#pendency list

[seemabhatnagar]

The Division Bench of Delhi High Court refused to entertain PIL as a Writ Petition on the same subject was pending before Single Judge

Waqf Welfare Forum v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Others

Writ Petition Civil 2552/2024(PIL)

Before Delhi High Court

Heard by the Division bench of Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice & Hon’ble Madam Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora J

A PIL seeking quashing of public notice inviting objections and suggestions from the General Public for removal of Sunehri Bagh Masjid was dismissed on 21.02.2024.

As a writ petition 16770/2023 on the same subject is already pending before the Single Judge of Delhi High Court and in response to the prayer Delhi Waqf Board has already steps to protect the Waqf Properties.

Facts

public notice.

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL against the proposed demolition of Sunehri Bagh Mosque as a similar petition is already pending before a single judge of the Delhi High Court.

The bench questioned the petitioner for filing the PIL with similar prayers even when one petition on the same issue is already pending before the single judge.

The Bench observed that "Since appropriate measures have already been taken by the Delhi Waqf Board in discharge of its legal and executive duties to protect waqf properties, this court is of the view that no order is required in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the petition is closed,".

Submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner

Directions to the Delhi Waqf Board to discharge legal and executive duties to protect Waqf properties as per The Waqf Act, 1995 and Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013.

Submission of the Centre, New Delhi Municipal Council, Delhi Police

The petition is more of a cut and paste work of the contentions and submissions advanced in the W.P.(C) 16770/2023 pending before the single judge filed by the Imam of Sunehri Bagh Masjid.

Submission of the Delhi Waqf Board

Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose, representing the Delhi Waqf Board, informed the court that appropriate steps have been taken to protect waqf properties and the Delhi Waqf Board is supporting the plea of the Imam.

He also informed the Court that the matter before Single judge was listed for the day but due to the pendency of this PIL, hearing before the single judge is adjourned to February 28.

#SUNEHRIBAGHMOSQUE #DELHI #PIL #REMOVAL #PUBLICNOTICE #DELHIHIGHCOURT

[ailtrahq]

Kenya’s parliamentary committee has advised Kenyan authorities to take action by shutting down Worldcoin’s virtual platforms and conducting a thorough investigation into the company. The iris biometric cryptocurrency project Worldcoin has recently come under the scanner as the parliamentary committee of the government in Kenya is now investigating the project. The committee has asked regulators to shut down the project’s operations in the country. As per the report released last week on September 30 by Kenya’s parliament, Worldcoin has started collecting the personal data of Kenya’s residents. this was in complete disregard of an ‘order to stop’ issued earlier in May 2023. The committee has advised Kenyan authorities to take action by shutting down Worldcoin’s virtual platforms and conducting a thorough investigation into the company for possible criminal charges. The report noted: “The registration of Kenyans by Worldcoin online App is still going on despite the pendency of a court order and other administrative directions halting the same in entirety.” The report raised privacy concerns for Kenyan residents but acknowledged the challenge of determining the number of “orbs” in the country – the devices Worldcoin uses for iris scans. The committee’s suggestions encompass the government’s potential adoption of a comprehensive framework for digital assets and virtual asset service providers in Kenya, as well as the revision of existing regulations to address cybercrimes and tax reporting obligations. The Kenyan lawmakers further added: “The unregulated adoption and use of cryptocurrency as an attempt to fully decentralize the global monetary systems, poses threat to statehood.” Worldcoin Under Regulatory Radar in Kenya and Other Countries Sam Altman’s Worldcoin project, which aimed to differentiate genuine users from bots through retinal scans for identity verification, garnered millions of sign-ups by July. Nevertheless, the project has come under the scrutiny of global regulators who allege that it is bypassing regulations and standards related to data protection and user privacy. Officials in Germany, Argentina, France, and the United Kingdom have expressed concerns about Worldcoin or initiated investigations into its operations. In August, Argentina’s Agency for Access to Public Information (AAIP) announced that they were looking into the storage, collection, as well as use of user data at Worldcoin. The AAIP noted that the project gained significant attention in recent weeks for its practice of scanning the faces and irises of numerous individuals in exchange for financial compensation at various locations in Buenos Aires City and the provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Mendoza, and Río Negro. Despite these warnings, Worldcoin has continued to see record daily sign-ups in Argentina, as per the report earlier this month. Thank you! You have successfully joined our subscriber list.

[schraubd]

Incredible Disappearing and Reappearing Authors

The Texas judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk who issued a trainwreck of a decision trying to ban the abortion pill is separately in the news for potentially hiding an article he authored while being considered for his judgeship. The basic gist of the story is that he submitted an article to the Texas Review of Law & Politics, a conservative law journal, attacking legal protections for trans Americans. While the article was being edited he removed his name from authorship and replaced it with two colleagues (Stephanie Taub and Justin Butterfield), allegedly so he could avoid disclosing the article to the U.S. Senate, which was in the process of considering his nomination to a life-tenured district court position.

Many people think this seems pretty sketchy. I'm inclined to agree. But I want to see if I can drill down as to why, because I have conflicting intuitions about some similar fact patterns, and so I'm not sure what's driving my judgments here. So let's work through some hypotheticals.

Let's call the two relevant authors K and J. Fact pattern number one is going to be essentially what Judge Kacsmaryk is accused of having done:

1. K writes an article, submits it to a law review, and has it accepted. After it is accepted, K decides he doesn't want his name associated with piece during the pendency of his judicial nomination, so he arranges to remove his name and have J -- not previously listed as an author -- be the public author on the piece.

And here is, as far as I can gather, the explanation of what happened from Judge Kacsmaryk's supporters -- i.e., this is his defense/apologia:

2. J writes an article, but K submits it to the journal under his name as a "placeholder". After it is accepted, K eventually removes his name and has it replaced by J, who was the legitimate author of the piece.

People are reasonably focusing on Kacsmaryk trying to hide information from the Senate. But there's also a more basic academic ethics problem here, that's present both in the accusatory and "defense" version of the story. Simply put, if J did sufficient work on the article to be legitimately credited as a co-author on the piece, why wasn't her name on draft to begin with? And if J didn't do sufficient work to credibly be deemed a co-author, it's dishonest to present her as having written the article. 

Indeed, at one level the "defense" story is worse, because the paper was initially submitted under false pretenses -- K is by stipulation not the actual author, but his name was the sole author listed on the piece when it was submitted and accepted. I have been a law review editor and advisor, and of course have written numerous law review articles (and have many colleagues in each of those roles) -- I have never heard of this "placeholder" authorship idea. The only reason I can imagine someone doing it is to try and get a paper accepted by a journal based on the prestige of the (non-)author's name. Absolutely not okay.

So from that vantage point, either way you slice it Judge Kacsmaryk seems to have done something shady. But I want to tweak the scenarios a bit, because as I said some small changes at least for me change my intuition sharply, and I'm not sure what to draw from that. Consider this variant:

3. J and K write an article together, and submit it with both their names on it. The article is accepted, but at some point in the editing process K decides he no longer wants his name on the piece. The article is ultimately published under J's name only.

This intuitively feels less problematic, but I'm not sure if my intuition is correct. The driver, I think, is twofold: J was always presented as an author of the piece, and the piece is being published under the authorship of someone who we know was (one of) the author(s). Is that enough to make this okay?

One reason I'm inclined to approve this is that the alternative seems odd to me: a piece that J co-authored can never be published if K doesn't want to move forward, even if K is fine with the article being published (so long as his name isn't on it). That seems wrong to me; I don't like that form of limbo. It's different if K was the only real author; I'm not convinced he can hand off his solo work to someone else and say "publish it in your name." But if J was already one of the authors on the piece, I don't feel as bad about letting her take over sole authorial credit (with K's permission) if K wishes to withdraw. Think of it as a sort of joint tenancy in the paper (or, if you prefer, joint and several liability over the paper's contents). Each co-author has full claim over the entire paper; we don't try to subdivide and say "this part is J's share, this part is K's share." And so if K pulls out of the paper, it is fine for the entire paper to revert to J.

If we do think of scenario 3 as problematic, then the question is what, if anything, can cure the problem.

4. J and K write an article together, and submit it with both their names on it. After it's accepted, K decides he no longer wants his name on the piece. They withdraw the piece from the journal it is accepted at. Later, J (with K's permission) submits it to another journal with J listed as the sole author.

To the extent our problem with #3 is that the accepting journal was under the impression that J and K were both authors, #4 fixes that by only representing J as the author from start to finish.  To the extent that we think that the problem is that K "really" was an author on the piece and it's misleading not to include him as such, then #4 fixes nothing, but then we still have this weird limbo problem.

Which brings us to scenario 5, which is some form of disclosure short of co-authorship:

5. J and K write an article together, and submit it with both their names on it. After it's accepted, K decides he no longer wants his name on the piece. J continues on with publication, but in the acknowledgements he states that he collaborated with K on an earlier version of the piece and that K gave permission for the piece to be completed on its own.

This seems like the appropriate move to make. 

For what it's worth, I was in a somewhat similar situation with my "Epistemic Dimension of Antisemitism" article. I initially was working on the project myself, later asked on a colleague as a co-author, and we submitted the piece to a journal under both our names. That publication venue petered out during the editing process (through nobody's fault), and my co-author in the interim changed jobs to one where it would have been awkward for her to be writing pieces like that. So, with her permission, I continued on with the project solo, and when it was finally published (in a different outlet) I included in the acknowledgements a line saying "Special recognition is due to [former co-author], with whom the author collaborated on an earlier version of this project and who graciously gave permission to the author to complete it on his own." 

That, to me, was an adequate resolution to the issue (though maybe people disagree): my name listed as the author, but with disclosure. And the disclosure solution, to be clear, only "works" (to the extent you think it does) insofar as I was always at least in a co-authorial position in the article. So it doesn't cover Kacsmaryk's case insofar as there was a complete replacement of authorship -- persons who were not listed as authors magically "became" the author (whether that's because the true author, Kacsmaryk, disappeared, or because the actual true authors, Taub and Butterfield, were inexplicably left off the draft in its initial submission).

But Taub and Butterfield's article also does not contain any acknowledgement or reference to Kacsmaryk whatsoever (which surprised me). And it is worth noting that, even had he been thanked in an acknowledgements section by the "new" authors, that probably would not have drawn Senate scrutiny (certainly not the same degree as if the article went out under his name). That is to say, leaving aside the "who are the true authors of this article" question, my solution to this problem probably would have "worked" as a means of throwing the Senate off the scent. Which maybe undermines it as actually a valid play; or it just suggests that the norms associated with being considered for a life-tenured judicial position are more stringent than normal academic conduct.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/MzJU7Xp

#academia #legal ethics #publications

[sab-cat]

Great news from Texas – the federal district court in Austin, Texas has issued a preliminary injunction ordering the Llano County, Texas government and library board to return the books removed from the collection of the Llano County Public Library because certain library users, county residents, and county officials complained that the books’ contents were objectionable. Noting that many of the banned books were well-regarded, prize-winning books, the court also ordered the defendants to list the books as available for checkout in the library’s catalog and to refrain from removing any books from the Llano County library for the pendency of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

Among the books to be returned to the library shelves are Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent by Isabel Wilkerson; In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak; It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health by Robie Harris; My Butt is So Noisy!, I Broke My Butt!, and I Need a New Butt! by Dawn McMillan; Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen by Jazz Jennings; Shine by Lauren Myracle; and Gabi, a Girl in Pieces by Isabel Quintero.

#book bans #library stuff

[propertyexperttips]

जमीन का केस इतना लम्बा क्यों चलता है ||

Depends on how much this kind of cases are already pending before the Court concerned, If a person files a petition before the high court then on first hearing Court have to decide about the admissibility of the case, if the case found fit to be heard then Court may issue notices to the private respondents and calls for the counter affidavits and it takes about two to six months and thereafter the petitioner have to file rejoinder to the counter and thereafter the case being listed for final hearing, but time depends on the circumstances of the case , for example if a party to the case dies during the pendency of the case the substitution application have to be filed by the legal heirs of the concerned party of the case, which takes extra time. and some other circumstance also make hurdles to the case, for example unnecessary adjournment by the Counsels, strikes, and extra burden and large numbers of pending cases in the Court. So it can not be correctly said about how much time will take to a case for being decided.

#land buying #property tips #property buyers #real estate

[znewstech]

List 10 transfer, 10 bail pleas/day before 13 SC benches each: CJI DY Chandrachud | India News - Times of India

List 10 transfer, 10 bail pleas/day before 13 SC benches each: CJI DY Chandrachud | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: In contrast to his predecessor’s overzealous attempts to deal with pendency resulting in Supreme Court judges complaining of back-breaking workload, CJI D Y Chandrachud has adopted a slow and steady mechanism to chip away at the nearly 70,000 pending cases by ordering listing of 10 transfer petitions and 10 bail petitions every day before each of the 13 benches. Justice Chandrachud on…

View On WordPress

[legalupanishad]

Critical Analysis of Section 125 CRPC: All You Need to Know

This article on 'Critical Analysis of Section 125 CRPC' was written by Tanaya Khilari an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

The Code of criminal procedure popularly known as CRPC is the law maintaining and defining the regulations and provisions for trying crimes in India. There are various sections provided in the CRPC with Sec 125 being an important section of the code. This article analyses in detail the Provision of sec 125 of the CRPC. It examines the various rules, regulations, and fundamentals of the section and lays down case laws concerning it. The section came into existence to provide the right to receive maintenance of wife, child, and parents by the male member of the family. This provision of providing maintenance to women and children has been in existence in many traditional laws as well including the Muslim Act of maintaining the basic needs of wife and child by the male member. There are various exceptions and limitations to the law and provides new judgments concerning it. However, along with the right to impose the duty to maintain, the code also provides the right to apply for revision under other mentioned sections.

Scope and applicability

The code introduced section 125 to provide maintenance of the wife, child, and parents by the male member of the family. It mentions that if the male member is well sufficient to provide for the maintenance of his family members, he should do the same without any delays and reasons. This section is applicable all over India and provides the summary procedure to provide maintenance to the dependents. The section should be construed to provide justice, primarily social justice to the family members especially the women and the children who are generally subject to violence and injustice. This law is also aimed to provide maintenance provisions to divorcees and socially deprived wives. Maintenance of wives and family members is a topic of personal law however it should not be only restricted to the same. A legal provision was essential and hence was introduced in the following section. This section was introduced before 2001 but due to the long pendency of cases, the 2001 amendment was introduced to provide interim maintenance. This ensured give decision-making of cases and also provided quick justice to the complainant or the other party. This amendment is listed in section 125(3) and is considered somewhat inconsistent with Articles 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution which relates to the protection of life and liberty and also personal rights.

What was the need for this Section 125?

Every human being has a right to a sound and safe living environment. Women, children, and elderly people are usually the object of violence or are usually the ones suffering injustice upon them. Articles 14 and 21 have preached and given the provisions for the safety of life and liberty and also made people recognize and be aware of their rights essential for their living. The maintenance provided to them is one such aspect of the right to a safe and sound life for such women and children as well as the elderly. Many personal laws have provided for the same for ages. However, these provisions and methodologies differ in each personal law. Under Muslim law, there is a place for the maintenance provision for women and children. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act also provides for the same mentioning that wife, child, and elderly are due for maintenance. Similar provisions are given in many other laws and also promote the maintenance of these individuals. However, this traditional inclusion of the provision was not considered sufficient due to the rising cases of injustice and violence against them. Hence came into existence in section 125 of CrPC.

Regulations and restrictions under Section 125

As mentioned above the section provides the maintenance of the wife, child, and elderly by the male member. The male member is required to give or provide monthly maintenance to such individuals. There are certain rules for the same. The section provides that for the male member to be liable to provide this maintenance, he must be self-sufficient for the same. This should be present even when the husband and the wife are divorced. It means he should be self-sufficient even during the time of his divorce from his wife. The section also provides certain restrictions. These include that the wife should not be separated from the husband on insufficient grounds, and she should not be living in adultery. This restriction is prevalent even when the couple is living separately with mutual consent. The wife should also not be able to support herself during her divorce. This provision stands canceled when the wife re-marries. As is the provision applicable to women, it also provides provisions for the maintenance of children. These children include the legitimate as well as the illegitimate children of the male member. He is entitled to provide maintenance when these children are not able to support and maintain themselves with reasonable assistance. Minor as well as major children are provided maintenance when they face certain injuries or abnormalities concerning physical or mental aspects. Various other additions and amendments have been made in this section during the prevailing years providing an impact on the rights and maintenance of women and children.

Intermin measures of Section 125 under 125(3)

The Indian judiciary system even though sufficient, takes a long time to provide judgments and decisions on cases. Due to this inconsistency, after 2001 there was an amendment made in section 125 of CrPC to provide faster disbursement of cases concerning the maintenance of the wife, children, and elderly by the male members. This amendment was introduced in section 125(3). Case of recovery of maintenance and interim maintenance can be done in this section by issuing the warrant. However, in certain cases, this interim maintenance is considered inconsistent with Articles14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The explanation and remedy for the same are provided by the court of law in various provisions example the Maneka Gandhi case under Article 21 of the constitution.

Important case laws under the Act

The section defines that the male member is supposed to provide maintenance to the wife, children, and parents. A daughter is also liable to pay maintenance to her parents. This was determined in the case of Dr. Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai & another. Facts: This case was initiated by the father under section 125(1)(d) for maintenance from his daughter. He claimed that a married daughter is capable of maintaining her parents. It is irrelevant if the child is a daughter or a son, they will need to provide for their parents and not drive them to the point of starving. This maintenance will be considered binding when the daughter along with her husband is self-sufficient to support her parents. Another important case law was the Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. the State of Gujarat and another (1996(4) SCC 479). Facts: In this case, it was determined that the stepmother is also eligible to receive maintenance. This right is given when the mother is a widow or if her husband is alive, he is not self-sufficient to provide. In this scenario, the stepmother is entitled to receive maintenance from the children. Provisions have also been introduced to set aside or revise the decision announced by courts in such cases. One such instance is given in the case of Masud Ahmed v. the State of Bihar. Facts: In this case, the claimant approached the High Court to set aside the decision given by the court to provide his ex-wife with the maintenance of rupees 3000. He was also required to provide maintenance to his children at 2000 per month. He disregarded the decision claiming that his wife was self-sufficient and did not require any maintenance. The court reviewed the order and withdrew the decision of providing maintenance to the wife. This social welfare-derived section is important for the legislature and the country and many important judgments have been passed in the following years giving significance and importance to the maintenance of wives, children, and parents.

Critical Analysis Of Section 125 CRPC

Laws applicable to Section 125

Section 125 of the code is consistent with various laws. These laws provide for better provisions for the maintenance of the mentioned individuals. The various acts applicable to it are: - Divorce Act, 1869 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Family courts Act, 1984 - Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and 2006. - Special Marriage Act, 1954, etc. Many other laws are applicable to this provision and they primarily consist of personal laws of various castest and women welfare laws.

Amount of maintenance

The appeals under the act are heard by the magistrate (first class) only. While providing maintenance to the mentioned individuals various factors are taken into consideration primarily monetary factors. These include factors such as income, the standard of living, and different circumstances if any. There is no fixed amount of maintenance. It will be determined based on the livelihood of the individual.

Conclusion

Section 125 of the code provides the provision concerning the maintenance of women, children, and the elderly by the male member in the case of the wife and by the daughter or son in the case of parents. This section was introduced to provide solidarity to the personal law provision of maintenance of wives. This section has ensured to bring about social change and welfare for the individuals deprived of their livelihood. The section has witnessed various case laws and provisions being amended to cope with the changing times and scenarios. There are however two controversies or as you can say loopholes in this section. Many a time the female members and elderly are not provided with basic maintenance even though provisions are in place by the male members by way of coercion. They are deprived of it in many rural areas still in India making the law inoperative there. There is persistent disregard for the law which has led to the presence of such cases not being given justice. The government will have to make strict provisions against such individuals and awareness at the individual level will be needed to be created by the citizens about the importance of this provision. The second issue witnessed is the misuse of this provision. Many cases have been reported where the elderly or the wives have wrongfully claimed for maintenance which has led to injustice on part of the male members of the person liable to provide maintenance. People should understand that laws are made to provide justice. These laws should not be used to defraud and take advantage of people. People should understand their responsibility and duty and not misuse the laws created for their benefit. A country with appropriate laws for women, children, and the elderly along with their cooperation is considered a well-developed country.

Reference

- Ayush Verma, Analysing the scope of revision under Section 125 of CrPC, (2021), https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-scope-revision-section-125-crpc/ - Kiran Pawar, A Critical Analysis Of Provision Of Section 125(3) OF CrPC VIZ., Procedure Of Execution Of Order Of Interim Maintenance, (2020). - Shivanshu Goswami, Analysis on order for maintenance of wives, children and parents under the Code of Criminal Procedure, (2020), https://thedailyguardian.com/analysis-on-order-for-maintenance-of-wives-children-and-parents-under-the-code-of-criminal-procedure/ Read the full article

#CriminalLaw #CriminalProcedureCode #CrPC

[dailynews9]

Over 1L cases pending for over 30yrs in lower courts

Over 1L cases pending for over 30yrs in lower courts

Pendency in Indian courts is hardly breaking news , but did you know that there are more than a lakh cases in district and taluka courts pending for over 30 years ? Or that just four states account for over 90 % of these ? These include over 67,000 criminal cases and more than 33,000 related to civil matters . With 41,210 such cases, Uttar Pradesh leads the list and is followed by Maharashtra…

View On WordPress

[theechudar]

1 lakh cases pending in lower courts for more than 30 years | India News

1 lakh cases pending in lower courts for more than 30 years | India News

NEW DELHI: Pendency in Indian courts is hardly breaking news, but did you know that there are more than a lakh cases in district and taluka courts pending for over 30 years? Or that just four states account for over 90% of these? These include over 67,000 criminal cases and more than 33,000 related to civil matters. With 41,210 such cases, Uttar Pradesh leads the list and is followed by…

View On WordPress

[squarwell-breakingnews]

1 lakh cases pending in lower courts for more than 30 years | India News - Times of India

1 lakh cases pending in lower courts for more than 30 years | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: Pendency in Indian courts is hardly breaking news, but did you know that there are more than a lakh cases in district and taluka courts pending for over 30 years? Or that just four states account for over 90% of these? These include over 67,000 criminal cases and more than 33,000 related to civil matters. With 41,210 such cases, Uttar Pradesh leads the list and is followed by…

View On WordPress

[seemabhatnagar]

Maintenance pendete lite

ABC v. XYZ

Matrimonial Appeal (Family Court) 231/2023

Before Delhi High Court

Judgement was pronounced by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta J and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V Kameswar Rao J on 04.12.2023. It was observed that as there is no straightjacket formula therefore a balance has to be drawn between the status of the parties reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified, whether the applicant has any independent source of income, whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home, whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage, whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage, whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing and looking after adult members of the family.

Fact:

By means of this Matrimonial Appeal the order of the Family Court Judge passed on 06.04.2023 in Divorce Petition and Application for maintenance is challenged by the appellant wife before Delhi High Court.

Family Court judge ordered minor girl child to be paid Rs. 20K per month from the date of the filing of the application till the disposal of the case where as wife was declined maintenance pendent lite*(during pendency of divorce proceeding*). Whereas Appellant wife has made a claim of Rs.75,000/- PM for herself and her minor daughter and litigation expenses.

Marriage was solemnized in the year 2000 & a girl child was born in 2010. The appellant wife filed divorce petition as well as petition u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955* (HMA*) on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the Respondent husband constraining her to live separately since December 2013.

Pursuant to summons Respondent husband appeared before Family Court and submitted he is ready to give divorce on mutual consent and sought some time for giving his offer for divorce. The time was granted. But thereafter Respondent husband didn’t turned up before the Family Court.

The opportunity of filing written statement to the divorce petition & also for maintenance petition filed u/s section 24 of HMA by the husband was closed.

The Respondent was proceeded Exparte in Divorce Proceeding & the matter was listed for Exparte evidence of the petitioner/appellant.

Observation of Family Court Judge on Maintenance pendete lite

Appellant/Wife is capable of earning and maintaining herself & is earning and as such does not require any financial support.

Considering that an amount of Rs.36,066/- per month is being spent on education and other expenses of the minor daughter in custody of the appellant, who is a joint liability of both the parties, respondent was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance of the minor child from the date of filing of the application till decision of the case.

The appellant wife was also granted litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

Since Respondent husband didn’t appeared before the Family Court Divorce was granted on 06.04.2023.

Submission in Appeal before Delhi High Court by Appellant (Wife)

Feeling aggrieved by denial of maintenance to the her during pendency of the Divorce proceeding, present appeal was filed submitting that maintenance was wrongly denied to her and maintenance to the child be enhanced.

Family Court erred by not taking into consideration the status of the parties after the marriage and the fact that the respondent had been maintaining three cars after marriage. respondent husband owned a three-bedroom duplex house with terrace rights in South Delhi. The parties (Appellant & Respondent) had visited Mumbai, Shirdi and Goa for a trip as well as to other places also by air along with stay at five-star hotels. Respondent is the practicing Advocate(20 years practice expeience), maintaining a double storey chamber in Tis Hazari Complex. The income of respondent, was claimed to be not less than Rs.2 lacs per month.

The appellant was constrained to live in a tenanted premises and had to spends a sum of Rs.16,500/- both for self and daughter. The expenses for maintenance of the child are much higher.

Prayer in Appeal

The maintenance be enhanced to Rs.75,000/- per month for the appellant along with minor child and litigation expenses of Rs.2 lacs be provided.

Observation of the High Court

In the present case notice on the Respondent Husband was served in December 19, 2019 & petition of divorce & maintenance were together decided in April 06, 2023.

Where the contesting party to the proceedings chooses not to contest, the decision on the application for interim maintenance should not be deferred to a later stage of conclusion of the proceedings.

The grievance of the appellant is that since she has disclosed her sources and amount of earning Family Court Judge denied maintenance to the appellant holding she is capable of earning & maintaining herself therefore she does not require any financial support from the Respondent Husband.

The maintenance sum to be accorded monthly during the proceedings has to be reasonable, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent.

The maintenance has to be realistic, avoiding either of two extremes oppressive or extravagant, nor meagre to drive the applicant wife to penury or mere support. The duration of the marriage as well as the conduct of the parties, which is apparent on the face of record also needs to be kept in perspective.

We are of the considered opinion that merely because the wife is earning, it does not automatically operate as an absolute bar for awarding the maintenance. The parameter remains whether her source of income is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself along with minor child.

The obligation of husband to provide maintenance is on higher pedestal than wife since the provision for grant of maintenance/interim maintenance for women and children in the concerned statutes. The purpose remains to provide recourse to dependent wife and children by way of financial support to maintain herself along with the child.

On the face of record, considering the status of the parties along with the standard of living in the matrimonial home and the income of the respondent, the appellant wife is also entitled to maintenance apart from the minor child.

Since the respondent husband chose to remain absent during course of proceedings after initial appearance, the task of estimating the income becomes onerous for want of relevant details of the income and assets affidavit of the respondent. An adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent in the facts and circumstances, since he deliberately chose not to contest the proceedings.

Order

We are of the opinion that the appellant wife is also entitled to maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month apart from the maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- for the minor child as awarded by the learned Trial Court from the date of filing of application till the disposal of the proceedings.

Maintenance pendente lite shall be set off/adjusted against any other amount of maintenance received by the appellant. The respondent shall also be liable to clear the arrears of maintenance within timeline as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court.

Seema Bhatnagar

#Maintenance #interimmaintenance #pendetelite #adverseinference #absentingparty #nostraightjacketformulaformaintenance #amountbenotbeextravagant #amountnotbetoomeagre #statusofparties #standardoflivinginmatrimonialhome #familycourt #delhihighcourt #matrimonialappeal

[leadforcareer]

Section 504 Home Repair Program: low income homeowners Getting Counted

Introduction

Introduction: Section 504 of the US Constitution guarantees that “No person … shall be denied any participation in, or benefits of, the United States Government on account of race.” This promise has been realized through the Home Repair Program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Home Repair Program provides a wide range of benefits to low income homeowners who are unable to do their own repairs.

The program is designed to help so-called “disadvantaged homeowners” by providing them with access to government-provided resources and support. These resources can include an array of services such as repair grants, home equity loans, and Title I education programs. In addition, the Home Repair Program helps homeowners become more self-reliant and improve their overall quality of life.

In order for an individual to qualify for the Home Repair Program, they must have a household income below 50% of poverty guidelines. In addition, they must be able to demonstrate that

How the Home Repair Program Works.

The Home Repair Program is a government-operated program that provides low income homeowners with repair and replacement services. Eligible homeowners receive up to $2,500 per year in repairs and replacements. The program runs for a three-year period, and eligibility is determined by factors such as race, ethnicity, poverty level, and ownership of a home.

Who is Eligible for the Home Repair Program

The Home Repair Program is open to homeowners who are living in the United States as of September 30, 2010. Eligible homeowners must be living below poverty levels and own a home that has been their primary residence for at least two years.Owners of foreclosed homes are not eligible for the program.

What is the Duration of the Home Repair Program

The Home Repair Program runs for a three-year period and eligibility is determined by factors such as income level, race, ethnicity, and ownership of a home. The program runs automatically renewable every three years without any special requirements or applications needed from anyone.

How to Apply for the Home Repair Program.

If you qualify for the Home Repair Program, you will be able to receive assistance from the program. To apply for the program, you will need to provide information about your home and your needs. The program will then review your application and contact you to discuss your needs.

How to Get the Assistance of the Home Repair Program

The Home Repair Program may also be able to help you get help from a contractor or other professionals who can fix or update your home. You may also want to consider hiring a professional home repair company in order to get expert help with problems that might occur during your home repairs.

How to Get Assistance from the Home Repair Program.

To qualify for the Home Repair Program, you must be a low income homeowner. You must have been living in your home for at least five years and have no other sources of income. To get started, contact the local assistance program to see if they offer help with home repairs.

You can also seek out help through online resources like HUD’s website or the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s website. In many cases, you can simply search for “home repair” or “assistance” on these websites and find a listing of programs that may be interested in helping you.

The Home Repair Program offers funding to help individuals fix their homes up so they can live in them again as normal people. To qualify for this funding, you must be a low income homeowner and be able to show evidence of having tried and failed to fix your home yourself within the past two years. You must also provide proof that you are able to pay all of the costs associated with necessary repairs, such as hiring a professionalpenter or contractor, and that you will have continued access to these services during the pendency of your case.

Conclusion

The Home Repair Program is a program that allows customers to get help with home repair. Eligible customers can apply for the program and receive assistance from the program for a duration of time. Additionally, interested individuals can get assistance by applying through the website or through friendly customer service. By following these simple steps, you have a better chance of getting Assistance from the Home Repair Program and being able to fix your home quickly!

#Section 504 Home Repair Program low income #college and graduating debt free

[breakingnewsstorytoday]

In a relief for Uddhav Thackerary camp, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana on Thursday asked the Election Commission not to take any decision on the Eknath Shinde faction’s plea that it be considered the real Shiv Sena and granted the party’s poll symbol.

The bench said it would take a call by Monday on referring the matters related to the recent Maharashtra political crisis to a Constitution bench.

The SC also told the poll panel that if the Thackeray faction seeks time to file a response to its notices on Shinde faction’s plea, it should consider their request and grant reasonable adjournment.

“Counsels submitted the issues which may arise to decide this case and whether to refer the matter to a five-judge Constitution bench. This will be decided taking into consideration the submissions and the issues framed,” said the bench.

 “We will take a call and at the same time, the date fixed by the EC is August 8 to submit a reply by the petitioners (Shinde group). If they (Uddhav) want some more time in view of the pendency of the matter then they will file an application seeking time. It is open for EC to grant reasonable adjournment,” the bench, also comprising justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, said.

 The apex court was hearing the petitions filed by the Shiv Sena and its rebel MLAs during the recent Maharashtra political crisis which raised constitutional issues including those related to splits, mergers of political parties, defections, and disqualifications. Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Shinde faction, submitted a revised list of legal issues on petitions filed by the rival Uddhav Thackeray group.  Salve said the anti-defection law cannot be an “anti-dissent” law.

“There is no per se illegality principle, until and unless there is a finding of disqualification,” Salve said.  The bench, at this juncture, said, “If you are completely ignoring the political party after being elected then it is a danger to democracy.”

#udhav thakrey #eknath shinde #election commission

[blackkudos]

Joe Louis

Joseph Louis Barrow (May 13, 1914 – April 12, 1981), known professionally as Joe Louis, was an American professional boxer who competed from 1934 to 1951. He reigned as the world heavyweight champion from 1937 to 1949, and is considered to be one of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time. Nicknamed the Brown Bomber, Louis' championship reign lasted 140 consecutive months, during which he participated in 26 championship fights. The 27th fight, against Ezzard Charles in 1950, was a challenge for Charles' heavyweight title and so is not included in Louis' reign. He was victorious in 25 consecutive title defenses. In 2005, Louis was ranked as the best heavyweight of all time by the International Boxing Research Organization, and was ranked number one on The Ring magazine's list of the "100 greatest punchers of all time".

Louis' cultural impact was felt well outside the ring. He is widely regarded as the first person of African-American descent to achieve the status of a nationwide hero within the United States, and was also a focal point of anti-Nazi sentiment leading up to and during World War II. He was instrumental in integrating the game of golf, breaking the sport's color barrier in America by appearing under a sponsor's exemption in a PGA event in 1952.

Detroit's Joe Louis Greenway and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County's Joe Louis "The Champ" Golf Course, situated south of Chicago in Riverdale, Illinois, are named in his honor.

Early life

Born in rural Chambers County, Alabama (in a ramshackle dwelling on Bell Chapel Road, located about 1 mile (2 kilometres) off state route 50 and roughly 6 miles (10 kilometres) from LaFayette), Louis was the seventh of eight children of Munroe Barrow and Lillie (Reese) Barrow. He weighed 11 pounds (5 kg) at birth. Both of his parents were children of former slaves, alternating between sharecropping and rental farming. Munroe was predominantly African American, with some white ancestry, while Lillie was half Cherokee.

Louis spent the first dozen years growing up in rural Alabama, where little is known of his childhood. He suffered from a speech impediment and spoke very little until about the age of six. Munroe Barrow was committed to a mental institution in 1916 and, as a result, Joe knew very little of his biological father. Around 1920, Louis's mother married Pat Brooks, a local construction contractor, having received word that Munroe Barrow had died while institutionalized (in reality, Munroe Barrow lived until 1938, unaware of his son's fame).

In 1926, shaken by a gang of white men in the Ku Klux Klan, Louis's family moved to Detroit, Michigan, forming part of the post-World War I Great Migration. Joe's brother worked for Ford Motor Company (where Joe would himself work for a time at the River Rouge Plant) and the family settled into a home at 2700 Catherine (now Madison) Street in Detroit's Black Bottom neighborhood.

Louis attended Bronson Vocational School for a time to learn cabinet-making.

Amateur career

The Great Depression hit the Barrow family hard, but as an alternative to gang activity, Joe began to spend time at a local youth recreation center at 637 Brewster Street in Detroit. His mother attempted to get him interested in playing the violin. A classic story is that he tried to hide his pugilistic ambitions from his mother by carrying his boxing gloves inside his violin case.

Louis made his debut in early 1932 at the age of 17. Legend has it that before the fight, the barely literate Louis wrote his name so large that there was no room for his last name, and thus became known as "Joe Louis" for the remainder of his boxing career. More likely, Louis simply omitted his last name to keep his boxing a secret from his mother. After this debut—a loss to future Olympian Johnny Miler—Louis compiled numerous amateur victories, eventually winning the club championship of his Brewster Street recreation centre, the home of many aspiring Golden Gloves fighters.

In 1933, Louis won the Detroit-area Golden Gloves Novice Division championship against Joe Biskey for the light heavyweight classification. He later lost in the Chicago Golden Gloves Tournament of Champions. The next year, competing in the Golden Gloves' Open Division, he won the light heavyweight classification, this time also winning the Chicago Tournament of Champions. However, a hand injury forced Louis to miss the New York/Chicago Champions' cross-town bout for the ultimate Golden Gloves championship. In April 1934, he followed up his Chicago performance by winning the United States Amateur Champion National AAU tournament in St. Louis, Missouri.

By the end of his amateur career, Louis's record was 50–3, with 43 knockouts.

Professional career

Joe Louis had only three losses in his 69 professional fights. He tallied 52 knockouts and held the championship from 1937 to 1949, the longest span of any heavyweight titleholder. After returning from retirement, Louis failed to regain the championship in 1950, and his career ended after he was knocked out by Rocky Marciano in 1951.

Early years

Louis's amateur performances attracted the interest of professional promoters, and he was soon represented by a black Detroit-area bookmaker named John Roxborough. As Louis explained in his autobiography, Roxborough convinced the young fighter that white managers would have no real interest in seeing a black boxer work his way up to title contention:

[Roxborough] told me about the fate of most black fighters, ones with white managers, who wound up burned-out and broke before they reached their prime. The white managers were not interested in the men they were handling but in the money they could make from them. They didn't take the proper time to see that their fighters had a proper training, that they lived comfortably, or ate well, or had some pocket change. Mr. Roxborough was talking about Black Power before it became popular.

Roxborough knew a Chicago area boxing promoter named Julian Black who already had a stable of mediocre boxers against which Louis could hone his craft, this time in the heavyweight division. After becoming part of the management team, Black hired fellow Chicago native Jack "Chappy" Blackburn as Louis's trainer. Louis' initial professional fights were all in the Chicago area, his professional debut coming on July 4, 1934, against Jack Kracken in the Bacon Casino on Chicago's south side. Louis earned $59 for knocking out Kracken in the first round. $59.00 in 1934 is equivalent to $1,148.60 in 2020 dollars. Louis won all 12 of his professional fights that year, 10 by knockout.

In September 1934, while promoting a Detroit-area "coming home" bout for Louis against Canadian Alex Borchuk, Roxborough was pressured by members of the Michigan State Boxing Commission to have Louis sign with white management. Roxborough refused and continued advancing Louis's career with bouts against heavyweight contenders Art Sykes and Stanley Poreda.

When training for a fight against Lee Ramage, Louis noticed a young female secretary for the black newspaper at the gym. After Ramage was defeated, the secretary, Marva Trotter, was invited to the celebration party at Chicago's Grand Hotel. Trotter later became Louis's first wife in 1935.

During this time, Louis also met Truman Gibson, the man who would become his personal lawyer. As a young associate at a law firm hired by Julian Black, Gibson was charged with personally entertaining Louis during the pendency of business deals.

Title contention

Although Louis' management was finding him bouts against legitimate heavyweight contenders, no path to the title was forthcoming. While professional boxing was not officially segregated, many white Americans had become wary of the prospect of another black champion in the wake of Jack Johnson's highly unpopular (among whites) "reign" atop the heavyweight division. During an era of severe anti-black repression, Jack Johnson's unrepentant masculinity and marriage to a white woman engendered an enormous backlash that greatly limited opportunities of black fighters in the heavyweight division. Black boxers were denied championship bouts, and there were few heavyweight black contenders at the time, though there were African Americans who fought for titles in other weight divisions, and a few notable black champions, such as Tiger Flowers. Louis and his handlers would counter the legacy of Johnson by emphasizing the Brown Bomber's modesty and sportsmanship. Biographer Gerald Astor stated that "Joe Louis' early boxing career was stalked by the specter of Jack Johnson".

If Louis were to rise to national prominence among such cultural attitudes, a change in management would be necessary. In 1935, boxing promoter Mike Jacobs sought out Louis' handlers. After Louis' narrow defeat of Natie Brown on March 29, 1935, Jacobs and the Louis team met at the Frog Club, a black nightclub, and negotiated a three-year exclusive boxing promotion deal. The contract, however, did not keep Roxborough and Black from attempting to cash in as Louis' managers; when Louis turned 21 on May 13, 1935, Roxborough and Black each signed Louis to an onerous long-term contract that collectively dedicated half of Louis' future income to the pair.

Black and Roxborough continued to carefully and deliberately shape Louis' media image. Mindful of the tremendous public backlash Johnson had suffered for his unapologetic attitude and flamboyant lifestyle, they drafted "Seven Commandments" for Louis' personal conduct. These included:

Never have his picture taken with a white woman

Never gloat over a fallen opponent

Never engage in fixed fights

Live and fight clean

As a result, Louis was generally portrayed in the white media as a modest, clean-living person, which facilitated his burgeoning celebrity status.

With the backing of major promotion, Louis fought thirteen times in 1935. The bout that helped put him in the media spotlight occurred on June 25, when Louis knocked out 6'6", 265-pound former world heavyweight champion Primo Carnera in six rounds. Foreshadowing the Louis–Schmeling rivalry to come, the Carnera bout featured a political dimension. Louis' victory over Carnera, who symbolized Benito Mussolini's regime in the popular eye, was seen as a victory for the international community, particularly among African Americans, who were sympathetic to Ethiopia, which was attempting to maintain its independence by fending off an invasion by fascist Italy. America's white press began promoting Louis' image in the context of the era's racism; nicknames they created included the "Mahogany Mauler", "Chocolate Chopper", "Coffee-Colored KO King", "Safari Sandman", and one that stuck: "The Brown Bomber".

Helping the white press to overcome its reluctance to feature a black contender was the fact that in the mid-1930s boxing desperately needed a marketable hero. Since the retirement of Jack Dempsey in 1929, the sport had devolved into a sordid mixture of poor athletes, gambling, fixed fights, thrown matches, and control of the sport by organized crime. New York Times Columnist Edward Van Ness wrote, "Louis ... is a boon to boxing. Just as Dempsey led the sport out of the doldrums ... so is Louis leading the boxing game out of a slump." Likewise, biographer Bill Libby asserted that "The sports world was hungry for a great champion when Louis arrived in New York in 1935."

While the mainstream press was beginning to embrace Louis, many still opposed the prospect of another black heavyweight champion. In September 1935, on the eve of Louis' fight with former titleholder Max Baer, Washington Post sportswriter Shirley Povich wrote about some Americans' hopes for the white contender, "They say Baer will surpass himself in the knowledge that he is the lone white hope for the defense of Nordic superiority in the prize ring." However, the hopes of white suprematists would soon be dashed.

Although Baer had been knocked down only once before in his professional career (by Frankie Campbell), Louis dominated the former champion, knocking him out in the fourth round. Unknowingly, Baer suffered from a unique disadvantage in the fight; earlier that evening, Louis had married Marva Trotter at a friend's apartment and was eager to end the fight in order to consummate the relationship. Later that year, Louis also knocked out Paolino Uzcudun, who had never been knocked down before.

Louis vs. Schmeling I

By this time, Louis was ranked as the No. 1 contender in the heavyweight division and had won the Associated Press' "Athlete of the Year" award for 1935. What was considered to be a final tune-up bout before an eventual title shot was scheduled for June 1936 against Max Schmeling. Although a former world heavyweight champion, Schmeling was not considered a threat to Louis, then with a professional record of 27–0. Schmeling had won his title on a technicality when Jack Sharkey was disqualified after giving Schmeling a low blow in 1930. Schmeling was also 30 years old at the time of the Louis bout and allegedly past his prime. Louis' training retreat was located at Lakewood, New Jersey, where he was first able to practice the game of golf, which would later become a lifelong passion. Noted entertainer Ed Sullivan had initially sparked Louis' interest in the sport by giving an instructional book to Joe's wife Marva. Louis spent significant time on the golf course rather than training for the match.

Conversely, Schmeling prepared intently for the bout. He had thoroughly studied Louis's style and believed he had found a weakness. By exploiting Louis's habit of dropping his left hand low after a jab, Schmeling handed Louis his first professional loss by knocking him out in round 12 at Yankee Stadium on June 19, 1936.

World championship

After defeating Louis, Schmeling expected a title shot against James J. Braddock, who had unexpectedly defeated Max Baer for the heavyweight title the previous June. Madison Square Garden (MSG) had a contract with Braddock for the title defense and also sought a Braddock–Schmeling title bout. But Jacobs and Braddock's manager Joe Gould had been planning a Braddock–Louis matchup for months.

Schmeling's victory gave Gould tremendous leverage, however. If he were to offer Schmeling the title chance instead of Louis, there was a very real possibility that Nazi authorities would never allow Louis a shot at the title. Gould's demands were therefore onerous: Jacobs would have to pay 10% of all future boxing promotion profits (including any future profits from Louis's future bouts) for ten years. Braddock and Gould would eventually receive more than $150,000 from this arrangement. Well before the actual fight, Jacobs and Gould publicly announced that their fighters would fight for the heavyweight title on June 22, 1937. Figuring that the New York State Athletic Commission would not sanction the fight in deference to MSG and Schmeling, Jacobs scheduled the fight for Chicago.

Each of the parties involved worked to facilitate the controversial Braddock–Louis matchup. Louis did his part by knocking out former champion Jack Sharkey on August 18, 1936. Meanwhile, Gould trumped up anti-Nazi sentiment against Schmeling, and Jacobs defended a lawsuit by MSG to halt the Braddock–Louis fight. A federal court in Newark, New Jersey, eventually ruled that Braddock's contractual obligation to stage his title defense at MSG was unenforceable for lack of mutual consideration.

The stage was set for Louis's title shot. On the night of the fight, June 22, 1937, Braddock was able to knock Louis down in round one, but afterward could accomplish little. After inflicting constant punishment, Louis defeated Braddock in round eight, knocking him out cold with a strong right hand that busted James' teeth through his gum shield and lip and sent him to the ground for a few minutes. It was the first and only time that Braddock was knocked out (the one other stoppage of Braddock's career was a TKO due to a cut). Louis's ascent to the world heavyweight championship was complete.

Louis's victory was a seminal moment in African American history. Thousands of African Americans stayed up all night across the country in celebration. Noted author and member of the Harlem Renaissance Langston Hughes described Louis's effect in these terms:

Each time Joe Louis won a fight in those depression years, even before he became champion, thousands of black Americans on relief or W.P.A., and poor, would throng out into the streets all across the land to march and cheer and yell and cry because of Joe's one-man triumphs. No one else in the United States has ever had such an effect on Negro emotions—or on mine. I marched and cheered and yelled and cried, too.

Initial title defenses

Despite his championship, Louis was haunted by the earlier defeat to Schmeling. Shortly after winning the title, he was quoted as saying, "I don't want to be called champ until I whip Max Schmeling." Louis's manager Mike Jacobs attempted to arrange a rematch in 1937, but negotiations broke down when Schmeling demanded 30% of the gate. When Schmeling instead attempted to arrange for a fight against British Empire champion Tommy Farr, known as the "Tonypandy Terror",—ostensibly for a world championship to rival the claims of American boxing authorities—Jacobs outmaneuvered him, offering Farr a guaranteed $60,000 to fight Louis instead. The offer was too lucrative for Farr to turn down.

On August 30, 1937, after a postponement of four days due to rain, Louis and Farr finally touched gloves at New York's Yankee Stadium before a crowd of approximately 32,000. Louis fought one of the hardest battles of his life. The bout was closely contested and went the entire 15 rounds, with Louis being unable to knock Farr down. Referee Arthur Donovan was even seen shaking Farr's hand after the bout, in apparent congratulation. Nevertheless, after the score was announced, Louis had won a controversial unanimous decision. Time described the scene thus: "After collecting the judges' votes, referee Arthur Donovan announced that Louis had won the fight on points. The crowd of 50,000 ... amazed that Farr had not been knocked out or even knocked down, booed the decision."

It seems the crowd believed that referee Arthur Donovan, Sr. had raised Farr's glove in victory. Seven years later, in his published account of the fight, Donovan spoke of the "mistake" that may have led to this confusion. He wrote:

As Tommy walked back to his corner after shaking Louis' hand, I followed him and seized his glove. "Tommy, a wonderful perform—" I began ... Then I dropped his hand like a red-hot coal! He had started to raise his arm. He thought I had given him the fight and the world championship! I literally ran away, shaking my head and shouting. "No! No! No!" realising how I had raised his hopes for a few seconds only to dash them to the ground ... That's the last time my emotions will get the better of me in a prize fight! There was much booing at the announced result, but, as I say it, it was all emotional. I gave Tommy two rounds and one even—and both his winning rounds were close.

Speaking over the radio after the fight, Louis admitted that he had been hurt twice.

In preparation for the inevitable rematch with Schmeling, Louis tuned up with bouts against Nathan Mann and Harry Thomas.

Louis vs. Schmeling II

The rematch between Louis and Schmeling would become one of the most famous boxing matches of all time and is remembered as one of the major sports events of the 20th century. Following his defeat of Louis in 1936, Schmeling had become a national hero in Germany. Schmeling's victory over an African American was touted by Nazi officials as proof of their doctrine of Aryan superiority. When the rematch was scheduled, Louis retreated to his boxing camp in New Jersey and trained incessantly for the fight. A few weeks before the bout, Louis visited the White House, where President Franklin D. Roosevelt told him, "Joe, we need muscles like yours to beat Germany." Louis later admitted: "I knew I had to get Schmeling good. I had my own personal reasons and the whole damned country was depending on me."

When Schmeling arrived in New York City in June 1938 for the rematch, he was accompanied by a Nazi party publicist who issued statements that a black man could not defeat Schmeling and that when Schmeling won, his prize money would be used to build tanks in Germany. Schmeling's hotel was picketed by anti-Nazi protesters in the days before the fight.

On the night of June 22, 1938, Louis and Schmeling met for the second time in the boxing ring. The fight was held in Yankee Stadium before a crowd of 70,043. It was broadcast by radio to millions of listeners throughout the world, with radio announcers reporting on the fight in English, German, Spanish, and Portuguese. Before the bout, Schmeling weighed in at 193 pounds; Louis weighed in at 198¾ pounds.

The fight lasted two minutes and four seconds. Louis battered Schmeling with a series of swift attacks, forcing him against the ropes and giving him a paralyzing body blow (Schmeling afterward claimed it was an illegal kidney punch). Schmeling was knocked down three times and only managed to throw two punches in the entire bout. On the third knockdown, Schmeling's trainer threw in the towel and referee Arthur Donovan stopped the fight.

"Bum of the Month Club"

In the 29 months from January 1939 through May 1941, Louis defended his title thirteen times, a frequency unmatched by any heavyweight champion since the end of the bare-knuckle era. The pace of his title defenses, combined with his convincing wins, earned Louis' opponents from this era the collective nickname "Bum of the Month Club". Notables of this lambasted pantheon include:

world light heavyweight champion John Henry Lewis who, attempting to move up a weight class, was knocked out in the first round by Louis on January 25, 1939.

"Two Ton" Tony Galento, who was able to knock Louis to the canvas with a left hook in the third round of their bout on June 28, 1939, before letting his guard down and being knocked out in the fourth.

Chilean Arturo Godoy, whom Louis fought twice in 1940, on February 9 and June 20. Louis won the first bout by a split-decision, and the rematch by a knockout in the eighth round.

Al McCoy, putative New England heavyweight champion, whose fight against Louis is probably best known for being the first heavyweight title bout held in Boston, Massachusetts, (at the Boston Garden on December 16, 1940). The popular local challenger dodged his way around Louis before being unable to respond to the sixth-round bell.

Clarence "Red" Burman, who pressed Louis for nearly five rounds at Madison Square Garden on January 31, 1941, before succumbing to a series of body blows.

Gus Dorazio, of whom Louis remarked, "At least he tried", after being leveled by a short right hand in the second round at Philadelphia's Convention Hall on February 17.

Abe Simon, who endured thirteen rounds of punishment before 18,908 at Olympia Stadium in Detroit on March 21 before referee Sam Hennessy declared a TKO.

Tony Musto, who, at 5'7½" and 198 pounds, was known as "Baby Tank." Despite a unique crouching style, Musto was slowly worn down over eight and a half rounds in St. Louis on April 8, and the fight was called a TKO because of a severe cut over Musto's eye.

Buddy Baer (brother of former champion Max), who was leading the May 23, 1941, bout in Washington, D.C., until an eventual barrage by Louis, capped by a hit at the sixth round bell. Referee Arthur Donovan disqualified Baer before the beginning of the seventh round as a result of stalling by Baer's manager.

Despite its derogatory nickname, most of the group were top-ten heavyweights. Of the 12 fighters Louis faced during this period, five were rated by The Ring as top-10 heavyweights in the year they fought Louis: Galento (overall #2 heavyweight in 1939), Bob Pastor (#3, 1939), Godoy (#3, 1940), Simon (#6, 1941) and Baer (#8, 1941); four others (Musto, Dorazio, Burman and Johnny Paychek) were ranked in the top 10 in a different year.

Billy Conn fight

Louis' string of lightly regarded competition ended with his bout against Billy Conn, the light heavyweight champion and a highly regarded contender. The fighters met on June 18, 1941, in front of a crowd of 54,487 fans at the Polo Grounds in New York City. The fight turned out to be one of the greatest heavyweight boxing fights of all time.

Conn would not gain weight for the challenge against Louis, saying instead that he would rely on a "hit and run" strategy. Louis' famous response: "He can run, but he can't hide."

However, Louis had clearly underestimated Conn's threat. In his autobiography, Joe Louis said:

I made a mistake going into that fight. I knew Conn was kinda small and I didn't want them to say in the papers that I beat up on some little guy so the day before the fight I did a little roadwork to break a sweat and drank as little water as possible so I could weigh in under 200 pounds. Chappie was as mad as hell. But Conn was a clever fighter, he was like a mosquito, he'd sting and move.

Conn had the better of the fight through 12 rounds, although Louis was able to stun Conn with a left hook in the fifth, cutting his eye and nose. By the eighth round, Louis began suffering from dehydration. By the twelfth round, Louis was exhausted, with Conn ahead on two of three boxing scorecards. But against the advice of his corner, Conn continued to closely engage Louis in the later stages of the fight. Louis made the most of the opportunity, knocking Conn out with two seconds left in the thirteenth round.

The contest created an instant rivalry that Louis's career had lacked since the Schmeling era, and a rematch with Conn was planned for late 1942. The rematch had to be abruptly canceled, however, after Conn broke his hand in a much-publicized fight with his father-in-law, Major League ballplayer Jimmy "Greenfield" Smith. By the time Conn was ready for the rematch, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had taken place.

World War II

Louis fought a charity bout for the Navy Relief Society against his former opponent Buddy Baer on January 9, 1942, which raised $47,000 for the fund. The next day, he volunteered to enlist as a private in the United States Army at Camp Upton, Long Island. Newsreel cameras recorded his induction, including a staged scene in which a soldier-clerk asked, "What's your occupation?", to which Louis replied, "Fighting and let us at them Japs."

Another military charity bout on March 27, 1942, (against another former opponent, Abe Simon) netted $36,146. Before the fight, Louis had spoken at a Relief Fund dinner, saying of the war effort, "We'll win, 'cause we're on God's side." The media widely reported the comment, instigating a surge of popularity for Louis. Slowly, the press began to eliminate its stereotypical racial references when covering Louis and instead treated him as an unqualified sports hero. Despite the public relations boon, Louis's charitable fights proved financially costly. Although he saw none of the roughly $90,000 raised by these and other charitable fights, the IRS later credited these amounts as taxable income paid to Louis. After the war, the IRS pursued the issue.

For basic training, Louis was assigned to a segregated cavalry unit based in Fort Riley, Kansas. The assignment was at the suggestion of his friend and lawyer Truman Gibson, who knew of Louis's love for horsemanship. Gibson had previously become a civilian advisor to the War Department, in charge of investigating claims of harassment against black soldiers. Accordingly, Louis used this personal connection to help the cause of various black soldiers with whom he came into contact. In one noted episode, Louis contacted Gibson in order to facilitate the Officer Candidate School (OCS) applications of a group of black recruits at Fort Riley, which had been inexplicably delayed for several months. Among the OCS applications Louis facilitated was that of a young Jackie Robinson, later to break the baseball color barrier. The episode spawned a personal friendship between the two men.

Realizing Louis's potential for raising esprit de corps among the troops, the Army placed him in its Special Services Division rather than sending him into combat. Louis went on a celebrity tour with other notables, including fellow boxer Sugar Ray Robinson. He traveled more than 35,000 km (22,000 mi) and staged 96 boxing exhibitions before two million soldiers. In England during 1944, he was reported to have enlisted as a player for Liverpool Football Club as a publicity stunt.

In addition to his travels, Louis was the focus of a media recruitment campaign encouraging African-American men to enlist in the Armed Services, despite the military's racial segregation. When he was asked about his decision to enter the racially segregated U.S. Army, he said: "Lots of things wrong with America, but Hitler ain't going to fix them." In 1943, Louis made an appearance in the wartime Hollywood musical This Is the Army, directed by Michael Curtiz. He appeared as himself in a musical number, "The Well-Dressed Man in Harlem," which emphasized the importance of African-American soldiers and promoted their enlistment.

Louis's celebrity power was not, however, merely directed toward African Americans. In a famous wartime recruitment slogan, he echoed his prior comments of 1942: "We'll win, because we're on God's side." The publicity of the campaign made Louis widely popular stateside, even outside the world of sports. Never before had white Americans embraced a black man as their representative to the world.

Although Louis never saw combat, his military service saw challenges of its own. During his travels, he often experienced blatant racism. On one occasion, a military policeman (MP) ordered Louis and Ray Robinson to move their seats to a bench in the rear of an Alabama Army camp bus depot. "We ain't moving", said Louis. The MP tried to arrest them, but Louis forcefully argued the pair out of the situation. In another incident, he allegedly had to resort to bribery to persuade a commanding officer to drop charges against Jackie Robinson for punching a captain who had called Robinson a "nigger."

Louis was eventually promoted to the rank of technical sergeant on April 9, 1945. On September 23 of the same year, he was awarded the Legion of Merit (a military decoration rarely awarded to enlisted soldiers) for "incalculable contribution to the general morale." Receipt of the honor qualified him for immediate release from military service on October 1, 1945.

Later career and retirement

Louis emerged from his wartime service significantly in debt. In addition to his looming tax bill—which had not been finally determined at the time, but was estimated at greater than $100,000—Jacobs claimed that Louis owed him $250,000.

Despite the financial pressure on Louis to resume boxing, his long-awaited rematch against Billy Conn had to be postponed to the summer of 1946, when weather conditions could accommodate a large outdoor audience. On June 19, a disappointing 40,000 saw the rematch at Yankee Stadium, in which Louis was not seriously tested. Conn, whose skills had deteriorated during the long layoff, largely avoided contact until being dispatched by knockout in the eighth round. Although the attendance did not meet expectations, the fight was still the most profitable of Louis's career to date. His share of the purse was $600,000, of which Louis' managers got $140,000, his ex-wife $66,000 and the U.S. state of New York $30,000.

After trouble finding another suitable opponent, on December 5, 1947, Louis met Jersey Joe Walcott, a 33-year-old veteran with a 44–11–2 record. Walcott entered the fight as a 10-to-1 underdog. Nevertheless, Walcott knocked down Louis twice in the first four rounds. Most observers in Madison Square Garden felt Walcott dominated the 15-round fight. When Louis was declared the winner in a split decision, the crowd booed.

Louis was under no delusion about the state of his boxing skills, yet he was too embarrassed to quit after the Walcott fight. Determined to win and retire with his title intact, Louis signed on for a rematch. On June 25, 1948, about 42,000 people came to Yankee Stadium to see the aging champion, who weighed 213½, the heaviest of his career to date. Walcott knocked Louis down in the third round, but Louis survived to knock out Walcott in the eleventh.

Louis would not defend his title again before announcing his retirement from boxing on March 1, 1949. In his bouts with Conn and Walcott, it had become apparent that Louis was no longer the fighter he had once been. As he had done earlier in his career, however, Louis would continue to appear in numerous exhibition matches worldwide. In August 1949 Cab Calloway rendered homage to the “king of the ring” with his song Ol’ Joe Louis.

Post-retirement comeback

At the time of Louis's initial retirement, the IRS was still completing its investigation of his prior tax returns, which had always been handled by Mike Jacobs's personal accountant. In May 1950, the IRS finished a full audit of Louis's past returns and announced that, with interest and penalties, he owed the government more than $500,000. Louis had no choice but to return to the ring.

After asking Gibson to take over his personal finances and switching his management from Jacobs and Roxborough to Marshall Miles, the Louis camp negotiated a deal with the IRS under which Louis would come out of retirement, with all Louis's net proceeds going to the IRS. A match with Ezzard Charles—who had acquired the vacant heavyweight title in June 1949 by outpointing Walcott—was set for September 27, 1950. By then, Louis was 36 years old and had been away from competitive boxing for two years. Weighing in at 218, Louis was still strong, but his reflexes were gone. Charles repeatedly beat him to the punch. By the end of the fight, Louis was cut above both eyes, one of which was shut tight by swelling. He knew he had lost even before Charles was declared the winner. The result was not the only disappointing aspect of the fight for Louis; only 22,357 spectators paid to witness the event at Yankee Stadium, and his share of the purse was a mere $100,458. Louis had to continue fighting.

After facing several club-level opponents and scoring an early knockout victory over EBU champion Lee Savold (also defeating top contender Jimmy Bivins by unanimous decision), the International Boxing Club guaranteed Louis $300,000 to face undefeated heavyweight contender Rocky Marciano on October 26, 1951. Despite his being a 6-to-5 favorite, few boxing insiders believed Louis had a chance. Marciano himself was reluctant to participate in the bout, but was understanding of Louis's position: "This is the last guy on earth I want to fight." It was feared, particularly among those who had witnessed Marciano's punching power first-hand, that Louis's unwillingness to quit would result in serious injury. Fighting back tears, Ferdie Pacheco said in the SportsCentury documentary about his bout with Marciano, "He [Louis] wasn't just going to lose. He was going to take a vicious, savage beating. Before the eyes of the nation, Joe Louis, an American hero if ever there was one, was going to get beaten up." Louis was dropped in the eighth round by a Marciano left and knocked through the ropes and out of the ring less than thirty seconds later.

In the dressing room after the fight, Louis's Army touring companion, Sugar Ray Robinson, wept. Marciano also attempted to console Louis, saying, "I'm sorry, Joe." "What's the use of crying?" Louis said. "The better man won. I guess everything happens for the best."

After facing Marciano, with the prospect of another significant payday all but gone, Louis retired for good from professional boxing. He would, as before, continue to tour on the exhibition circuit, with his last contest taking place on December 16, 1951, in Taipei, Taiwan, against Corporal Buford J. deCordova.

Taxes and financial troubles

Despite Louis's lucrative purses over the years, most of the proceeds went to his handlers. Of the over $4.6 million earned during his boxing career, Louis himself received only about $800,000. Louis was nevertheless extremely generous to his family, paying for homes, cars and education for his parents and siblings, often with money fronted by Jacobs. He invested in a number of businesses, all of which eventually failed, including the Joe Louis Restaurant, the Joe Louis Insurance Company, a softball team called the Brown Bombers, the Joe Louis Milk Company, Joe Louis pomade (hair product), Joe Louis Punch (a drink), the Louis-Rower P.R. firm, a horse farm and the Rhumboogie Café in Chicago. He gave liberally to the government as well, paying back the city of Detroit for any welfare money his family had received.

A combination of this largesse and government intervention eventually put Louis in severe financial straits. His entrusting of his finances to former manager Mike Jacobs haunted him. After the $500,000 IRS tax bill was assessed, with interest accumulating every year, the need for cash precipitated Louis's post-retirement comeback. Even though his comeback earned him significant purses, the incremental tax rate in place at the time (90%) meant that these boxing proceeds did not even keep pace with interest on Louis's tax debt. As a result, by the end of the 1950s, he owed over $1 million in taxes and interest. In 1953, when Louis's mother died, the IRS appropriated the $667 she had willed to Louis. To bring in money, Louis engaged in numerous activities outside the ring. He appeared on various quiz shows, and an old Army buddy, Ash Resnick, gave Louis a job greeting tourists to the Caesars Palace hotel in Las Vegas, where Resnick was an executive. For income, Louis even became a professional wrestler. He made his professional wrestling debut on March 16, 1956 in Washington, D.C. at the Uline Arena, defeating Cowboy Rocky Lee. After defeating Lee in a few matches, Louis discovered he had a heart ailment and retired from wrestling competition. However, he continued as a wrestling referee until 1972.

Louis remained a popular celebrity in his twilight years. His friends included former rival Max Schmeling—who provided Louis with financial assistance during his retirement—and mobster Frank Lucas, who, disgusted with the government's treatment of Louis, once paid off a $50,000 tax lien held against him. These payments, along with an eventual agreement in the early 1960s by the IRS to limit its collections to an amount based on Louis's current income, allowed Louis to live comfortably toward the end of his life.

After the Louis-Schmeling fight, Jack Dempsey expressed the opinion that he was glad he never had to face Joe Louis in the ring. When Louis fell on hard financial times, Dempsey served as honorary chairman of a fund to assist Louis.

Professional golf

One of Louis's other passions was the game of golf, in which he also played a historic role. He was a long-time devotee of the sport since being introduced to the game before the first Schmeling fight in 1936. In 1952, Louis was invited to play as an amateur in the San Diego Open on a sponsor's exemption, becoming the first African American to play a PGA Tour event. Initially, the PGA of America was reluctant to allow Louis to enter the event, having a bylaw at the time limiting PGA membership to Caucasians. However, Louis's celebrity status eventually pushed the PGA toward removing the bylaw, but the "Caucasian only" clause in the PGA of America's constitution was not amended until November 1961. It paved the way for the first generation of African-American professional golfers such as Calvin Peete. Louis himself financially supported the careers of several other early black professional golfers, such as Bill Spiller, Ted Rhodes, Howard Wheeler, James Black, Clyde Martin and Charlie Sifford. He was also instrumental in founding The First Tee, a charity helping underprivileged children become acquainted with the game of golf. His son, Joe Louis Barrow, Jr., currently oversees the organization.

In 2009, the PGA of America granted posthumous membership to Ted Rhodes, John Shippen and Bill Spiller, who were denied the opportunity to become PGA members during their professional careers. The PGA also has granted posthumous honorary membership to Louis.

Personal life and death

I did the best I could with what I had

Louis had two children by wife Marva Trotter (daughter Jacqueline in 1943 and son Joseph Louis Barrow Jr. in 1947). They divorced in March 1945 only to remarry a year later, but were again divorced in February 1949. Marva moved on to an acting and modeling career. On Christmas Day 1955, Louis married Rose Morgan, a successful Harlem businesswoman; their marriage was annulled in 1958. Louis's final marriage—to Martha Jefferson, a lawyer from Los Angeles, on St. Patrick's Day 1959—lasted until his death. They had four children: another son named Joseph Louis Barrow Jr, John Louis Barrow, Joyce Louis Barrow, and Janet Louis Barrow. The younger Joe Louis Barrow Jr. lives in New York City and is involved in boxing. Though married four times, Louis discreetly enjoyed the company of other women like Lena Horne and Edna Mae Harris.

In 1940, Louis endorsed and campaigned for Republican Wendell Willkie for president. Louis said:

This country has been good to me. It gave me everything I have. I have never come out for any candidate before but I think Wendell L. Willkie will give us a square deal. So I am for Willkie because I think he will help my people, and I figure my people should be for him, too.

Starting in the 1960s, Louis was frequently mocked by segments of the African-American community (including Muhammad Ali) for being an "Uncle Tom." Drugs took a toll on Louis in his later years. In 1969, he was hospitalized after collapsing on a New York City street. While the incident was at first credited to "physical breakdown," underlying problems would soon surface. In 1970, he spent five months at the Colorado Psychiatric Hospital and the Veterans Administration Hospital in Denver, hospitalized by his wife, Martha, and his son, Joe Louis Barrow Jr., for paranoia. In a 1971 book, Brown Bomber, by Barney Nagler, Louis disclosed the truth about these incidents, stating that his collapse in 1969 had been caused by cocaine, and that his subsequent hospitalization had been prompted by his fear of a plot to destroy him. Strokes and heart ailments caused Louis's condition to deteriorate further later in the decade. He had surgery to correct an aortic aneurysm in 1977 and thereafter used an POV/scooter for a mobility aid.

Louis died of cardiac arrest in Desert Springs Hospital near Las Vegas on April 12, 1981, just hours after his last public appearance viewing the Larry Holmes–Trevor Berbick Heavyweight Championship. Ronald Reagan waived the eligibility rules for burial at Arlington National Cemetery and Louis was buried there with full military honors on April 21, 1981. His funeral was paid for in part by former competitor and friend, Max Schmeling, who also acted as a pallbearer.

Film and television

Louis appeared in six full-length films and two shorts, including a starring role in the 1938 race film Spirit of Youth, in which he played a boxer with many similarities to himself.

He was a guest on the television show You Bet Your Life in 1955.

In 1943, he was featured in the full-length movie This is the Army, which starred Ronald Reagan, with appearances by Kate Smith singing "God Bless America" and Irving Berlin, and which was directed by Michael Curtiz.

In 1953, Robert Gordon directed a movie about Louis's life, The Joe Louis Story. Filmed in Hollywood, it starred Golden Gloves fighter Coley Wallace in the role of Louis.

Legacy

In all, Louis made 25 defenses of his heavyweight title from 1937 to 1948, and was a world champion for 11 years and 10 months. Both are still records in the heavyweight division, the former in any division. His most remarkable record is that he knocked out 23 opponents in 27 title fights, including five world champions. In addition to his accomplishments inside the ring, Louis uttered two of boxing's most famous observations: "He can run, but he can't hide" and "Everyone has a plan until they've been hit."

Louis was named fighter of the year four times by The Ring magazine in 1936, 1938, 1939, and 1941. His fights with Max Baer, Max Schmeling, Tommy Farr, Bob Pastor and Billy Conn were named fight of the year by that same magazine. Louis won the Sugar Ray Robinson Award in 1941. In 2005, Louis was named the #1 heavyweight of all time by the International Boxing Research Organization. In 2007, he was ranked #4 on ESPN.com's 50 Greatest Boxers of all-time list. In 2002 The Ring ranked Louis #4 on their 80 best fighters of the last 80 years list. Louis was also ranked #1 on The Ring's list of 100 Greatest Punchers of All Time.

Louis is also remembered in sports outside of boxing. A former indoor sports venue was named after him in Detroit, the Joe Louis Arena, where the Detroit Red Wings played their NHL games from 1979 to 2017. In 1936, Vince Leah, then a writer for the Winnipeg Tribune used Joe Louis's nickname to refer to the Winnipeg Football Club after a game. From that point, the team became known popularly as the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.

His recognition also transcends the sporting world. In 2002, scholar Molefi Kete Asante listed Joe Louis on his list of 100 Greatest African Americans. On August 26, 1982, Louis was posthumously approved for the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award given to civilians by the U.S. legislative branch. Congress stated that he "did so much to bolster the spirit of the American people during one of the most crucial times in American history and which have endured throughout the years as a symbol of strength for the nation". Following Louis' death, President Ronald Reagan said, "Joe Louis was more than a sports legend—his career was an indictment of racial bigotry and a source of pride and inspiration to millions of white and black people around the world."

A memorial to Louis was dedicated in Detroit (at Jefferson Avenue and Woodward) on October 16, 1986. The sculpture, commissioned by Time, Inc. and executed by Robert Graham, is a 24-foot-long (7.3 m) arm with a fisted hand suspended by a 24-foot-high (7.3 m) pyramidal framework. It represents the power of his punch both inside and outside the ring.

In an interview with Arsenio Hall in the late 1980s, Muhammad Ali stated that his two biggest influences in boxing were Sugar Ray Robinson and Joe Louis.

On February 27, 2010, an 8-foot (2.4 m) bronze statue of Louis was unveiled in his Alabama hometown. The statue, by sculptor Casey Downing, Jr., sits on a base of red granite outside the Chambers County Courthouse.

In 1993, he became the first boxer to be honored on a postage stamp issued by the U.S. Postal Service.

Various other facilities have been named after Joe Louis. In 1984, the four streets surrounding Madison Square Garden were named Joe Louis Plaza in his honor. The former Pipe O' Peace Golf Course in Riverdale, Illinois (a Chicago suburb), was in 1986 renamed "Joe Louis The Champ Golf Course". American Legion Post 375 in Detroit is also named after Joe Louis. Completed in 1979 at a cost of $4 million, Joe Louis Arena, nicknamed The Joe, was a hockey arena located in downtown Detroit. It was the home of the Detroit Red Wings of the National Hockey League from 1979 until 2017. The planned demolition of the Arena prompted the City of Detroit in 2017 to rename the Inner Circle Greenway as the Joe Louis Greenway. When completed, this 39-mile (63 km) biking and walking trail will pass through the cities of Detroit, Hamtramck, Highland Park, and Dearborn.

In one of the most widely quoted tributes to Louis, New York Post sportswriter Jimmy Cannon, when responding to another person's characterization of Louis as "a credit to his race", stated, "Yes, Joe Louis is a credit to his race—the human race."

Cultural references

In his heyday, Louis was the subject of many musical tributes, including a number of blues songs.

Louis is played by actor Bari K. Willerford in the film American Gangster.

In 2009, the Brooklyn band Yeasayer debuted the single "Ambling Alp" from their forthcoming album Odd Blood, which imagines what advice Joe Louis's father might have given him prior to becoming a prizefighter. The song makes reference to Louis' boxing career and his famous rivalry with Schmeling in the first person, with the lyrics such as "Oh, Max Schmeling was a formidable foe / The Ambling Alp was too, at least that's what I'm told / But if you learn one thing, you've learned it well / In June, you must give fascists hell."

An opera based on his life, Shadowboxer, premiered on April 17, 2010.

The aforementioned sculpture of Louis's fist (see Legacy above) was one of several Detroit landmarks depicted in "Imported from Detroit", a two-minute commercial for the Chrysler 200 featuring Eminem that aired during Super Bowl XLV in 2011.

Louis is the inspiration behind Jesse Jagz's eponymous song from the album Jagz Nation Vol. 2: Royal Niger Company (2014).

The first track from John Squire's 2002 debut LP Time Changes Everything is titled "Joe Louis", and the lyrics include references to his boxing and army career.

#05/13 #04/12

[znewstech]

1 lakh cases pending in lower courts for more than 30 years | India News - Times of India

1 lakh cases pending in lower courts for more than 30 years | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: Pendency in Indian courts is hardly breaking news, but did you know that there are more than a lakh cases in district and taluka courts pending for over 30 years? Or that just four states account for over 90% of these? These include over 67,000 criminal cases and more than 33,000 related to civil matters. With 41,210 such cases, Uttar Pradesh leads the list and is followed by…

View On WordPress

[philatelicdatabase]

Why not collect Tajikistan?

It is doubtful if the stamps of the Central Asian state of Tajikistan have attracted the attention of world­ wide collectors to any greater degree. It is an ancient country located just north of Afghanistan. The Tajik currency unit is the somoni which derives its name from Ismail Somoni (849-907) who is considered to be the founding father of the Tajik nation. From a linguistic point of view, the Tajik language is very similar to Persian. Historically the cities of Bukhara and Samarkand have been the main centres of Tajik cultural and spiritual life. Today these cities are located in the neighbouring republic of Uzbekistan. There are quite a few Tajik stamp issues featuring personalities from the country's glorious past. Fig 1 shows Ali Hamadani (1314-1385), a famous poet and Muslim theologian who is buried at Khatlan in Tajikistan. Figure 1 Tajikistan is very much a mountainous country with the highest peak reaching 7.495 metres. The climate is distinctly continental with very hot  summers and cold winters. Typical mountain scenery is depicted on Fig 2. Figure 2 When the Soviet Union began taking an interest in the Central Asian region the Tajiks rejected the Russian advances. It was only in 1929 that the Tajik Soviet Republic was created. The area had previously been included in Uzbekistan. It was Soviet leader Stalin who decided to let parts of the Tajik territories remain in Uzbekistan as some sort of punishment. Russians and Uzbeks were encouraged to settle in Tajikistan. Today the country has a population of some 8.7 million people with the majority being Tajiks but there is also a 25 percent minority of Uzbeks. From a religious point of view Islam is the dominat­ing religion in the country. Fig 3 shows the impres­sive Sheikh Muslihiddin Mosque in Chudzjand, the country's second largest city. Figure 3 Many of the old ethnic and political conflicts resurfaced when Tajikistan became an independent republic in 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The following year a civil war broke out. It lasted until 1997 and claimed an estimated 50,000 lives. During the Soviet era Tajikistan was the republic with the lowest standard of living in the entire union. The long civil war in the 1990s certainly didn't help to improve the situation. Agriculture remains the main economic activity and the industrial sector is still poorly developed. Tajikistan has a very large foreign debt which of course hinders  economic develop­ment. Fig 4 shows the Tajik national flag superim­posed on a map of the country. A traditional Tajik art pattern is depicted on Fig 5. Figure 4 Figure 5 Tajikistan is the preferred country of transit for the huge quantities of drugs which are smuggled from Afghanistan to the Russian Federation. Presumably the extensive corruption helps facilitate this illegal trade. Transparency International lists Tajikistan as number 151 in its listing of perceived corruptive practices in the countries of the world. At number 175, the bottom position, we find Somalia. The Nordic nations occupy the top positions in this ranking which tells a lot about civil rights, religious freedom and other rights that the vast majority of the readers of this magazine take for granted and which to a large degree are not available for the people of Tajikistan. Sadly corruption on all levels is present in most of the former Central Asian Soviet republics. It was in 1991 that Tajikistan joined the ranks of stamp-issuing nations after having previously used Russian or Soviet postage stamps. In the early years of postal independence a number of Soviet definitive stamps were overprinted and surcharged with new values to be used as Tajik postage stamps. One example is shown in Fig 6. Figure 6 The capital city of Tajikistan is Dushanbe where there is a philatelic bureau operated by the Tajik Postal Service. Since the country achieved inde­pendence in 1991 it has released more than 1.200 stamps and 40 souvenir sheets which 1suppose is quite reasonable for a period of more than a quarter century. Leafing through my catalogue I notice many issues featuring the country, its history, its cultural heritage, its famous sons and daughters and the usual output of popular thematic stamps. Shown in Fig 7 is a  snow leopard. Fortunately most issues are inexpen­sive but I imagine it can be difficult to locate them. Figure 7 Sadly Tajikistan has also been the target for those people who produce illegal stamps, i.e. stamps which look like real Tajik issues but which have not been released by the country's postal service. These illegal stamps are generally printed in small sheet format (frequently 4, 6 or nine stamps in each sheet) featuring the most popular stamp topics of the day. Read the full article