The following are international rankings of Barbados.

Economic

 The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation: Index of Economic Freedom 2006, ranked out of 157 countries
2005 ranked 32nd of 155 countries
International Monetary Fund: GDP (nominal) per capita 2006, ranked  out of 182 countries
International Monetary Fund: GDP (nominal) 2006, ranked  out of 181 countries
Minimum wages Index
World Economic Forum: Global Competitiveness Index 2006–2007, ranked 31st out of 125 countries
 World Economic Forum, The Global Information Technology Report 2006-2007's "Networked Readiness Index":
 2006-2007: ranked 40th out of 122 countries
 World Bank:
 Total GDP per capita
 2003 (World Bank): ranked 38 -- $15,712
 Total GDP (nominal)
 2003: ranked 138 -- $2,628
 - GDP - (PPP) per capita:
 2004: ranked 59 of 232 countries & territories --  $15,700 59th

General
 United Nations: Human Development Index 2006, ranked 31st out of 177 countries
2005, ranked 30th out of 177 countries
2004, ranked 29th out of 177 countries
2003, ranked 27th out of 175 countries
2002, ranked 31st out of 173 countries
2001, ranked 31st out of 162 countries
2000, ranked 30th out of 174 countries
1999, ranked 29th out of 174 countries
1998, N/A
Literacy rate, countries by literacy rate - by UNDP
2005: ranked 23rd of 177 countries—99.7%
 A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Magazine: Globalization Index 2007, ranked 98th out of 62 countries

Human rights
Freedom in the World – Political Liberties
2010, ranked 1st (Joint) out of 193
Freedom in the World – Civil Rights
2010, ranked 1st (Joint) out of 193

Politics
 The Economist: Democracy Index 2009, N/A
 Property Rights Alliance: International Property Rights Index 2008, N/A
 Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index 2007, ranked 40 out of 163 countries
2007-2008, ranked 50th out of 133 countries
2006-2007, ranked 40th out of 146 countries
2005-2006, ranked 31st out of 125
2004-2005, ranked 21st out of 146 countries
Reporters Without Borders: Worldwide press freedom index 2007, ranked  out of 168 countries
2008, N/A

Social
Economist Intelligence Unit: Quality-of-life index 2005, ranked 33rd out of 108 countries
Fund For Peace: Failed States Index) 2009, ranked 135 out of 177
Happy Planet Index: 2006, ranked 43rd out of 178 countries
Institute for Economics and Peace Global Peace Index 2009, N/A
Save the Children: State of the World's Mothers report
 2008: 2008 N/A
 2004: N/A

Technological
Economist Intelligence Unit e-readiness rankings 2007, ranked 9 out of 69 countries
International Telecommunication Union, Digital Access Index (Top 10 in Americas):
2002: ranked 45 of 178 countries 45th

See also
List of indices of freedom
List of island countries by population density (Currently ranked 7th most densely populated in the world)
Lists of countries
Lists by country

References

Barbados


Libertas Ireland was a political party in Ireland. It contended the 2009 European Parliament elections in Ireland under a common banner with Declan Ganley's Libertas.eu. It shared a headquarters with Libertas.eu but was a national party in its own right for the purposes of Irish electoral law.

Formation

Rumours that Libertas would become a political party began as soon as the Lisbon I referendum rejected the Treaty of Lisbon, and attention eventually moved to whether Libertas would run candidates in Ireland. On 14 March 2009, Ganley held a press conference and announced that it would. Libertas Ireland, (the Libertas national party in Ireland and a party in its own right) was founded on 29 April 2009, some months after the pan-European party was founded in 2008.

Personnel

2009 European Parliament elections

Candidates

Libertas fielded candidates in three European Parliament constituencies in Ireland. It did not intend to field a candidate in South because Libertas had close ties with Kathy Sinnott (IND/EUD/IND-DEM), an MEP for that constituency.

Campaign
At the launch of his party's 2009 European Parliament campaign, Declan Ganley encouraged voters to vote for Libertas as a protest against existing parties, said that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were part of a political cartel and that opinion polls that put his party at 2 per cent in the polls disagreed with Libertas own polling. Ganley said that he would step down as party leader if he failed to be elected in the North–West constituency.

Simons criticised Proinsias De Rossa at the launch of the EU parliament campaign, saying that he had been in the parliament for fifteen years and would be seventy next year, but she denied she was discriminating against older people.

O'Malley said that Ireland should close its borders to workers from other EU countries while appearing on The Last Word on Today FM.

Results

Ganley was not elected; he called for a recount in his constituency and, as a result, his official number of first preferences was reduced by 3,000 from 70,638 when it was discovered that some votes for Fiachra O'Luain has been mistakenly bundled with his. Neither Caroline Simons nor Raymond O'Malley were elected either. Kathy Sinnott also lost her seat.

European Parliament

Dissolution
In November 2009, the party was removed from the Register of Political Parties in Ireland. In June 2010, Ganley applied to the Companies Registration Office (CRO) to have the Libertas Party and the Libertas Foundation to be struck off voluntarily. The group had filed no accounts. As of 2010, the Libertas Institute remained active as a think-tank.

See also
Jens-Peter Bonde
2009 European Parliament election

Notes

References

Ireland
Eurosceptic parties in Ireland
Political parties established in 2009
Political parties disestablished in 2009
Defunct political parties in the Republic of Ireland
2009 establishments in Ireland
2009 disestablishments in Ireland


Willibald von Langermann und Erlencamp (29 March 1890 – 3 October 1942) was a German general during World War II. He was a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves of Nazi Germany.

Biography
Born in 1890, Erlencamp joined the 5th Dragoon Regiment of the Imperial German Army in 1910. From 1935, he commanded the 4th Cavalry Regiment before an appointment three years later as Higher Cavalry Officer I. He was later made inspector of cavalry and transport. After the commencement of World War II, he was appointed to command Special Administrative Staff 410. In March 1940 he was promoted to generalmajor, just before the Battle of France he was named commander of the 29th Motorized Infantry Division. He successfully led the division through the campaigns in Belgium and France and was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross on 15 August 1940. He had received the Iron Cross, 1st and 2nd Classes, earlier in the year.

On 7 September 1940, Erlencamp was given command of the 4th Panzer Division, which he led from the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa up until the closing stages of Operation Typhoon. In January 1942 he was appointed as commander of the XXIV Panzer Corps. Within weeks, he received a promotion to generalleutnant and this was followed in mid-1942 by a further advance in rank to general der panzertruppe. On 17 February 1942 he was awarded the Oak Leaves to the Knights Cross. He was killed in action on 3 October 1942 at Storoshewoje on the Middle Don ("in a foray in the front line").

References

Bibliography

1890 births
1942 deaths
Military personnel from Karlsruhe
Generals of Panzer Troops
German Army personnel of World War I
Recipients of the clasp to the Iron Cross, 1st class
Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves
German Army personnel killed in World War II
People from the Grand Duchy of Baden
Barons of Germany
Reichswehr personnel
German Army generals of World War II


Upper LaHave  is a community in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, located in the Lunenburg Municipal District in Lunenburg County on the shore of the LaHave River.

References
Upper LaHave on Destination Nova Scotia

Communities in Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia
General Service Areas in Nova Scotia


The 2009–10 season is Central Coast's 5th season since the inception of the A-League.

Players

Senior squad

Youth League squad

Transfers

In

Out

Loan out

Pre-season and friendlies

2009-10 Hyundai A-League fixtures

Statistics

Appearances

|-
|colspan="14"|Players who made appearances but left the club during the season:

|}

Goalscorers
Includes all competitive matches. The list is sorted by shirt number when total goals are equal.

References

2009-10
2009–10 A-League season by team


Channel Air Bridge was a private British independent airline specialising in cross-Channel vehicle-come-passenger ferry services. Freddie Laker started Channel Air Bridge as a sister airline of Air Charter on a provisional basis in 1954. Operations commenced in 1955. In 1958, Channel Air Bridge took over Air Charter's vehicle ferry services. In 1959, both Channel Air Bridge and its sister airline Air Charter became part of the Airwork group. In 1960, Airwork joined with Hunting-Clan to form British United Airways (BUA). In 1962, BUA reorganised its vehicle ferry operations by merging Channel Air Bridge with Silver City Airways. This resulted in the creation of British United Air Ferries in 1963.

History
Following Freddie Laker's creation of Channel Air Bridge on an experimental basis in 1954, the newly formed airline commenced regular scheduled vehicle and passenger ferry services in April 1955 with four Bristol Freighters shuttling seven times a day between Southend and Calais. The aircraft sported a red-and-white colour scheme. In 1955, Channel Air Bridge also took delivery of the first two of nine larger, "long-nosed" Bristol 170 Mark 32 Superfreighters. Eventually, Channel Air Bridge operated 24 daily round-trips between Southend and Calais and inaugurated additional vehicle/passenger ferry services from Southend to Ostend and Rotterdam. Southend—Ostend services were operated in partnership with Sabena.

By 1958, Channel Air Bridge was carrying almost 15,000 cars a year. A considerable proportion of this was traffic diverted from the Midlands, which would otherwise have used Silver City Airways, the original air ferry airline that had held a monopoly in this market prior to the arrival of Channel Air Bridge. 1958 was also the year Laker decided to transfer Air Charter's vehicle ferry services and Bristol 170 fleet to Channel Air Bridge, thus putting the latter solely in charge of this type of operation. During that year, Laker furthermore announced his decision to sell Air Charter, Channel Air Bridge and Aviation Traders to Airwork for £600,000 cash plus a further £200,000, subject to the valuation of stock. The deal became effective in January 1959, when all three companies joined the Airwork group.

Following a rationalisation of Air Charter's flight crew and ground staff in February 1959, Channel Air Bridge assumed Air Charter's vehicle ferry services while Air Charter's remaining operations were subsequently absorbed into the newly formed BUA, as a result of the Airwork – Hunting-Clan merger in June 1960.

By 1962, Channel Air Bridge operated scheduled vehicle, passenger and freight ferry services from Southend to Calais, Ostend, Rotterdam, Basle, Geneva and Strasbourg. The longer routes to Switzerland and Strasbourg in France, as well as all Dutch routes, were operated with ATL-98 Carvairs while Bristol Freighters continued to ply the shorter routes to Calais and Ostend. Combined rail-air-rail services were provided between London and Brussels in conjunction with British Rail and Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Belges/Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen (SNCB/NMBS), the respective contemporary national railway companies of the UK and Belgium. In addition, Channel Air Bridge held British licences to operate scheduled air ferry services from Southend to Bremen, Düsseldorf and Lyon. These licences remained unused as a result of foreign government approval being withheld.

Channel Air Bridge continued to operate under its own name until it merged with Silver City Airways to form British United Air Ferries on 1 January 1963.

Fleet
Aviation Traders ATL-98 Carvair
Bristol 170 Freighter Mark 31
Bristol Superfreighter 170 Mark 32

Fleet in 1962
In April 1962, the Channel Air Bridge fleet comprised 11 aircraft.

A further 8 Carvairs were on order.

Channel Air Bridge employed 201 people at this time.

Accidents and incidents
There is one recorded fatal accident involving a Channel Air Bridge aircraft.

The accident occurred on 28 December 1962. It involved an Aviation Traders ATL-98 Carvair (registration: G-ARSF) operating an international scheduled passenger flight from Southend to Rotterdam. While the Carvair was making a visual approach to Rotterdam Airport in conditions of snow with 1,460m visibility, the landing gear struck a 6 feet high dyke, 800 ft short of the runway threshold. When the plane hit the ground 200 ft further on, it bounced heavily. This resulted in the right wing becoming partially detached from the fuselage and the aircraft rolling rapidly to the right. After sliding inverted for about 700 ft, the Carvair came to a halt. This accident resulted in the death of one of the four crew members. All 14 passengers survived. Accident investigators established the fact that the commander carried out the final stage of approach below the normal glide path with insufficient engine power as the primary cause. This resulted in the speed of descent being too high in relation to the horizontal distance still to be covered to the beginning of the runway. As a result, the aircraft hit a dyke at a high vertical speed after facing the direction of the approach. The board of investigators furthermore concluded that the aircraft would still have hit the ground a considerable distance short of the runway threshold, possibly with less fatal consequences, even if there had been no dyke, which in this instance was not an obstruction of any significant height.

See also
Freddie Laker
 List of defunct airlines of the United Kingdom

Notes
Notes

Citations

References

  (Airliner World online)

External links
Airline Profile: Number One in a new "Flight" series — Channel Air Bridge: Background to the opening of Car Ferry Era 2, Flight International, 4 January 1962, p. 10
Airline Profile: Number One ... — Channel Air Bridge ..., Flight International, 4 January 1962, p. 11
Airline Profile: Number One ... — Channel Air Bridge ..., Flight International, 4 January 1962, p. 12
Airline Profile: Number One ... — Channel Air Bridge ..., Flight International, 4 January 1962, p. 13
Airline Profile: Number One ... — Channel Air Bridge ..., Flight International, 4 January 1962, p. 17
Channel Air Bridge at the Aviation Safety Network Database
Armstrong, P. (2005). The Flight of the Accountant: a Romance of Air and Credit, Flight to insolvency

Defunct airlines of the United Kingdom
Airlines established in 1954
Airlines disestablished in 1963


Pennywise is an American punk rock band from Hermosa Beach, California, formed in 1988. The band took its name from the antagonist in Stephen King's horror novel It known as Pennywise the Dancing Clown.

Between their 1991 self-titled debut and 2005's The Fuse, Pennywise released an album every two years on Epitaph Records, a label owned by Bad Religion guitarist Brett Gurewitz. To date, the band has released twelve full-length studio albums, one live album, two EPs and one DVD. Although their first two studio albums were critically acclaimed, Pennywise would not experience worldwide commercial success until the 1995 release of their third studio album, About Time, which peaked at number ninety-six on the Billboard 200, and number fifty-five on Australia's ARIA Charts. The band's mainstream success coincided with a growing interest in punk rock during the 1990s, along with fellow California bands NOFX, Rancid, Blink-182, Bad Religion, Green Day, The Offspring, Lagwagon, and Sublime. By 2007, the band had independently sold over three million records worldwide.

Pennywise's current line-up consists of Jim Lindberg (vocals), Fletcher Dragge (guitars), Randy Bradbury (bass), and Byron McMackin (drums). They had kept their original line-up together until bassist Jason Thirsk died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1996, after which Bradbury joined as his replacement. In August 2009, Lindberg decided to leave the band; he was replaced in February 2010 by Ignite singer Zoli Téglás. With Téglás, the band recorded their tenth studio album All or Nothing, which was released on May 1, 2012. Lindberg rejoined the band later that year after Téglás was sidelined by a back injury.

Band history

Early years (1988–1992)
Pennywise was formed in 1988 in Manhattan Beach, California, by singer Jim Lindberg, guitarist Fletcher Dragge, drummer Byron McMackin and bassist Jason Thirsk. They released two EPs A Word from the Wise and Wildcard (both 1989). Each of the band members had played in other bands in the Hermosa Beach area and attended Mira Costa High School, except for McMackin, who attended Redondo Union High School.

The group signed to Epitaph Records in 1990 and released their first album Pennywise (1991). The album quickly circulated throughout the punk community, earning the band some nationwide recognition. Lyrics in the album endorsed a positive mental attitude, helping promote progressive ideals for Generation X. Lindberg left the band soon after the debut record. In 1992, The Vandals lead singer Dave Quackenbush took over on vocals for a brief stint to help with touring. Bradbury left the band and Thirsk returned to bass.

Increasing popularity and Thirsk's death (1993–1996)
Lindberg got married and returned to the group in 1992 in time for their second album Unknown Road, released in August 1993, an underground hit that established the band as a force in punk music. While the album did not chart on the Billboard 200, it gained Pennywise supporting slots on national and world tours with bands such as The Offspring. It contained 13 tracks and one hidden track, "Slowdown".

About Time, Pennywise's third studio album, was released on June 13, 1995. It was their first album to chart on the Billboard 200, ranking 96. It also charted  55 on the Australian Album Chart, and produced one single "Same Old Story". This was also the last album to feature Jason Thirsk playing bass throughout.

In 1996, Pennywise began recording their fourth album. Thirsk left the band in an attempt to conquer his alcoholism. While initially successful, he relapsed and died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest on July 29, 1996. Their following album, Full Circle, was dedicated to his memory.

New bassist and continued popularity (1996–2002)
Following Thirsk's death, Bradbury rejoined the band as bassist and recorded their next album, Full Circle (1997). Despite the loss of the band's friend and bassist, the album came out several months after Thirsk's death and was dedicated in his honor. In tribute of Thirsk, the band re-recorded a song from their first album "Bro-Hymn" and renamed it "Bro-Hymn (tribute)". The album artwork of Full Circle resembles the cover art from their first album.

The band's next album Straight Ahead was released in 1999. The album reached 62 on the Billboard 200, and 8 on the Australian Albums Chart. The album produced 2 singles; "Alien", which reached 36 on the Hot Modern Rock Tracks & "Victim of Reality". An 18th track was released only in Australia and New Zealand, a cover of the Men at Work song "Down Under." The band ran into trouble while promoting their 1999 performance at KROQ's Weenie Roast on the Loveline radio show when an intoxicated Dragge held bandmate Bradbury and hosts Adam Carolla and Dr. Drew hostage in the studio by barricading the door with his 6-foot 5-inch, 300 pound body. The guitarist then said he was going to defecate into his hand and make Carolla eat it, threatened the hosts' lives, and claimed to have a hand grenade, but didn't. Police were called, but charges were not filed.

A live album, Live @ the Key Club was released in 2000. It contained songs from all their previous albums. Land of the Free? was released in 2001 and ranked 67 on the Billboard 200 and number 21 on the Australian ARIA Albums Chart. The song "Who's on Your Side" was co-written by Brett Gurewitz (also known as Mr. Brett), a guitarist and songwriter for Bad Religion.  That year the band took part in the Vans Warped 2001 tour.

From the Ashes and The Fuse (2003–2006)

From the Ashes was released on September 9, 2003 (United States), and reached number 54 on the Billboard 200, number 4 on the Top Independent Albums chart, and 13 Australian Albums Chart, marking the highest initial charting album in Pennywise's career. The album contained 14 tracks and retained no singles, although the song "Yesterdays" saw regular radio play on some stations.

Home Movies, the band's long-out of print 1995 VHS, was released on DVD for the first time in 2004. More footage of Pennywise can be seen on the Steve Martin film 45 Revolutions: A Slice of XVI St. Life, XVI St. being the place where Jason and Fletcher hung out in Hermosa Beach.

The band's eighth album, The Fuse, was released in Europe on June 27 and in North America on August 9, 2005. The album retained 15 tracks and charted number 36 on the Australian ARIA Album Charts. The band's Australian tour was canceled leading to breakup rumors, which Lindberg denied. Also that year, digitally-remastered versions of the first four studio albums were released.

Around 2006, Pennywise recorded a cover of Sick of It All's "My Life" for the band's 2007 tribute album Our Impact Will Be Felt. Pennywise were one of many bands to contribute to the tribute.

Reason to Believe and split with Lindberg (2007–2009)
The band returned to the studio in 2007 to begin work on their ninth album, Reason to Believe which was released on March 25, 2008. The album did not do well on the Billboard chart, but this was largely because the album was offered as a free download on Myspace, where over 400,000 copies were downloaded, making it one of their most successful albums. It peaked at No. 98 in the United States on the Billboard 200, and No. 46 in Australia on the ARIA Albums Chart. Reason to Believe did retain three singles, "The Western World", "Die For You", and "One reason".

In August 2009, Jim Lindberg announced he was leaving the band. By the time Lindberg left the group, Pennywise had begun writing new material for a tenth studio album. After the departure Lindberg formed the band The Black Pacific.

Zoli Téglás and All or Nothing (2009–2012)

Zoli Téglás, frontman for OC hardcore/punk band Ignite, previously filled in on vocals during the band's set on the 2009 Smokeout Festival, while Lindberg was filming a documentary, The Other F Word, based on his book, Punk Rock Dad: No Rules, Just Real Life.

It was announced on February 16, 2010 that Téglás would become Jim's permanent replacement. In an interview with Zoli, he talked about his joining Pennywise and plans for a brand new Pennywise album. Ignite will continue on as a band with Zoli. However, the release of their new album was delayed, partly due to commitments with the 2010 Warped Tour. Guitarist Fletcher Dragge said in a July 2010 that it would be released around the beginning of 2011. The album's release date has since been pushed back again. On October 19, 2011, Pennywise announced on their Twitter page that they had begun work on their new album. On March 7, 2012, the band released the song "All or Nothing" from the album with the same title on KROQ's website.

Pennywise did a six-date South American tour in December 2010. After that, they toured Europe in January and February 2011, followed by Australia's Soundwave in February and March and three live dates in Japan in April.

Reunion with Lindberg, Yesterdays, Never Gonna Die and next album (2012–present)
Téglás injured his back during a June 2012 concert in Germany, requiring emergency surgery. Pennywise was forced to cancel all touring activity for the year to allow the singer to heal. However, Téglás wanted to leave the band and had been in touch with Lindberg, asking him to rejoin. In an appearance on KROQ-FM that October, Dragge and Lindberg announced Lindberg's return, to be celebrated with a January 2013 show at the Hollywood Palladium commemorating the band's 25th anniversary. Lindberg's return was at a South American Festival Tour, that started November 4 in São Paulo, Brazil.

As early as 2013, Pennywise began work on their eleventh studio album Yesterdays, which was released on July 15, 2014, and is the band's first with Lindberg on vocals since 2008's Reason to Believe. Although Yesterdays is considered to be a proper studio album, it is a compilation of never-before released songs written by Pennywise's original bassist Jason Thirsk, and includes re-recordings of two songs "No Way Out" and "Slowdown". To support Yesterdays, Pennywise embarked on the Summer Nationals 2014 from July to September, sharing the bill with Bad Religion, The Offspring, The Vandals, Stiff Little Fingers and Naked Raygun. The band also plans to release a box set.

As early as 2016, Pennywise began working on their twelfth studio album. In an October 2017 interview, Lindberg confirmed that Pennywise had finished recording their twelfth studio album, which was expected to be released in early 2018. On March 6, 2018, the band announced that the album, titled Never Gonna Die, would be released on April 20.

As of June 2020, Pennywise has been working on a new album.

Musical style and lyrics
Pennywise has been described as punk rock, skate punk hardcore punk, and melodic hardcore.

Pennywise's songs and lyrics tend to focus on themes such as positive mental attitude, as well as political and social events that the band finds wrong or disagreeable.

Top Skater
Pennywise's music was featured in the 1997 SEGA arcade game Top Skater.

Discography

Studio albums
 Pennywise (1991)
 Unknown Road (1993)
 About Time (1995)
 Full Circle (1997)
 Straight Ahead (1999)
 Land of the Free? (2001)
 From the Ashes (2003)
 The Fuse (2005)
 Reason to Believe (2008)
 All or Nothing (2012)
 Yesterdays (2014)
 Never Gonna Die (2018)

Band members

Current members
Jim Lindberg – lead vocals (1988–2009, 2012–present)
Fletcher Dragge – guitar, backing vocals (1988–present)
Randy Bradbury – bass, backing vocals (1996–present)
Byron McMackin – drums, backing vocals (1988–present)

Former members
Jason Thirsk – bass, backing vocals (1988–1996; his death)
Zoli Téglás – lead vocals (2010–2012)

Timeline

References

External links

 Official website

Epitaph Records artists
Musical groups established in 1988
1988 establishments in California
Musical groups from Los Angeles
Punk rock groups from California
Skate punk groups
Melodic hardcore musical groups from California
American punk rock groups
Hardcore punk groups from California


East LaHave is a small village in Nova Scotia, Canada. The community is located in the Lunenburg Municipal District in Lunenburg County.

External links
Municipality of the District of Lunenburg

Communities in Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia
General Service Areas in Nova Scotia


Sir Jabez Edward Johnson-Ferguson, 1st Baronet (27 November 1849 – 10 December 1929) was an English  businessman and Liberal politician.

Johnson-Ferguson was born Jabez Edward Johnson at Salford, Lancashire. He was educated at St John's College, Cambridge. He was a merchant of Lancashire living at Kenyon Hall, Culcheth near Warrington (Currently owned and used as Leigh Golf Club) and chairman of his company, which had several names including Messrs Jabez Johnson & Co and Jabez Johnson, Hodgkinson and Pearson, Ltd. He was also a director of Williams, Deacon & Manchester and Salford Bank Ltd. In 1881 he assumed by Royal licence the additional surname of Ferguson in 1881.

Johnson-Ferguson was elected as Member of Parliament for Loughborough in 1885. He was a radical Liberal. He lost the seat in 1886, but regained it in 1892, holding it until 1906. In 1891 he became a director of Bolckow Vaughan Co. Ltd, a mining company, and became its chairman and managing director in 1906 until his death. He became a baronet on 18 July 1906.

References

External links

1849 births
1929 deaths
Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom
Liberal Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies
Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Loughborough
UK MPs 1885–1886
UK MPs 1892–1895
UK MPs 1895–1900
Alumni of St John's College, Cambridge
People from Salford


This is a list of non-avian dinosaurs whose remains have been recovered from Africa. Africa has a rich fossil record, but it is patchy and incomplete. It is rich in Triassic and Early Jurassic dinosaurs. African dinosaurs from these time periods include Megapnosaurus, Dracovenator, Melanorosaurus, Massospondylus, Euskelosaurus, Heterodontosaurus, Abrictosaurus, and Lesothosaurus. In the Middle Jurassic, the sauropods Atlasaurus, Chebsaurus, Jobaria, and Spinophorosaurus, flourished, as well as the theropod Afrovenator.  The Late Jurassic is well represented in Africa, mainly thanks to the spectacular Tendaguru Formation in Lindi Region of Tanzania. Veterupristisaurus, Ostafrikasaurus, Elaphrosaurus, Giraffatitan, Dicraeosaurus, Janenschia, Tornieria, Tendaguria, Kentrosaurus, and Dysalotosaurus are among the dinosaurs whose remains have been recovered from Tendaguru. This fauna seems to show strong similarities to that of the Morrison Formation in the United States and the Lourinha Formation in Portugal. For example, similar theropods, ornithopods and sauropods have been found in both the Tendaguru and the Morrison. This has important biogeographical implications.

The Early Cretaceous in Africa is known primarily from the northern part of the continent, particularly Niger. Suchomimus, Elrhazosaurus, Rebbachisaurus, Nigersaurus,  Kryptops, Nqwebasaurus, and Paranthodon are some of the Early Cretaceous dinosaurs known from Africa. The Early Cretaceous was an important time for the dinosaurs of Africa because it was when Africa finally separated from South America, forming the South Atlantic Ocean. This was an important event because now the dinosaurs of Africa started developing endemism because of isolation.
The Late Cretaceous of Africa is known mainly from North Africa. During the early part of the Late Cretaceous, North Africa was home to a rich dinosaur fauna. It includes Spinosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Rugops, Bahariasaurus, Deltadromeus, Paralititan, Aegyptosaurus, and Ouranosaurus.

Criteria for inclusion
The genus must appear on the List of dinosaur genera.
At least one named species of the creature must have been found in Africa.
This list is a complement to :Category:Mesozoic dinosaurs of Africa.

List of African dinosaurs

Valid genera

Invalid and potentially valid genera

 Aetonyx palustris: A potential junior synonym of Massospondylus.
 Fabrosaurus australis: Sometimes considered to be part of a family of small ornithischians called fabrosaurids. It may potentially be a synonym of Lesothosaurus.
 Gigantoscelus molengraafi: Probably a synonym of Euskelosaurus, but it cannot be confirmed.
 Gyposaurus: The African species, G. capensis, be a juvenile of a contemporary sauropodomorph. A Chinese species has also been named, but it may not belong to this genus.
 Hortalotarsus skirtopodus: A possible synonym of Massospondylus.
 "Likhoelesaurus": Suggested to be a giant, early carnosaur but might actually be a pseudosuchian.
 Megapnosaurus: The African species M. rhodesiensis might belong to the genus Coelophysis. Another referred species, M. kayentakatae, probably needs its own genus name, as the current one, "Syntarsus", is preoccupied by an insect.
 Nyasasaurus parringtoni: Described in 2013 as the oldest known dinosaur, dating back to the Anisian, but both this date and its classification have been questioned.
 Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis: A spinosaurid contemporary with Spinosaurus; its status as a distinct genus and/or species is uncertain.
 Torvosaurus: Teeth originally named as Megalosaurus ingens have been reassigned to this genus, but not as a distinct species.

Timeline
This is a timeline of selected dinosaurs from the list above.  Time is measured in mya along the x-axis.

See also
 List of African birds

References

Africa
†Dinosaurs
Articles which contain graphical timelines


Berry v. Superior Court,  (1989), is an unofficially reported California Court of Appeal case. The case is relevant to the legal topic of criminal homicide and liability for unintentional killings.

Background
In Berry v. Superior Court[1] the defendant, Berry, was charged with the murder and negligent keeping of a mischievous animal which kills a human being (Pen. Code,§ 399); marijuana cultivation; and misdemeanor keeping of a fighting dog.
This is a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking dismissal for the charges of murder and Penal Code section 399.
Berry contended that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing failed to establish implied malice; and there was no evidence that the animal was mischievous or was kept without ordinary care.

On June 13, 1987, Berry's pit bull dog killed 2 year old James Soto after the child had wandered into the area where "Willy" was tethered.
The victim's parents had four other children and were warned by Berry about the dangerousness of Willy.
The victim and his family lived on the same lot as Berry, and there was no enclosure around the dog. The dog was behind a six-foot fence, but the area was readily accessible to anyone.

There were 243 marijuana plants by Berry's house that could not be approached without crossing Willy's area.
Berry bought the dog from a breeder of fighting dogs, and possessed considerable literature and equipment for dog fighting.
"Willy" was known for his fighting abilities, his gameness, wind, and exceptionally hard bite.
An animal control officer, who qualified as a fighting dog expert, testified that pit bull dogs are selectively bred to be aggressive towards other animals and that they are considered by animal control to be dangerous unless proven otherwise.

Findings
The court used the test for implied malice in an unintentional killing to assess the merits of the defendants argument.
Implied malice in an unintentional killing is an actual appreciation of a high risk that is objectively present.
The act must be done with wanton disregard to life and with a base antisocial motive and a high probability that death will result.

The court found that Berry was aware of the dangerousness to human beings by his tethering of the dog,
giving a warning to the parents that the dog was dangerous, his knowledge of the breed.
The arguably antisocial purpose involved Berry owning a fighting dog and the apparent evidence that the dog was kept to guard illegal marijuana plants.
The probability that death could result from Berry keeping the dog was found to be a question of fact for the jury to find. The writ of prohibition was denied.

Berry was convicted of involuntary manslaughter at trial, and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years and 8 months.

References
 Phillip E. Johnson & Morgan Cloud, Criminal Law: Cases, Materials, and Text (7th ed. West Group 2002) p. 206.

1989 in United States case law
United States murder case law
Murder in California
1989 in California
California state case law
Dog law
Animal case law
Canid attacks
Law articles needing an infobox


John Kenneally was an Irish sportsperson.  He played hurling with his local club Redmonds and was a member of the Cork senior inter-county team for one season in 1892.

Playing career

Club
Kenneally played his club hurling with the famous Redmonds club and enjoyed some success.  He won a county senior championship title in 1892.

Inter-county
Kenneally first came to prominence on the inter-county scene with Cork as part of the Redmond's selection in 1892.  That year he lined out in his first provincial decider with All-Ireland champions Kerry providing the opposition.  An exciting game developed, however, at full-time Cork were the champions by 5-3 to 2-5. It was Kenneally's first, and only, Munster title.  Cork's next game was an All-Ireland final meeting with Dublin.  The game was a controversial one as referee Dan Fraher changed his mind after initially awarding a goal to Cork.  He eventually decided that the GAA's Central Council should decide the matter. Dublin, however, had walked off the field and, because of this, Cork were awarded the title.  It gave Kenneally's an All-Ireland title.

Sources
 Corry, Eoghan, The GAA Book of Lists (Hodder Headline Ireland, 2005).
 Cronin, Jim, A Rebel Hundred: Cork's 100 All-Ireland Titles.
 Donegan, Des, The Complete Handbook of Gaelic Games (DBA Publications Limited, 2005).

References

Redmond's hurlers
Cork inter-county hurlers
All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship winners
Year of death missing
Year of birth missing


Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits.  Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

First Amendment
Some protesters argue that imposition of income taxes violates the First Amendment freedom of speech because
 it requires the subject of the tax to write information on a tax return.
 violates freedom of religion if the subject of the tax claims some religious objection to the payment of taxes, particularly if the subject styles himself or herself as a Reverend, Minister, or other religious office-holder. While the Internal Revenue Code makes an exemption for churches and other religious institutions, it makes only special tax codes and deductions, not exceptions, for religious professionals. The United States Supreme Court held in 1878 Reynolds v. United States, that a religious belief, however strongly held, does not exempt the believer from adhering to general laws.

Fifth Amendment

Self incrimination
Other protesters argue that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination allows an individual to refuse to file an income tax return calling for information that could lead to a conviction for criminal acts from which the income was derived, or for the crime of not paying the tax itself. In response, the courts generally refer to the case of United States v. Sullivan, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

In short, a person could refuse to answer a question if that particular answer could incriminate them, e.g., a professional killer could decline to answer the question of what his or her occupation was. All that is necessary to ask is, could the answer to the question, alone, provide a "link in the chain" necessary to provide evidence to a crime. Saying your occupation is "assassin" or "professional killer" could be self-incriminating, and therefore the 5th Amendment could be invoked as to that question; saying you made $635,000 last year does not provide evidence of anything criminal and thus it could not.

Takings Clause
Some protesters have argued that the income tax is a prohibited "takings" under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, and can not be imposed unless the taxpayer receives just compensation. The United States Supreme Court rejected this argument in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad.  The takings argument and variations of this argument have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

Due Process Clause
Protesters argue that the income tax violates the Fifth Amendment right that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". However, people can be deprived of life, liberty, or property with due process of law — this is what the courts do.  Legal commentator Daniel B. Evans describes:

Fifth Amendment due process arguments by tax protesters were rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Kahn v. United States, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Anderson v. United States, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Cameron v. Internal Revenue Serv., by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Baskin v. United States, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Jolly v. United States, and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Martinez v. Internal Revenue Serv.

Thirteenth Amendment
Tax protesters have argued that income taxes impose involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. That argument was ruled to be without merit in Porth v. Brodrick, United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the State of Kansas.  The involuntary servitude argument, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

Fourteenth Amendment
Some tax protesters, notably among the sovereign citizen movement, argue that all Americans are citizens of individual states as opposed to citizens of the United States, and that the United States government therefore has no power to tax citizens or impose other federal laws outside of Washington D.C. and other federal enclaves. They cite the first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Courts have uniformly held that this argument that the Fourteenth Amendment deprived state citizens of U.S. citizenship is plainly incorrect. In Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., the court explained that "[w]hile the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship 'paramount and dominant' instead of 'derivative and dependent' upon state citizenship". See also United States v. Ward, Fox v. Commissioner, and United States v. Baker.

Another argument raised is that because the federal income tax is progressive, the discriminations and inequalities created by the tax should render the tax unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Such arguments have been ruled without merit under contemporary jurisprudence.  Notably, some tax protesters contend that the Fourteenth Amendment itself was never properly ratified, under the theory that the governments of southern states that supported the post-Civil War constitutional amendments were not representative of the people.

Sixteenth Amendment

It has been argued that the imposition of the U.S. federal income tax is illegal because the Sixteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration," was not properly ratified, or that the amendment provides no power to tax income from labor. Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by tax protesters who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress, or that Ohio was not a State during ratification. Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.

Some protesters have argued that because the Sixteenth Amendment does not contain the words "repeal" or "repealed", the Amendment is ineffective to change the law.  Others argue that due to language in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., the income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that should be apportioned (divided equally amongst the population of the various states).  Several tax protesters assert that the Congress has no constitutional power to tax labor or income from labor, citing a variety of court cases. These arguments include claims that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages; that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them; that taxing wages violates individuals' right to property, and several others.

Seventeenth Amendment
An argument raised in the case of Trohimovich v. Commissioner is that the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, and that all laws passed by Congress since the year 1919 (which was not the year of ratification) are invalid. The Trohimovich case involved a criminal contempt charge against the taxpayer in connection with a failure to obey a subpoena to produce books and records needed for the trial of the case. The United States Tax Court stated:

The court rejected the taxpayer's arguments, and ordered that "he be imprisoned for 30 days as punishment" for criminal contempt in failing to obey court orders or subpoenas.

Titles of Nobility Amendment
Another tax protester argument centers upon the pending and inoperative Titles of Nobility Amendment.  Proposed as an amendment to the Constitution by the 11th Congress in 1810, it would, if ratified by the required number of states, strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign government.  The contention here is that this amendment was in fact ratified by the required number of states (in the 1810s) to have become an operative part of the Constitution, and that, because this is so, actions taken by lawyers and judges, who use the title Esquire–asserted to be a title of nobility and monarchical–are unconstitutional. In fact, the use of "Esquire" by lawyers and judges is merely an informal custom in the United States, not a title with any legal standing. This contention, rarely raised before courts, was most recently addressed in Campion v. Towns, No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2005) as a defense to a charge of tax evasion. The court replied:

Federal government authority

Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ruled that an income tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is unconstitutional.  Under the Supreme Court ruling in Cheek v. United States, a defendant in a tax evasion prosecution who has made arguments that the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional may have the arguments turned against him (or her). Such arguments, even if based on honestly held beliefs, may constitute evidence that helps the prosecutor prove willfulness, one of the elements of tax evasion.

Sovereign individual and government privilege

Some tax protesters argue that they should be immune from federal income taxation because they are sovereign individuals or "natural individuals," or on the ground that they have not requested a privilege or benefit from the government. These kinds of arguments have been ruled without merit. For example, in the case of Lovell v. United States the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated:

The Court of Appeals in Lovell affirmed a U.S. District Court order upholding a frivolous return penalty under . Similarly, in United States v. Sloan, the taxpayer's contention — that he is "not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a 'master'—not 'servant'—of his government" — was ruled to be not a legal ground for the argument that the taxpayer was not subject to the federal tax laws; the tax evasion conviction was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Similarly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated, in Powers v. Commissioner: "Powers [the taxpayer] contends that either he is immune from the tax laws, or he is a 'slave' to the federal government. This false choice is a creature of Powers' tax protester ideology, not the laws of this Republic." Similarly, in 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected a taxpayer's argument that gains of an individual's labor could be taxed only if the gains were received from a "federal venue". In that case, the taxpayer's argument—that the IRS had no ability to impose a tax on the taxpayer because he was a citizen "of the several states," but not a "federal U.S. citizen"—was ruled to be frivolous.

Variations of the argument that an individual is a "sovereign" have been rejected in tax cases such as United States v. Hart, Risner v. Commissioner, Maxwell v. Snow, Rowe v. Internal Revenue Serv., Cobin v. Commissioner, and Glavin v. United States.

The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages or other compensation is not subject to federal income tax because the individual has "neither requested, obtained, nor exercised any privilege from an agency of government" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Sullivan v. United States and again in Kelly v. United States. See also United States v. Buras (argument that the taxpayer can be subject to an excise tax only if he benefits from a "privilege extended by a government agency" was rejected).; Nichols v. United States; and Olson v. United States.

The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages is not subject to federal income tax unless the tax is imposed in connection with "government granted privileges" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Coleman v. Commissioner. The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages is not subject to federal income tax unless the taxpayer enjoys a "grant of privilege or franchise" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in May v. Commissioner. The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages is not subject to federal income tax unless the taxpayer has obtained a "privilege from a governmental agency" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Olson v. United States, and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Prout v. United States.

In the case of Steward Machine Company v. Davis, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that "the relation of employment is one so essential to the pursuit of happiness that it may not be burdened with a tax," and upheld the validity of the Social Security tax. The Court stated: ". . . natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.".

Regarding the taxability of income in connection with events or activities not involving a government privilege or franchise, the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Sullivan that gains from illegal traffic in liquor are subject to the Federal income tax. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rutkin v. United States that the receipt of money obtained by extortion is taxable as income to the wrongdoer. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in James v. United States that the receipt of money obtained through embezzlement is taxable as income to the wrongdoer, even though the wrongdoer is required to return the money to its owner.

The argument that a person's income is not taxed when the person rejects or renounces United States citizenship because the person claims to be a citizen exclusively of a state, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

Federal zone
Some tax protesters argue that under Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, federal income taxes can be imposed only inside so called "federal zones", areas —such as the District of Columbia, military bases or other places– over which Congress has direct authority.

This argument is based in part on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Bevans. In Bevans, the parties argued over whether a federal court in Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the case of a U.S. Marine charged with a murder that occurred on a ship in Boston Harbor. No issues regarding federal income taxation or the Internal Revenue Code were presented to or decided by the Court in the Bevans case. The Internal Revenue Code and the Internal Revenue Service did not yet exist in 1818, when the Bevans murder case was decided.

The Clause 17 argument was specifically rejected in the case of United States v. Sato:

The Clause 17 argument was also unsuccessful in Celauro v. United States, Internal Revenue Service.  Some tax protesters contend that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Caha v. United States restricts the jurisdiction of the federal government to impose income taxes inside the "states", based on the following language from the Court's opinion:

Some tax protesters contend that the Court's reference to "those matters" restricted the federal government's jurisdiction over matters of taxation. Caha is not a tax case. The reference to "this statute" was a reference to a perjury statute. The Caha case involved a perjury conviction where the defendant unsuccessfully argued that the federal court had no jurisdiction over a prosecution for the crime of perjury committed in a proceeding in a land office at Kingfisher, Oklahoma regarding ownership of real estate.

The reference in Caha to the "laws of congress in respect to those matters" was a reference to the matters of preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property. The Court in Caha rejected the argument that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to hear a case under the perjury statute, and the defendant's conviction was affirmed. No issues involving the power to impose and enforce federal taxes in the fifty states were presented to or decided by the court in Caha.

The courts have uniformly rejected the "federal zone" argument that congressional authority to impose an income tax is limited to the District of Columbia, forts, magazines, arsenals, or dockyards, etc. See, for example, United States v. Mundt; Nelsen v. Commissioner; Abbs v. Imhoff.

Definition of income

Stratton's Independence, Limited v. Howbert
Some tax protesters have cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert for the argument that an income tax on an individual's income is unconstitutional. This was an argument raised unsuccessfully by John B. Hill Jr., in Hill v. United States. and without success by John B. Cameron Jr., in Cameron v. Internal Revenue Serv.. In Stratton, a mining corporation argued that the 1909 corporation tax act did not apply to that corporation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 1909 corporation tax act did apply to mining corporations, and that the proceeds of ores mined by the corporation from its own premises were income within the meaning of the 1909 tax act. The Court also ruled that the corporation was not entitled to deduct "the value of such ore in place and before it is mined" as depreciation within the meaning of the 1909 Act.  The Stratton case involved income taxation of a corporation, not of individuals. The Court in the Stratton case did not rule any corporate or individual income tax as unconstitutional.

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.
Some tax protesters have cited Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. for the proposition that income of individuals cannot be taxed. This was the argument raised unsuccessfully by Joseph T. Tornichio in the case of Tornichio v. United States and by Joram Perl in Perl v. United States (also unsuccessfully). The following language is sometimes cited by protesters:

The above verbiage is immediately followed in the text of the case by this sentence:

In Doyle, the taxpayer was a corporation engaged in the manufacture of lumber. In 1903, the taxpayer purchased certain timber land at a cost of about . As of December 31, 1908, the value of the land had increased to about .  The Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 was enacted on August 5, 1909, and was effective retroactively to January 1, 1909.  For the years 1909 through 1912, the taxpayer filed tax returns under the 1909 Act, showing gross receipts from the sale of manufactured lumber and, in arriving at the amount of net income subject to tax under the 1909 Act, deducted an amount based on the $40-per-acre value, rather than the actual cost of about $20 per acre.  The Commissioner of Internal Revenue argued that the taxpayer should be able to deduct only an amount based on the taxpayer's historical cost basis of $20, rather than the $40 fair market value at the time the 1909 Act became effective. (Essentially, if the taxpayer were allowed to use the $40 per acre value as its basis rather than the actual $20 historical cost basis, a portion of the taxpayer's gain — the increase in value from 1903 to December 31, 1908 — would go untaxed.)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the 1909 Act — which had become effective January 1, 1909 — the taxpayer should be taxed only on the increase in value after 1908. Increases in value prior to the effective date of the statute were not to be taxed under the terms of that statute. Thus, the taxpayer was entitled to deduct, from its gross receipts from the sale of finished lumber, a basis amount computed with reference to the $40 per acre value as of December 31, 1908.  Doyle is a case involving statutory (not constitutional) interpretation. In this case, the Court was interpreting the 1909 statute. Although some tax protesters cite this case for an argument about the constitutional definition of income as excluding income of individuals, no issues involving the constitutional definition of income, or of income under any other tax statutes, were presented to or decided by the Court.

The case is also notable for the fact that it involved a retroactively imposed tax. The taxpayer did not argue — and the Court did not rule — that as a general proposition taxes could not be imposed retroactively. Indeed, the tax in this case was imposed retroactively; the statute was enacted in August 1909 but was made effective retroactively to January 1, 1909.

Corporate profits
One argument repeatedly made by tax protesters is that the income of individuals is not taxable because income should mean only "corporate profits" or "corporate gain". This is the Merchants' Loan argument, named after the case of Merchants' Loan & Trust Company, as Trustee of the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error v. Julius F. Smietanka, formerly United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of the State of Illinois.  The argument is essentially that "income" for federal income tax purposes means only the income of a corporation — not the income of a non-corporate taxpayer — because the United States Supreme Court in that case, in discussing the meaning of income, mentioned a statute enacted in 1909 that taxed the income of corporations.

The Court in Merchants' Loan was specifically interpreting a 1916 statute imposing income taxes on individuals and estates (among other kinds of entities), and not the 1909 corporate tax statute. The taxpayer in Merchants' Loan was not a corporation but was the "Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased". The Court was not presented with (and did not decide) any issue involving the taxability of "corporate profits" or "corporate gains" or any other kind of income except the gain on the sale of the stock by the "Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased". The terms "corporate profit" and "corporate gain" are not found in the text of the Court's decision in Merchants' Loan.  In Merchants' Loan, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the 1916 tax statute applicable at the time, a gain on a sale of stock by the estate of a deceased person is included in the income of that estate, and is therefore taxable to that estate for federal income tax purposes.

The Merchants' Loan argument has been litigated by tax protesters several times, and the courts have uniformly rejected the argument that income consists only of corporate profits. See, for example: Cameron v. Internal Revenue Serv., Stoewer v. Commissioner, Reinhart v. United States, Fink v. Commissioner; Flathers v. Commissioner; Schroeder v. Commissioner; Sherwood v. Commissioner; Ho v. Commissioner; and Zook v. Commissioner. Tax protesters — who have lost every case using Merchants' Loan for the theory that only "corporate profits" could be taxable — are citing a case where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the income of a non-corporate taxpayer is taxable. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ever ruled that under the Internal Revenue Code the term "income" means only the income of a corporation for federal income tax purposes.

Some tax protesters have cited the Supreme Court case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. for the argument that only corporate profits or income can be taxed, using the following quotation:

In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the corporation tax act of 1909 did not violate the constitutional requirement that revenue measures originate in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Court did not rule that excise taxes consisted only of taxes on corporations and corporate privileges, to the exclusion of taxes on individuals (natural persons). The issue of the validity of an income tax imposed on individuals was neither presented to the Court nor decided by the Court.

The courts have rejected the argument that Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. can be used to avoid taxation of wages. For example, in Parker v. Commissioner, a case where a taxpayer unsuccessfully argued that wages were not taxable, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated (in part):

The argument that only corporations are subject to federal income tax, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

Cases indicating definition of income is irrelevant
At least two federal courts have indicated that Congress may constitutionally tax an item as "income," regardless of whether that item is "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. In Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated:

In Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv., the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that a personal injury award received by a taxpayer was "within the reach of the congressional power to tax under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution" — even if the award was "not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment".

Progressive taxation
One argument that has been raised is that because the federal income tax is progressive (i.e., because the marginal tax rates increase, or progress, as the level of taxable income increases), the discriminations and inequalities created by the tax should render the tax unconstitutional. This argument was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in two companion cases — with respect to the income tax on individuals in Thorne v. Anderson, and with respect to the income tax on corporations in Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson.

Taxing labor or income from labor
Several tax protesters assert that the Congress has no constitutional power to tax labor or income from labor, citing a variety of court cases. These arguments include claims that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages; that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them; that taxing wages violates individuals' right to property; that an income tax on wages is illegal as a direct tax on the source of income, and several others.

Another protester argument is that the U.S. Constitution authorizes the income tax only on income derived from activities that are government-licensed or otherwise specially protected. The courts have rejected this theory, ruling that "Congress has taxed compensation for services, without any regard for whether that compensation is derived from government-licensed or specially protected activities, … and this has been construed to cover earnings from labor."

Robert L. Schulz and his We the People Foundation take the positions that the government "is clearly prohibited from doing what it is doing – taxing the salaries, wages and compensation of the working men and women of this country and forcing the business entities that utilize the labor of ordinary American citizens to withhold and turn over to the IRS a part of the earnings of those workers" and "that the federal government DOES NOT possess ANY legal authority –statutory or Constitutional– to tax the wages or salaries of American workers."

Similarly, tax protester Tom Cryer, who was acquitted of willful failure to file U.S. Federal income tax returns in a timely fashion, argued that "the law does not tax [a person's] wages", and that the federal government cannot tax "[m]oney that you earned [and] paid for with your labor and industry"  because "the Constitution does not allow the federal government to tax those earnings" (referring to "wages, salaries and fees that [a person] earn[s] for [himself]").

Arguments about the taxability of compensation for personal services, whether called wages, salary, or some other term, may be either constitutional arguments as in United States v. Connor (see below) or statutory arguments as in Cheek v. United States, depending on the details of the argument. For purposes of presentation, these arguments are summarized here rather than in the article Tax protester statutory arguments. The rest of this section explains these arguments in more detail.

Evans v. Gore
Some protesters include false quotations in their arguments. Radio personality Dave Champion contends that the following verbiage is a quotation from the case of Evans v. Gore in his own arguments on the internet about federal income taxes:

The quoted material by Dave Champion is false; it does not appear in the Court's decision. In Evans v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court actually did rule that a federal income tax on certain income of federal judges was unconstitutional. The Evans v. Gore ruling has been interpreted as barring application of the Federal income tax to a Federal judge who had been appointed prior to the enactment of the tax. This was the Court's year 1920 interpretation of the "Compensation Clause", the rule that Federal judges "shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office" under Article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The decision in Evans v. Gore was eviscerated in the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision of O'Malley v. Woodrough, and was expressly overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court itself in 2001, in the case of United States v. Hatter. In Hatter, the Supreme Court stated: "We now overrule Evans insofar as it holds that the Compensation Clause forbids Congress to apply a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory tax to the salaries of federal judges, whether or not they were appointed before enactment of the tax."

Neither the Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ever ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) does not authorize a Federal income tax on compensation for personal services.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe
Another United States Supreme Court case frequently cited by tax protesters is Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe,. Tax protesters attribute the following quotation to the Court in this case: "income; as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in." The quotation does not appear in the text of the Supreme Court decision.

This case began in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the decision in that court, the trial court judge stated: "I do not think that 'income' as used in the statute, should be given a meaning so as to include everything that comes in." The case did not involve compensation for labor or services. Instead, the case involved the federal income tax treatment of dividends paid by the Central Pacific Railway Company to its parent company, the Southern Pacific Company, which owned 100% of the stock of Central Pacific Railway Company. The District Court ruled that the dividends were taxable to the Southern Pacific Company. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.

What the U.S. Supreme Court actually said was:

In Southern Pacific Company v. Lowe, the Supreme Court ruled that where a shareholder receives a dividend representing earnings of a corporation realized by the corporation prior to January 1, 1913, the dividend is not includible in the gross income of the shareholder for purposes of the Federal Income Tax Act of 1913, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114 (Oct. 3, 1913). No issues involving the definition of income with respect to wages, salary or other compensation for labor were decided by the Court.

Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle
Another case that has been cited for the argument that wages are not taxable is the United States Supreme Court decision in Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle. An individual named "William Dixon" at a web site called "godissovereignfast" claims that the following is a statement by the U.S. Supreme Court in that case:

This material alleged to be a quotation does not appear in the text of the case at all. Also, the words "wages" and "salaries" are not found anywhere in the text, and there is no ruling in that case that the federal income tax statutes apply only to "corporations." The Colonial Pipeline case actually involved the Louisiana corporate franchise tax, not a federal tax. The validity of the Louisiana franchise tax was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in this case. No issues involving the validity or applicability of federal income taxes were presented to, mentioned by, or decided by the Supreme Court in the Colonial Pipeline case.

Lucas v. Earl
For the argument that wages are not taxable, some tax protesters—including convicted tax offender Irwin Schiff—incorrectly attribute to the U.S. Supreme Court the following language in connection with the leading tax case of Lucas v. Earl:

This language is not from the Court's opinion in Lucas v. Earl. Instead, it is an almost direct quotation from page 17 of the taxpayer's brief filed in the case. Guy C. Earl was the taxpayer, and the brief was written by Earl's attorneys: Warren Olney Jr., J. M. Mannon Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. In some printed versions of the case, this statement and other quotations and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the taxpayer's brief are re-printed as a headnote or syllabus above the opinion of the Court. In the case reprints that include this headnote (and many of them do not even show it), these excerpts are not clearly identified as being from the taxpayer's brief. A person not trained in analysis of legal materials would not necessarily know that this verbiage, like any headnote or syllabus, is not part of the Court's opinion, perhaps leading to the confusion about the source of the quotation. As explained below, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the quotation, and the taxpayer lost the case.

Lucas v. Earl is a leading case in the area of U.S. income taxation, and stands for the Anticipatory Assignment of Income Doctrine. In the case, Mr. Earl was arguing that because he and his wife, in the year 1901, had made a legally valid assignment agreement (for state law purposes) to have his then-current and after-acquired income (which was earned solely by him) be treated as the income of both him and his wife as joint tenants with right of survivorship, the assignment agreement should also determine the federal income tax effect of the income he earned (i.e., only half the income should be taxed to him).

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument, essentially ruling that under federal income tax law all the future income earned by Mr. Earl was taxable to him at the time he earned the income, even though he had already assigned part of the income to his wife, and regardless of the validity of the assignment agreement under state law. The Court in Lucas v. Earl did not rule that wages are not taxable.

Coppage v. Kansas
One case frequently cited by tax protesters for the "wages are not taxable" argument is Coppage v. Kansas with respect to the following quotation:

Coppage was a criminal case involving a defendant convicted, under a Kansas statute, of firing an employee for refusing to resign as a member of a labor union. No issues of taxation were presented to or decided by the Court, and the word "tax" is not found in the text of the Court's decision.

Truax v. Corrigan
Tax protesters also cite or quote  from the case of Truax v. Corrigan for the argument that an income tax should not be imposed on labor and at least arguably relating "labor" to a right of "property":

The Truax case involved a Mr. William Truax who owned a restaurant called "English Kitchen," in Bisbee, Arizona. A Mr. Michael Corrigan and others were former cooks and waiters at the restaurant. Corrigan and others allegedly instituted a boycott of the restaurant, after a dispute arose over the terms and conditions of employment. A strike was allegedly ordered by a local union with respect to certain union members employed at the restaurant. The restaurant's business was allegedly harmed, and Mr. Truax sued various parties on a variety of grounds. The lawsuit was thrown out by the trial court before the case could be heard, on the theory that Mr. Truax was incorrect as a matter of law. Mr. Truax appealed and the case eventually ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the trial court should not have thrown out the lawsuit, but should have heard Mr. Truax's case. The case was sent back to the trial court so that a trial could take place. Truax was not a tax case. No issues involving taxation were presented to or decided by the Court.

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.
Tax protesters also cite the U.S. Supreme Court case of Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. for the argument that an income tax should not be imposed on labor, sometimes quoting the following language:

Butchers' Union Co. was a case involving interpretation of the Louisiana Constitution and certain ordinances of the city of New Orleans. The Court ruled that the Louisiana Constitution and the New Orleans ordinances did not impermissibly impair a pre-existing obligation under a contract when those laws effectively ended a slaughter-house business monopoly by the Crescent City Company. No issues regarding the power to tax incomes from businesses, vocations, or labor were presented to or decided by the Court, and the word "tax" does not appear in the text of the decision.

Murdock case
Tax protesters also cite the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania (also known as Jones v. City of Opelika):

Murdock (or Jones v. City of Opelika) was a case involving the validity of a city ordinance (in Jeannette, Pennsylvania) worded as follows:

A group of people who were Jehovah's Witnesses went from door to door distributing literature in the town. They failed to obtain the license under the ordinance. The case ended up in court, and went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which stated:

The protester argument appears to be that the federal government should not be able to tax income from labor because it would be a tax on an exercise of the freedoms mentioned in the quotation. The "tax" in this case was, in effect, a license fee imposed on door to door sales people under a city ordinance. The city was trying to exact the fee from Jehovah's Witness members who were going door to door. Questions about the validity of federal income taxes were neither presented to nor decided by the Court.

Redfield v. Fisher
Some tax protesters cite or quote from Redfield v. Fisher:

The argument seems to be that because "the individual's rights to live and own property" are arguably rights against which "an excise cannot be imposed," the federal income tax on income from labor should therefore be unconstitutional. However, Redfield v. Fisher is an Oregon Supreme Court case, not a federal case. No issues involving the validity of federal income tax laws were decided by the court.

Conner v. United States
Some tax protesters cite a case called Conner v. United States, with a quotation that "Congress has taxed income, not compensation" for the argument that wages are not taxable. This was the case cited unsuccessfully by LaKerra Sumter before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in the case of Sumter v. United States. The Conner case involved the taxability of compensation paid by an insurance company to a policy holder whose house had burned down. The insurance company was reimbursing the homeowner for the costs of renting a place to stay after the home burned down — under the terms of the insurance policy. The insurance company was not paying "wages". The court was not presented with, and did not decide, any issue involving the taxability of wages.

Eisner v. Macomber
Some tax protesters have cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Eisner v. Macomber for the theory that wages are not taxable, or for the theory that dividends are not taxable. The case dealt with a stock dividend on stock that was essentially equivalent to a stock split, as opposed to a cash dividend on stock. In the case of this kind of "dividend" the stockholder does not receive anything or realize any additional value. For example, if a stockholder owns 100 shares of stock having a value of $4 per share, the total value is $400. If the corporation declares, say, a "two for one" stock dividend that is essentially similar to a stock split (and the corporation distributes no money or other property), the stockholder now has 200 shares with a value of $2 each, which is still $400 in value - i.e., no increase in value and no income. The pie is still the same size — but it's sliced into more pieces, each piece being proportionately smaller.

More directly to the point, there has been no "sale or other disposition" of the stock. The taxpayer still owns the same asset (i.e., the same interest in the corporation) he owned prior to the stock dividend. So, even if his basis amount (generally, the amount he originally paid for the stock) is less than the $400 value (i.e., even if he has an unrealized or potential gain), he still has not yet "realized" the gain. The Court ruled that this kind of stock dividend is not treated as "income" to a shareholder.

The Court in this case did not rule on any issue involving the taxability of labor or income from labor, or wages, salary or ordinary "cash" dividends — where the stockholder actually receives a check from the company, etc. Indeed, the terms "wage" and "salary" do not appear in the text of the decision in Eisner v. Macomber.

Cases where wages or labor ruled taxable
The provisions of the U.S. Constitution authorizing Congress to impose taxes, duties, imposts and excises contain no express exceptions for taxes on wages or labor, or for taxes on income from labor. The courts have consistently rejected arguments that "wages" or "labor" (whether denominated as "labor property" or not) cannot be taxed under the Internal Revenue Code. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has stated: "Taxpayers' argument that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax is without merit. There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer's labors." See also:

United States v. Connor (tax evasion conviction under  affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; taxpayer's argument — that because of the Sixteenth Amendment, wages were not taxable — was rejected by the Court; taxpayer's argument that an income tax on wages is required to be apportioned by population also rejected), at ;
Parker v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument — that wages are not taxable — was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; taxpayer charged double costs for filing a frivolous appeal), at ;
Perkins v. Commissioner ( ruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to be "in full accordance with Congressional authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to impose taxes on income without apportionment among the states"; taxpayer's argument that wages paid for labor are non-taxable was rejected by the Court, and ruled frivolous), at ;
Sisemore v. United States (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the federal district court properly dismissed taxpayer's frivolous lawsuit based on taxpayer's tax return position that wages do not represent a taxable gain because wages are a source of income and are received in equal exchange for labor), at ;
White v. United States (taxpayer's argument that wages are not taxable was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; penalty — imposed under  for filing tax return with frivolous position — was therefore proper);
Granzow v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument that wages are not taxable was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and ruled frivolous), at ;
United States v. Russell (taxpayer's argument—that the federal income is unconstitutional on the theory that the law cannot tax a "common law right to work"—was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit), at ;
Waters v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument that income taxation of wages is unconstitutional was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; taxpayer required to pay damages for filing frivolous suit), at .

Related tax protester arguments with respect to wages paid by "employers" to "employees" are (1) that only federal officers, federal employees, elected officials, or corporate officers are "employees" for purposes of federal income tax, (2) that the inclusion of the United States government within the definition of the term "employer" operates to exclude all other employers from the definition, and (3) that with respect to compensation, the tax is imposed only on compensation paid to federal government employees. These arguments have been rejected in court rulings.

Another tax protester argument is that income from labor should not be taxable because any amount the worker receives in exchange for his or her labor is received in an exchange of "equal value," although an exchange in any true "arm's length" fair market value transaction is, essentially by definition, an exchange of equal value. See, for example, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Buras, in which the taxpayer's theory — that wages were not taxable because (1) "only profit or gain, such as that from the sale of a capital asset, constituted income subject to federal tax" and (2) "[w]ages could not constitute gain or profit because wages merely represent an equivalent exchange for one's labor" — was rejected. See also the decision of the United States Tax Court in Link v. Commissioner, where the taxpayer's argument — that pension income is "labor property" and that when taxpayer receives his pension income from his former employer for whom he once performed services (or labor), any amount he receives in exchange for his labor is a nontaxable exchange of equal value — was rejected. In Boggs v. Commissioner, a penalty of $8,000 was imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on the taxpayers for filing a frivolous appeal using the argument that a portion of a wage amount was not taxable as a return on "human capital."

Further, under the U.S. federal tax laws, even if labor were considered "property" the gain or income from "labor property" would be defined as the excess of the amount realized (for example, the money received) by the taxpayer over the amount of the taxpayer's "adjusted basis" in the "property" (see ). Since the taxpayer can have only a zero "basis" amount in his or her own labor — the personal living expenses incurred to generate labor being both non-capitalizable and, under , non-deductible — the "gain" would thus be equal to the amount of compensation received by the taxpayer. Compare Carter v. Commissioner, where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated: "The assertion that proceeds received for personal services cannot be given a 'zero-basis for the purpose of the assessment of taxation,' is frivolous. This is a variation of the 'wages are not income' theme, which has been rejected repeatedly by this court." See also Reading v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument — that gain from labor of self-employed individual cannot be determined until the "cost of doing labor" has been subtracted from the amount received — was rejected; validity of , disallowing deductions for personal living expenses, was upheld). See also Burnett v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument — that wages represent an equal exchange of property and, therefore, are not taxable income — was rejected). See also In re Myrland (ruling that a taxpayer is not entitled to deduct the value of his labor from his income in calculating his taxes).

Wages and salaries, the Sixteenth Amendment, and the Cheek case
In dicta in Cheek v. United States, the United States Supreme Court specifically labeled defendant John Cheek's arguments about the constitutionality of the tax law — arguments Cheek had raised in various prior court cases — as "frivolous." Prior to his conviction, John Cheek had specifically contended that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain or profit.

Monetary penalties for asserting the argument on tax return
The argument that wages, tips and other compensation received for the performance of personal services are not taxable income, the argument that such items are offset by an equivalent deduction, the argument that a person has a "basis" in his or her labor equal to the fair market value of the wages received, and variations of these arguments, have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

See also
 Tax protester history in the United States
 Taxation in the United States

Notes

References
  also as PDF

 Danshera Cords, Tax Protestors and Penalties: Ensuring Perceived Fairness and Mitigating Systemic Costs, 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1515 (2005).
 Kenneth H. Ryesky, Of Taxes and Duties: Taxing the System with Public Employees' Tax Obligations, 31 Akron L. Rev. 349 (1998).
 Christopher S. Jackson, "The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar - Whatever His Demands", 32 Gonzaga Law Review 291–329 (1996–97).

External links
 Tax Protester FAQ - specific rebuttals concerning tax protester arguments

United States constitutional law
Taxation in the United States
Tax resistance in the United States
Sovereign citizen movement


Score to a New Beginning is the third studio album by the Symphonic power metal band Fairyland. It has been released by Napalm Records.

Track listing
All songs written and composed by Philippe Giordana
 "Opening Credits" – 1:28
 "Across the Endless Sea Part II" – 5:17
 "Assault on the Shore" – 5:08
 "Master of the Waves" – 6:08
 "A Soldier's Letter" – 5:33
 "Godsent" – 4:54
 "At the Gates of Morken" – 4:53
 "Rise of the Giants" – 4:19
 "Score to a New Beginning" – 9:03
 "End Credits" – 3:29
 "A Soldier's Letter (Edit)" (Japanese & Korean bonus track) – 5:31

Personnel
Philippe Giordana – keyboards, acoustic guitars, compositions, concept, programming
Gonzalo Ordóñez Arias – Album art

Guest musicians

Marco Sandron (Pathosray): Lead Vocals
Georg Neuhauser (Serenity): Add. Vocals on tracks 2, 3, 5, 9, 10
Flora Spinelli (Kerion): Lead Vocals on track 10
Klaaire (Syrayde): Add. Vocals on tracks 4, 5, 9
Geraldine Gadaut (Benighted Soul): Add. Vocals on track 7
Jean-Gabriel Bocciarelli (Benighted Soul): Add. Vocals on track 7
Fabio D'Amore (Pathosray, Serenity): Bass, Add. Vocals, Guitar Solo on track 6
Willdric Lievin (Hamka): Drums, Choirs
Chris Menta (Razordog): Rhythmic and Acc. Guitars, Guitar Solos on track 5
Alessio Velliscig (Pathosray): Guitar Solo on track 2
Alex Corona (Revolutions): Guitar Solos on tracks 3, 6, 9
Olivier Lapauze (Heavenly): Guitar Solo on track 9
Hugo Lefebvre (Anthropia): Guitar Solo on track 4
Yann Mouhad (Anthropia): Guitar Solo on track 4
Remy Carrayrou (Kerion): Guitar Solo on track 7
Dushan Petrossi (Iron Mask, Magic Kingdom) – Guitar Solos
Marc Rhulmann (Whyzdom): Keyboard Solo on track 9

External links

 Fairyland at Napalm Records
 Original Cover Design from artist's webpage

2009 albums
Concept albums
Fairyland (band) albums
Napalm Records albums


Frances Bulwark (born 5 April 1945) was a Swedish Standardbred racing trotter and brood mare by Bulwark out of Frances Great by Kaffir Axworthy.

Her most prestigious victories include six Swedish Championships (1950–51, 1953–56), five Scandinavian Championships (1950, 1952-1955), Åby Stora Pris (1950), Gran Premio delle Nazioni (1952) and Elitloppet (1953). At the end of her career, the mare had earned SEK591,420. Frances Bulwark was trained by successful Swedish trainer Sören Nordin, with whom the mare won 74 races, more than any other of Nordin's horses. Nordin considered Frances Bulwark to be the best among the horses he trained during his career.

Pedigree

References

External links

1945 racehorse births
Swedish standardbred racehorses
Elitlopp winners


Se ei olekaan niin (in English: But It's Not Like That) is the fourth studio album by Finnish pop rock singer-songwriter Maija Vilkkumaa. Released by Warner Music in Finland on 11 July 2005, it debuted at number one the Finnish Albums Chart and charted for 26 weeks. The album has sold over 47,000 copies to date in Finland, which has granted it a platinum certification.

Singles
The (rough) English translations of the tracks are in the brackets.
"Se ei olekaan niin" (But It's Not Like That)
"Kesä" (Summer)
"Liian kauan" (Too long)

Track listing
The (rough) English translations of the tracks are in the brackets.
Digital download

Charts and certifications

Weekly charts

Year-end charts

Certifications

References

2005 albums
Maija Vilkkumaa albums
Finnish-language albums