Stanley, Autumn – See Bibliography) that maintains she has a patent for a Ready-Opener Tin Can, but that is the only, unsupported, reference to this patent.

Following the invention of the Jones Preserving Process and the sale of the Women’s Canning and Preserving Company, Jones continues inventing, staking claim to the oil burner, several types of valves, and a form of the tin can opener, giving her six patents in total.

Founding of Women's Canning and Preserving Company – 1890
A strong supporter of women's rights and suffrage, she founded the Women's Canning and Preserving Company in Chicago in 1890, which employed only women. In an address to her employees, Jones said that "This is a woman's industry. No man will vote our stock, transact our business, keep our books, pronounce on women's wages, supervise our factories. Give men whatever work is suitable, but keep the governing power. This is a business training school for working women – you with all the rest. Here is a mission; let it be fulfilled." When this venture failed in 1893, she left Chicago for Junction City, Kansas, where two of her sisters lived.

The business saw considerable profits in the first year, attracting investors that expected to see greater profits. A group of investors bought the canning business, with dispute over whether Jones willingly sold the company or if she was pushed out.

Later life
Jones continued to work with both of her inventions, obtaining patents on the canning process in 1903, 1905, and 1906, and additional patents relating to the oil burner in 1904, 1912, and 1914. She continued to publish occasional literary works, including the Rubaiyat of Solomon and Other Poems in 1905.

Following the Spanish–American War the U.S. Navy began investigating the transition from coal fired ships to oil. In 1904 they released a 489-page report which detailed extensively a comparison between coal and oil. Jones was asked to write a technical review of the report for Engineer: With which is Incorporated Steam Engineering. According to her obituary she was paid liberally for her contribution of four articles in 1904 and 1905. Those articles are online at the HathiTrust:
 * THE LIQUID FUEL PROBLEM Part I (Vol 41 – 1904 – pages 821–822) (A Review of the Completed "Report of the U.S. Navy Liquid Fuel Board,issued Sept., 1904).
 * THE LIQUID FUEL PROBLEM – II (Vol 41 – 1904 – pages 855–856)
 * THE LIQUID FUEL PROBLEM – III (Vol 42 – 1905 – page 90)
 * THE LIQUID FUEL PROBLEM – IV (Vol.42 – 1905 pages 108–109)

In 1910, she published her autobiography, A Psychic Autobiography, which focused on her interest in spiritualism. Late in her life, she moved to Brooklyn, New York, to pursue business interests, where she died of influenza in 1914. She was listed in Who's Who in America for 1912–13 and in Woman's Who's Who in America for 1914–15.

She is buried in Riverside Cemetery, Cleveland, Ohio in her brother William's plot.

Works
She quit teaching in 1854 after her first poem was published by the Ladies' Repository of Cincinnati. In 1861, she published Ulah, and Other Poems; a second book of verse, Poems, was published in 1867. Her health had been fragile since contracting tuberculosis in 1859; after the publication of Poems, she spent a year recuperating at the home of her widowed mother in Wisconsin.

Books
Jones published six books in her lifetime. All are available online at the Internet Archive.
 * 1) Ulah: And Other Poems. Jones, Amanda T.  Buffalo: H.H. Otis. 1861
 * 2) Poems. By Amanda T. Jones, Published/Created: New York, Hurd and Houghton, 1867.
 * 3) A Prairie Idyl, and Other Poems. Published/Created: Chicago, Jansen, McClurg & company, 1882.
 * 4) Rubáiyát of Solomon, and Other Poems. By Amanda T. Jones; Introduction by J. N. Larned. Published/Created: New York, Alden brothers, 1905.
 * 5) Poems, 1854–1906, by Amanda T. Jones. Published/Created: New York, Alden Brothers, 1906.
 * 6) A Psychic Autobiography / by Amanda T. Jones; with introduction by James H. Hyslop. Published/Created: New York: Greaves Publishing Co., c1910.

Ladies Repository of Cincinnati Publications
Between 1855 and 1864 Jones published frequently in the Ladies Repository. These poems, along with one she published in Overland Monthly and Out West magazine in 1894, are available at the University of Michigan's Making of America Journals digital library.
 * "The Death of the Old Year" Volume: 15, Issue: 12, Dec 1855, pp. 736
 * "The Music of the Soul" Volume: 15, Issue: 11, Nov 1855, pp. 678
 * "There is a God" Volume: 15, Issue: 4, Apr 1855, pp. 242
 * "Visions" Volume: 15, Issue: 10, Oct 1855, pp. 616
 * "Dream-Land" Volume: 16, Issue: 8, Aug 1856, pp. 458
 * "Glen Elgin" Volume: 16, Issue: 7, July 1856, pp. 424
 * "My Spirit Lute" Volume: 16, Issue: 9, Sept 1856, pp. 544
 * "The Child – The Maiden – The Mother" Volume: 16, Issue: 3, Mar 1856, pp. 155
 * "The Kind of the North" Volume: 16, Issue: 4, Apr 1856, pp. 217
 * "Life's Warfare" Volume: 17, Issue: 1, Jan 1857, pp. 3
 * "Our Playmates Grave" Volume: 17, Issue: 8, Aug 1857, pp. 453
 * "Prayer and Praise" Volume: 17, Issue: 2, Feb 1857, pp. 71
 * "The Silver Chalice" Volume: 17, Issue: 11, Nov 1857, pp. 684
 * "Trial and Delivery – The Messenger" Volume: 17, Issue: 6, June 1857, pp. 340
 * "Who Knoweth the Heart" Volume: 17, Issue: 4, Apr 1857, pp. 199
 * "Hide and Seek" Volume: 18, Issue: 11, Nov 1858, pp. 652
 * "Locust Leaves" Volume: 18, Issue: 1, Jan 1858, pp. 32
 * "Peace" Volume: 18, Issue: 5, May 1858, pp. 260
 * "Spring Winds" Volume: 18, Issue: 4, Apr 1858, pp. 208
 * "The Flower-Language of the Heart" Volume: 18, Issue: 7, July 1858, pp. 410
 * "The Price of Blood" Volume: 18, Issue: 8, Aug 1858, pp. 476
 * "The World" Volume: 18, Issue: 11, Nov 1858, pp. 663
 * "Happy Days" Volume: 19, Issue: 3, Mar 1859, pp. 133
 * "Heaven" Volume: 19, Issue: 2, Feb 1859, pp. 96
 * "The Reign of Truth" Volume: 19, Issue: 5, May 1859, pp. 262
 * "The Tide of Life" Volume: 19, Issue: 6, June 1859, pp. 352
 * "The Willow Tree" Volume: 19, Issue: 11, Nov 1859, pp. 667
 * "Charity" Volume: 22, Issue: 1, Jan 1862, pp. 34
 * "Day and Night" Volume: 22, Issue: 8, Aug 1862, pp. 498
 * "Les Souvenirs" Volume: 22, Issue: 12, Dec 1862, pp. 739
 * "The South Wind" Volume: 22, Issue: 10, Oct 1862, pp. 628
 * "Morta, A Vision of the Fates" Volume: 23, Issue: 3, Mar 1863, pp. 180
 * "The Harp of Columbia" Volume: 23, Issue: 1, Jan 1863, pp. 36
 * "The Ministry of Life" Volume: 23, Issue: 2, Feb 1863, pp. 96
 * "Thou Finder of Flaws" Volume: 23, Issue: 8, Aug 1863, pp. 490
 * "My Glade" Volume: 24, Issue: 9, Sept 1864, pp. 533
 * "Hawaii" Overland monthly and Out West magazine. / Volume: 24, Issue: 139, July 1894, pp. 44

title: Amanda Jones (inventor)


text:
Matthew 1:6

Matthew 1:6 is the sixth verse of the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament. The verse is part of the section where the genealogy of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus, is listed.

Content
The text of the King James Version reads:
 * And Jesse begat David the king;
 * and David the king begat Solomon
 * of her that had been the wife of Urias;

The World English Bible translates the passage as:
 * Jesse became the father of King David.
 * David became the father of Solomon
 * by her who had been the wife of Uriah.

For a collection of other versions see BibleHub Matthew 1:6.

Analysis
This verse marks the end of the first third of the genealogy as the list and the transition from the list of descendants of Abraham to the list of the Kings of Judah. This change is marked by the reference to "David the king." Robert H. Gundry also sees the reference to "David the king", an Old Testament turn of phrase, as an attempt to present him as a prototype for "Jesus the king."

Allison suggests that the key to understanding the composition of the genealogy is the device known as 'gematria', where 'names are given numerical value' (cf. ). The name of "David" in Hebrew consists of only three consonants, which the numerical value amounts to fourteen: d + w + d = 4 + 6 + 4, so that as David's name is the fourteenth on the list, that he is given the title 'king', and that 'David' occurs both before and after the genealogy, it can be inferred that 'David' is the structural key to.

The genealogy of Luke 3 and Matthew diverge at this point. Previously the lists from Abraham to David were identical. While Matthew continues to Solomon, Luke links to David's less well known son Nathan. One explanation for this divergence is that Luke's genealogy is of Mary's father Heli rather than of Joseph. Gundry argues that the divergence is because while Luke was following Joseph's biological ancestry, Matthew is listing Jesus' predecessors as the leader of the Jewish people.

The wife of Uriah the Hittite mentioned as the mother of Solomon is Bathsheba. Mentioning her by only her first husband's name emphasizes both her foreignness and the adulterous nature of her union with David. She is one of four women that are included in the genealogy (the other three are: Tamar, Rahab and Ruth; not counting Mary, mother of Jesus). Fowler states that the addition of the female names to the genealogy was not only unprecedented, but that the very idea would have been "abhorrent" to the traditional authorities. William F. Albright and C.S. Mann support the popular theory that the four women are mentioned to highlight the important roles women have played in the past and also to portray Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as the equal of these well-known figures. Raymond E. Brown feels these women are added to show that God often works through women and also that his actions are not always in keeping with standard mores. Feminist scholars such as Amy-Jill Levine support the idea that the addition of women to the male dominated genealogy demonstrates that women have an important role and serves to undermine the patriarchal message of the long list of male begat male. Robert H. Gundry suggests that all four have a dubious reputation and sees their addition to the genealogy as an attempt to show that the great leaders of Jewish history have origins as undignified as those of Jesus, although Harolf Fowler disagrees, arguing that under any circumstances the author of Matthew would have been unlikely to link the Virgin Mary to harlots and adulterers.

title: Matthew 1:6


text:
Category:English non-fiction writers

Where possible English non-fiction writers should be allocated to one or more of the subcategories, but writers who did not specialise in a particular field, or who wrote about a subject area which does not have a subcategory, may be placed directly into this category. Not all British non-fiction writers have been allocated to the home nations. There are more English writers in category:British non-fiction writers.

title: Category:English non-fiction writers


text:
Frank Tieri (mobster)

Frank Alphonse "Funzi" Tieri (born Francesco Tieri, ; February 22, 1904 – March 29, 1981) was an Italian-American mobster who eventually became the front boss of the Genovese crime family of New York City.

Early life
Tieri was born on February 22, 1904, in Castel Gandolfo, Lazio, Italy, to Carmela Tofano and Augustino Tieri, and had two sisters, Assunta and Antonietta. He immigrated from Naples to New York City with his family in 1911. Tieri was denied US citizenship twice living as a resident alien in Brooklyn. Tieri lived in a modest home in the Bath Beach section of Brooklyn with his wife and two granddaughters. His mistress, a former opera singer from Italy, lived in a house a few blocks away. Tieri claimed to be an employee of a sportswear manufacturer.

Boss
In 1972, after the murder of Genovese acting boss Thomas Eboli, Tieri became the boss of the Genovese family. At that time, it was speculated that Gambino crime family boss Carlo Gambino had ordered Eboli's murder because Eboli owed him $4 million. According to this theory, Gambino wanted Tieri to be the boss of the Genovese family. However, most experts now believe that Tieri was merely a front for the Genoveses' actual boss, Philip "Benny Squint" Lombardo. Luigi Angelo Martino, "the architect" for money laundering for the Genovese family, served directly under him.

Tieri was considered a low-profile and diplomatic mobster, a good earner for the family who believed in sharing wealth with his capos and soldiers. He was convicted of armed robbery when he was aged twenty but avoided further indictments until the end of his life. Given that Tieri was a front boss, it is unknown how much power Lombardo allowed him. However, Tieri did have a reputation as an orderly and smart manager who used violence only as a last resort.

Bruno assassination
In 1980, Tieri played a key role in the assassination of Philadelphia crime family boss Angelo Bruno and the opening of Atlantic City, New Jersey to the New York crime families. The State of New Jersey had announced the introduction of legal casino gambling in Atlantic City and the New York families wanted to open operations there. However, Atlantic City belonged to the Philadelphia family and Bruno wasn't willing to share it. In March 1980, Tieri sent a message to Philadelphia's consigliere, Antonio Caponigro, that the Mafia Commission would support him as boss if he assassinated Bruno. What Caponigro didn't know was that the Commission had no intention of sanctioning Bruno's murder. On March 21, 1980, Bruno was murdered in his car on a Philadelphia street. The Commission immediately summoned Caponigro to New York for a meeting; two weeks later, his body was discovered in New York with $20 bills stuffed in his orifices. However, the New York families did achieve access to Atlantic City.

Conviction and death
Federal prosecutors eventually charged Tieri with being the head of a crime family that was involved in racketeering, extortion and illegal gambling. On January 23, 1981, the ailing Tieri, using a wheelchair and an oxygen tank, was convicted of violating the RICO Act. At the sentencing, Tieri's lawyers argued for leniency, saying that he was dying. Prosecutors told the judge it was an act, and the judge sent Tieri to prison for ten years.

Two months later, on March 29, 1981, Tieri died of natural causes at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. He is buried in Saint John's Cemetery, Queens, New York.

title: Frank Tieri (mobster)


text:
Eddie Drummond

Edward Matthew Drummond (born April 12, 1980) is an American former professional football player who was a wide receiver and return specialist in the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for the Penn State Nittany Lions and was signed by the Detroit Lions as an undrafted free agent in 2002.

A Pro Bowl selection with the Lions in 2004, Drummond was also a member of the Kansas City Chiefs, Pittsburgh Steelers and Las Vegas Locomotives.

Early years
Drummond attended the Linsly School in Wheeling, West Virginia and was a letterman in football and track.

College career
Although recruited by Joe Paterno as a running back, Drummond would spend his time at Penn State switching between tailback and wide receiver. He finished his collegiate career with 71 receptions for 1,132 yards and five touchdowns and rushed the ball 40 times for 272 yards and one touchdown. He caught the attention of pro scouts when he finished the 2001 Blue–Gray Football Classic as the second leading rusher with 26 yards rushing on eight carries.

Detroit Lions
Drummond went undrafted during the 2002 NFL draft, but was signed as an undrafted free agent when the Lions' two starting kick returners, Az-Zahir Hakim and Desmond Howard, became injured. Drummond had an outstanding rookie season, averaging 26.0 yards per kick return, ranking him third in the NFC and fifth in the NFL, and returned a punt 73 yards for a touchdown against the Arizona Cardinals.

During the Lions' opening game of the 2003 season, Drummond returned another punt 57 yards for a touchdown, also against the Arizona Cardinals, but became injured later in the season and missed a total of 10 games.

During the 2004 season, Drummond returned two kickoffs for touchdowns of 99 and 92 yards, and returned two punts for touchdowns in the same game, against the Jacksonville Jaguars. Drummond became injured later in the season and was placed on injured reserve. Drummond was voted into the NFL Pro Bowl in 2004 after returning 2 kicks and 2 punts for touchdowns, although his injury prevented him from playing.

Drummond was the 2004 recipient of the Detroit Lions/Detroit Sports Broadcasters Association/Pro Football Writers Association's Media-Friendly "Good Guy" Award. The Good Guy Award is given yearly to the Detroit Lions player who shows consideration to, and cooperation with the media at all times during the course of the season.

On August 23, 2007, the Lions released Drummond.

Kansas City Chiefs
Drummond played in 12 games for the Kansas City Chiefs throughout the 2007 season.

Pittsburgh Steelers
On July 31, 2008, Drummond was signed by the Pittsburgh Steelers. A Steelers fan while growing up, Drummond stated his desire to end his career in Pittsburgh. He was released on August 30 during final cuts.

Las Vegas Locomotives
After being out of football for two years, on June 13, 2011 Drummond signed with the Las Vegas Locomotives.

title: Eddie Drummond


text:
User:Leyanese

...

title: User:Leyanese


text:
USS Comstock (LSD-45)

USS Comstock (LSD-45) is a Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship of the United States Navy. She was the second Navy ship to be named for the Comstock Lode in Nevada, the first being USS Comstock (LSD-19), commissioned in 1945 and decommissioned in 1976. The Comstock Lode was discovered in 1859, and was one of the richest deposits of precious metals known in the world.

Comstock was laid down on 27 October 1986, by the Avondale Shipyards, New Orleans, Louisiana; launched on 15 January 1988; and commissioned on 3 February 1990. At first USS Comstock had an all-male crew, but soon became the first United States Navy combatant ship to have a fully integrated crew of male and female sailors.

As of 2002, Comstock is homeported at NS San Diego, California, and assigned to Expeditionary Strike Group 3. As of 2014, she is part of the Makin Island amphibious ready group.

In December 2020 the U.S. Navy's Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels stated that the ship was planned to be placed Out of Commission in Reserve in 2026.

title: USS Comstock (LSD-45)


text:
Take Them On, On Your Own

Take Them On, On Your Own is the second studio album by American rock band Black Rebel Motorcycle Club. It was first released in the UK on August 25, 2003, and in the US on September 2, 2003. The album was reissued with bonus tracks in 2008. The album cover is a homage to the film The Third Man.

The album has a darker, harder rock sound than their debut album, and also contains more politically themed lyrics. The album reached #3 in the United Kingdom music charts despite receiving mixed reviews, and is almost universally credited as a lesser achievement than its predecessor B.R.M.C..

The 2003 release of this album contained the Copy Control protection system in some regions. The 2008 Japanese and European CD reissue contains three bonus tracks: "Take Them On, On Your Own", "High / Low", and "Waiting Here".

Track listing

 * Japanese 2008 Bonus tracks
 * 1) Take Them On, On Your Own" - 5:27
 * 2) "High / Low" - 4:03
 * 3) "Waiting Here" - 3:49

Credits

 * Bass, Guitar, Vocals – Robert Turner
 * Drums, Percussion – Nick Jago
 * Guitar, Bass, Vocals – Peter Hayes
 * Lyrics by – Peter Hayes, Robert Turner
 * Music by – Black Rebel Motorcycle Club
 * Engineer – Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Ric Simpson
 * Engineering Assistant – Ben Thackeray
 * Mastered by – Mike Lazer
 * Mastered by [per etching] – Paul Stubblebine
 * Mixed by – Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Ken Andrews (tracks: 1 to 4, 6, 8, 10 to 13)
 * Mixed by (assistant)– Justin Smith (tracks: 1 to 4, 6, 8, 10 to 13)
 * Producer – Black Rebel Motorcycle Club
 * (additional) Recording by – Ken Andrews

title: Take Them On, On Your Own