Sample Form 29 Order For Production By State State Of: Fill & Download for Free

Trying to make lawyers unemployed mate? Disclaimer - This will be a boring answer, read it at your own peril.Let me start with the substantive law so that those of you who have chosen to take the pains of reading this might as well gain something out of it. So even before you apply for registration make sure that your mark should not beGeneric or Descriptive (devoid of any distinctive character) - Like you can't have a mark 'Mango' for selling mangoes because if you are provided with such a mark, no other seller will be able to sell mangoes without infringing upon your mark. You can, however, have Banana as a mark for furniture.Similarly, you can't have 'Wooden Furniture' or 'Good Wooden Furniture' or 'Best Wooden Furniture' etc as a mark for goods such as wooden chairs and tables. There should be something distinctive about your mark. One good way to go about it is to either create a new word such as 'GoWoFo' (made from taking the first two alphabets of 'Good Wooden Furniture'') or arbitrary affixation of an existing word irrelevant to your class.Or the way act puts it, It should not be"exclusively of marks or indications which may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, values, geographical origin or the time of production f the goods or rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or service"Similar to an existing mark - Your mark should not be similar to an existing mark. In order to do so head over here and search for your mark in all class in which you want to register your mark. Eg - You want to register Banana for furniture. Search for Banana and all its variant such as 'Banaaana', 'Bannana' , 'Banaaanaaa' and so on under class 20. Also, do a google search and look around in your locality or as many places as possible to make sure that no one is using the same or similar mark for the same class. It doesn't matter if the mark you have chosen is not registered but is being used by someone in the course of business it will create problems later on so be creative about it.Similar to a Well-Known Mark - Well-known mark in plain words are marks so famous that you ought to know them like Google, Samsung, Ford, Pepsi etc. Whether your mark falls in the same category or not it should not be similar to a well-known mark.Should not comprises or comprises of any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class of section of the citizens of IndiaShould not contain scandalous or obscene matterThere is a lot more to it, but in your case, this should more or less keep you covered.I do not know much about the procedure myself but have some idea about it. Don't fret mate I will help you to the extent possible. First of all, you need to decide whether you want to go for E-registration or offline registration. E-registration will need Class III certificate which will set you back by Rs 3000-4000 so until and unless you have some sort of time constraint or intend to do multiple registrations, it doesn't make sense to buy one. Anyways, if you do buy one go here and start the registration process. If you go for offline registration you will need to apply to the Trademark registry directly, the address of which can be found here. (Call them for clarifications, hard as you may find it to believe, this always works. More often than not, you will find that government employees are nice people as long as you can be courteous and nice to them.) Since it is very much likely that a registry may not be in your state, the relevant registry for your state will be as below:-"MUMBAI : The State of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and GoaAHMEDABAD : The State of Gujarat and Rajasthan and Union Territories of Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli.KOLKATA: The State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Tripura, Jharkhand and Union Territories of Nagaland, Andaman & Nicobar Islands.NEW DELHI: The state of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Delhi and Union Territories of ChandigarhCHENNAI: The state of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Kerala, Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Union Territories of Pondicherry and Lakshadweep Island"You will need to file a TM-1 form if you need to register goods and/or services falling in one class, TM-51 for goods and/or services falling in different classes. More details with regard to forms can be found here. The concept of class is interesting, you will need to register the trademark for each category you intend to use your product in. For example, if you intend to use your trademark for food products which consist of both processed foods and confectionery, you will need to make registration in class 29 and 30. You will face trouble in the future if you do not register in one of the classes in which your product falls. To determine under what category your product falls, head over here. Don't unnecessarily register your mark in every class possible, not only it's expensive but if you fail to use your mark in the course of trade for that category within the stipulated period (One year I think) you will lose protection in that category. This is to ensure that people don't hoard trademarks for no reason but to resell them to someone later at a profit.So there you go mate, that should you more or less be cover most of the process. Do tell here if you manage to get it successfully registered. Shoot here if you have any more queries.PS - I will be putting the standard legal disclaimer here but I feel obligated to remind you that you should not put too much faith on imbecile law students that you come across on the internet.Edit 1 -Brand Authorization Letter - From what I got from Google :-"If you're the brand owner/private lableler, you will need to provide a letter on your company letterhead granting yourself permission to use the brand. I know that sounds sort of counter-intuitive, but that's the way it works." (Source)2. Sample of Brand Authorization Letter (Publish it on your own letterhead) (Source)We, (manufacturer). grant “X distributor" Brand Authority for all “Brand X" products, for the purposes of listing our products on Amazon and contributing product data to the Amazon library.(name)Presidentcompany nameAddressXXXPhoneSignature _________________Date _________________

The lindbergh baby kidnapping.One of the many unsolved cases still trying to be solved to this day.I learned about this topic in only the fitfh grade. We were going to be working on a project about unsolved mysteries. There were several topics, I forgot because it was three years ago, but I chose the lindbergh baby kidnapping and I can never forget about it.Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr., 20-month-old son, (yes only 20 months year old. He was a one year old, not even two yet.) of the famous aviator and Anne Morrow Lindbergh, was kidnapped about 9:00 p.m., on March 1st, 1932, from the nursery on the second floor of the Lindbergh home near Hopewell, New Jersey. The child’s nurse, Betty Gow, discovered the absense of the baby a little later and notified the parents immediatly. They also found a ransom note demanding $50,000 if they ever wanted to see their son again.During the search at the kidnapping scene, traces of mud were found on the floor of the nursery. Footprints, impossible to measure, were found under the nursery window. Two sections of the ladder had been used in reaching the window, one of the two sections was split or broken where it joined the other, indicating that the ladder had broken during the ascent or descent. There were no blood stains in or about the nursery, nor were there any fingerprints.Household and estate employees were questioned and investigated. Colonel Lindbergh asked friends to communicate with the kidnappers, and they made widespread appeals for the kidnappers to start negotiations. Various underworld characters were dealt with in attempts to contact the kidnappers, and numerous clues were advanced and exhausted.A second ransom note was received by Colonel Lindbergh on March 6, 1932, (postmarked Brooklyn, New York, March 4), in which the ransom demand was increased to $70,000. A police conference was then called by the governor at Trenton, New Jersey, which was attended by prosecuting officials, police authorities, and government representatives. Various theories and policies of procedure were discussed. Private investigators also were employed by Colonel Lindbergh’s attorney, Colonel Henry Breckenridge.real photo of the ransom note ^^The third ransom note was received by Colonel Lindbergh’s attorney on March 8, informing that an intermediary appointed by the Lindberghs would not be accepted and requesting a note in a newspaper. On the same date, Dr. John F. Condon, Bronx, New York City, a retired school principal, published in the “Bronx Home News” an offer to act as go-between and to pay an additional $1,000 ransom. The following day the fourth ransom note was received by Dr. Condon, which indicated he would be acceptable as a go-between. This was approved by Colonel Lindbergh. About March 10, 1932, Dr. Condon received $70,000 in cash as ransom, and immediately started negotiations for payment through newspaper columns, using the code name “Jafsie.”About 8:30 p.m., on March 12, after receiving an anonymous telephone call, Dr. Condon received the fifth ransom note, delivered by Joseph Perrone, a taxicab driver, who received it from an unidentified stranger. The message stated that another note would be found beneath a stone at a vacant stand, 100 feet from an outlying subway station. This note, the sixth, was found by Condon, as indicated. Following instructions therein, the doctor met an unidentified man, who called himself “John,” at Woodlawn Cemetery, near 233rd Street and Jerome Avenue. They discussed payment of the ransom money. The stranger agreed to furnish a token of the child’s identity. Condon was accompanied by a bodyguard, except while talking to “John.” During the next few days, Dr. Condon repeated his advertisements, urging further contact and stating his willingness to pay the ransom.A baby’s sleeping suit, as a token of identity, and a seventh ransom note were received by Dr. Condon on March 16. The suit was delivered to Colonel Lindbergh and later identified. Condon continued his advertisements. The eighth ransom note was received by Condon on March 21, insisting on complete compliance and advising that the kidnapping had been planned for a year.On March 29, Betty Gow, the Lindbergh nurse, found the infant’s thumb guard, worn at the time of the kidnapping, near the entrance to the estate. The following day the ninth ransom note was received by Condon, threatening to increase the demand to $100,000 and refusing a code for use in newspaper columns. The tenth ransom note, received by Dr. Condon, on April 1, 1932 instructed him to have the money ready the following night, to which Condon replied by an ad in the Press. The eleventh ransom note was delivered to Condon on April 2, 1932, by an unidentified taxi driver who said he received it from an unknown man. Dr. Condon found the twelfth ransom note under a stone in front of a greenhouse at 3225 East Tremont Avenue, Bronx, New York, as instructed in the eleventh note.Shortly thereafter, on the same evening, by following the instructions contained in the twelfth note, Condon again met whom he believed to be “John” to reduce the demand to $50,000. This amount was handed to the stranger in exchange for a receipt and the thirteenth note, containing instructions to the effect that the kidnapped child could be found on a boat named “Nellie” near Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. The stranger then walked north into the park woods. The following day an unsuccessful search for the baby was made near Martha’s Vineyard. The search was later repeated. Dr. Condon was positive that he would recognize “John” if he ever saw him again.On May 12, 1932, the body of the kidnapped baby was accidentally found, partly buried, and badly decomposed, about four and a half miles southeast of the Lindbergh home, 45 feet from the highway, near Mount Rose, New Jersey, in Mercer County. The discovery was made by William Allen, an assistant on a truck driven by Orville Wilson. The head was crushed, there was a hole in the skull and some of the body members were missing. The body was positively identified and cremated at Trenton, New Jersey, on May 13, 1932. The Coroner’s examination showed that the child had been dead for about two months and that death was caused by a blow on the head.The Investigation: 1932-1934On March 2, 1932, after a conference with the Attorney General, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had contacted the headquarters of the New Jersey State Police at Trenton, New Jersey. He officially informed the organization that the U.S. Department of Justice would afford Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, the assistance and cooperation of the FBI in bringing about the apprehension of the parties responsible for the kidnapping. He advised the New Jersey State Police that they could call upon the Bureau for any facilities or resources which the latter might be capable of extending. The special agent in charge of the New York City Office of the Bureau, which at that time covered the New Jersey district, was instructed accordingly and, upon instructions from the Director, the special agent in charge communicated with the New Jersey State Police and the New York City Police, offering any assistance which the Bureau might be able to lend in this matter.During the next few weeks the Bureau was acting merely in an auxiliary capacity, there being no federal jurisdiction. However, on May 13, 1932, the President directed that all governmental investigative agencies should place themselves at the disposal of the state of New Jersey and that the FBI should serve as a clearinghouse and coordinating agency for all investigations in this case conducted by federal investigative units.On May 23, 1932, the FBI in New York City informed banks in greater New York that the Bureau was the coordinating agency for all governmental activity in the case. A close watch for ransom money was requested.The New Jersey State Police announced on May 26, 1932, the offer of a reward not to exceed $25,000 for information resulting in the apprehension and conviction of the kidnapper or kidnappers. In compliance with a request made by Colonel Schwarzkopf, copies of this notice of reward were forwarded by the FBI to all law enforcement officials and agencies throughout the United States.On June 10, 1932, Violet Sharpe, a waitress in the home of Mrs. Lindbergh’s mother, Mrs. Dwight Morrow, who had been under investigation by the authorities, committed suicide by swallowing poison when she was about to be requestioned. However, her movements on the night of March 1, 1932, had been carefully checked and it was soon definitely ascertained that she had no connection with the abduction.In September, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated in a meeting with Director Hoover that all work on the case be centralized in the Department of Justice. He requested the Director to convey his views to Attorney General Cummings with the suggestion that the Attorney General make a request of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), either through the President or directly, for a detailed report of all work performed by the IRS Intelligence Unit. On October 19, 1933, it was officially announced that the FBI would have exclusive jurisdiction in so far as the Federal Government was concerned in the handling of any investigative features of the case.The President’s Proclamation requiring the return to the Treasury of all gold and gold certificates was a valuable aid in the case, inasmuch as $40,000 of the ransom money had been paid in gold certificates and, at the time of the Proclamation, a large portion of this money was known to be outstanding. Therefore, this phase of the investigation was emphasized.On January 17, 1934, a circular letter was issued by the New York City Bureau Office to all banks and their branches in New York City, requesting an extremely close watch for the ransom certificates and, in February 1934, all Bureau Offices were supplied with copies of the Bureau’s revised pamphlet containing the serial numbers of ransom bills. The New York City Bureau Office distributed copies of this pamphlet to each employee handling currency in banks, clearinghouses, grocery stores in certain selected communities, insurance companies, gasoline filling stations, airports, department stores, post offices, and telegraph companies.Following the distribution of these booklets containing the serial number of the ransom currency, there were also prepared and similarly distributed by the Bureau currency key cards which, in convenient form, set forth the inclusive serial numbers of all of the ransom notes which had been paid. This was followed by frequent personal contacts with bank officials and with individual employees in an effort to keep alive their interest.Prior to this time, the passing of ransom bills had been reported to either the FBI, the New Jersey State Police, or the New York City Police Department, none of which had complete information on this point. Therefore, arrangements were effected whereby investigation of all such ransom bills detected in the future could be immediately conducted jointly by representatives of the three interested agencies.One of the by-products of the case was a mass of misinformation received from well-meaning but uninformed, highly imaginative individuals, and a deluge of letters written by demented persons, publicity seekers, and frauds. It was essential, however, that all possible clues, regardless of the prospect of success, be carefully followed, and it was impossible in the vast majority of instances to determine at the inception whether they would be material or false.On March 4, 1932, a con man named Gaston B. Means was approached by Mrs. Evalyn Walsh McLean, of Washington, D.C., who felt that she might be of material assistance to Colonel Lindbergh in procuring the return of his child. Mrs. McLean had become acquainted with Means as a result of some investigative work which means had performed for her husband some years before. Means informed her that he felt certain he could secure a contact with the kidnappers inasmuch as he had been invited to participate in a “big kidnapping” some weeks before but had declined. Means claimed that his friend was responsible for the Lindbergh kidnapping. The following day, Means reported to Mrs. McLean that he had made a contact with the persons who had the child. He successfully induced Mrs. McLean to hand over to him $100,000, to be used in paying the ransom which he said had been doubled. Until April 17, 1932, he kept Mrs. McLean waiting, daily expecting the return of the child. During this period, he purported to be effecting negotiations with the alleged leader of the kidnappers, whom he called “The Fox.” Mrs. McLean finally requested the return of the $100,000 and additional money which she had advanced him for “expenses.” When he failed to do so, the case was turned over to the FBI. Means and “The Fox,” who was found to be Norman T. Whitaker, a disbarred Washington attorney, were apprehended, and Means was later convicted of embezzlement and larceny after trust, and sentenced to serve 15 years in a federal penitentiary. Whitaker and Means were later convicted of conspiracy to defraud, and were sentenced to serve two years each in a federal penitentiary.There were other attempted frauds which required extensive investigations before they could be completely eliminated from consideration in connection with the Lindbergh case.In all, there were literally thousands of leads in all sections of the United States which were followed to their definite conclusions by the Bureau. The results of all these investigations, no matter how trivial, were reported. The activities of the known and suspected members of the so-called “Purple Gang” of Detroit, and various rumors and allegations concerning this gang were carefully and thoroughly investigated. Numerous registries of boats were examined in a fruitless endeavor to locate the boat “Nellie,” on which the baby was to have been found according to the 13th and last ransom note handed to Dr. Condon at the time he paid the ransom money to “John.” Records of cemetery employees who were employed in various cemeteries in certain sections of New York City and near Hopewell, New Jersey, were examined. Information accumulated in various other kidnapping and extortion cases handled by the FBI was examined in closest detail and studied with particular reference to any bearing they might have upon the solution of the Lindbergh case. Hundreds of photographs and descriptive data of known criminals of all types and other possible suspects were exhibited to the few eye-witnesses in this case in an endeavor to identify the mysterious “John.”On May 2, 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York discovered 296 ten-dollar gold certificates, and one $20 gold certificate, all Lindbergh ransom notes. These bills were included among the currency received at the Federal Reserve Bank on May 1, 1933, and apparently had been made in one deposit. Immediately upon the discovery of these bills, deposit tickets at the Federal Reserve Bank for May 1, 1933, were examined. One was found bearing the name and address of “J.J. Faulkner, 537 West 149th Street,” and had marked thereon “gold certificates,” “$10 and $20” in the amount of $2,980. Despite extensive investigation, this depositor was never located.Examination of the ransom notes by handwriting experts resulted in a virtually unanimous opinion that all the notes were written by the same person and that the writer was of German nationality but had spent some time in America. Dr. Condon described “John” as Scandinavian, and believing he could identify the man, spent considerable time in viewing the numerous photographs of possible suspects and known criminals. In this connection, the FBI retained the services of an artist to prepare a portrait of “John” from descriptions furnished by Dr. Condon and Joseph Perrone, the taxi cab driver who had delivered one of the ransom letters to Dr. Condon.In a further endeavor to identify the individual who received the ransom payment, representatives of the New York City Bureau Office engaged Dr. Condon to prepare a transcript of all conversations had by him with “John” on March 12 and April 2, 1932, the dates on which Dr. Condon personally contacted the kidnapper in order to negotiate the return of the child and the payment of the ransom. These conversations were, during March, 1934, transcribed in detail on phonograph records by Dr. Condon who imitated the pronunciations and dialect of “John.” In this manner the nationality, education, mentality, and character of the kidnapper were more clearly defined and permanently preserved for future use.Another interesting attempt to identify the kidnapper centered around the ladder used in the crime. Police quickly realized that it was crudely built, but built nonetheless by someone familiar with wood who was mechanically inclined. The ladder had been thoroughly examined for fingerprints and had been exhibited to builders, carpenters, and neighbors of the Lindberghs in vain. Slivers of the ladder even had been analyzed, and the types of wood used in the ladder had been identified. Perhaps a complete examination of the ladder by itself by a wood expert would yield additional clues, and in early 1933, such an expert was called in—Arthur Koehler of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture.Koehler disassembled the ladder and painstakingly identified the types of wood used and examined tool marks. He also looked at the pattern made by nailholes, for it appeared likely that some wood had been used before in indoor construction. Koehler made field trips to the Lindbergh estate and to factories to trace some of the wood. He summarized his findings in a report, and later played a critical role in the trial of the kidnapper.Hauptmann is LocatedA series of ransom notes following the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby led to a meeting between Dr. John Condon, a representative of the Lindbergh family, and a mysterious man named “John.” An artist sketch of “John” was developed from the verbal description of Dr. Condon and proved to be very similar to Bruno Richard Hauptmann, who was ultimately arrested on September 19, 1934 following a massive investigation led by the New Jersey State Police and supported by the FBI.A series of ransom notes following the kidnapping led to a meeting between Dr. John Condon, a representative of the Lindbergh family, and a mysterious man named “John.” An artist sketch of “John” was developed from the verbal description of Dr. Condon and proved to be very similar to Bruno Richard Hauptmann (right), who was arrested on September 19, 1934.For a period of seven months prior to August 20, 1934, no gold certificates were discovered except for those received in the Federal Reserve Bank, previously mentioned. Starting on August 20, 1934, and extending into September, a total of 16 gold certificates were discovered, most of them in the vicinity of Yorkville and Harlem. The long-awaited opportunity had finally arrived. As each bill was recovered, a colored pin marking the location of the recovered bill was inserted in a large map of the Metropolitan Area, thus indicating the movements of the individual or individuals who might be passing the ransom money. When the first few made their appearance, it was decided to concentrate on gold certificates, as experience had proven the futility of tracing the ordinary currency included in the ransom money. In keeping with the cooperative policy previously established with the New Jersey State Police and the New York City Police Department, teams composed of a representative of each of these police agencies and a special agent of the Bureau were organized to personally contact all banks in Greater New York and Westchester County. As a result, the various neighborhood banks discovered the bills close to the point at which they were passed, and it then became possible for the investigators to trace the bills to the person who had originally passed them. For the first time in the history of the case, the investigators succeeded in finding that the description of the individual passing these bills fit exactly that of “John” as described by Dr. Condon. It was determined through the investigation that the bills were being passed principally at corner produce stores.About 1:20 p.m. on September 18, 1934, the assistant manager of the Corn Exchange Bank and Trust Company, at 125th Street and Park Avenue, New York City, telephoned the New York City Bureau Office to advise that a $10 gold certificate had been discovered a few minutes previously by one of the tellers in that bank. It was soon ascertained that this bill had been received at the bank from a gasoline station located at 127th Street and Lexington Avenue, New York City. On September 15, 1934, an alert attendant had received a bill in payment for five gallons of gasoline from a man whose description fitted closely that of the individual who had passed other bills in recent weeks. The filling station attendant, being suspicious of the $10 gold certificate, recorded on the bill the license number of the automobile driven by the purchaser. This license number was issued to Bruno Richard Hauptmann, 1279 East 222nd Street, Bronx, New York.Hauptmann’s house was closely surveilled by federal and local authorities throughout the night of September 18, 1934, until at approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 19, 1934, an individual, closely fitting the description of “John,” as supplied by Dr. Condon, and the description of the purchaser of the gasoline, as supplied by the service station attendant, left his house and entered his automobile parked nearby. He was promptly taken into custody by representatives of the three interested agencies.After some investigating, he was found to be Bruno Richard Hauptmann, the individual to whom the automobile license had been issued, a German carpenter who had been in this country for approximately 11 years. A $20 gold ransom certificate was found on his person. His description fitted perfectly that of “John” as described by Dr. Condon, and in his house was found a pair of shoes which had been purchased with a $20 ransom bill recovered on September 8, 1934. Hauptmann admitted several other purchases which had been made with ransom certificates. On the night of September 19, 1934, he was positively identified by Joseph Perrone as the individual from whom he had received the fifth ransom note to be delivered to Dr. Condon. The following day, ransom certificates in excess of $13,000 were found secreted in the garage of Hauptmann’s residence. Shortly thereafter, he was identified by Dr. Condon as “John” to whom the ransom had been paid. It was also ascertained that he was in possession of a Dodge sedan automobile which answered the description of that seen in the vicinity of the Lindbergh home the day prior to the kidnapping.A painstaking analysis of Hauptmann’s handwriting by the Bureau’s new crime lab showed a remarkable similarity between the lettering of the author of the ransom notes and of Hauptmann. This evidence proved valuable in helping to convict Hauptmann of the murder.A painstaking analysis of Hauptmann’s handwriting by the Bureau’s new crime lab showed a remarkable similarity between the lettering of the author of the ransom notes and of Hauptmann.Shortly after his apprehension, specimens of Hauptmann’s handwriting were flown to Washington, D.C., where a study was made of them in the FBI Laboratory. A comparison of the writing appearing on the ransom notes with that of the specimens disclosed remarkable similarities in inconspicuous, personal characteristics and writing habits, which resulted in a positive identification by the handwriting experts of the Laboratory. Upon the apprehension of Hauptmann, it was found that he bore a striking resemblance to the portrait of “John” which had previously been prepared from descriptions furnished by Dr. Condon and Joseph Perrone.Further investigation developed that Hauptmann, 35 years old, was a native of Saxony, Germany. He had a criminal record for robbery and had spent time in prison. Early in July 1923, he stowed away aboard the SSHanover at Bremen, Germany, and arrived in the Port of New York City on July 13, 1923. He was arrested and deported immediately. After another failed attempt at entry in August, Hauptman successfully entered the United States in November 1923, on board the George Washington. On October 10, 1925, Hauptmann married Anna Schoeffler, a New York City waitress. A son, Manfried, was born to them in 1933. During his illegal stay in New York City and until the spring of 1932, Hauptmann followed his occupation of carpenter. However, a short while after March 1, 1932, the date of the kidnapping, Hauptmann began to trade rather extensively in stocks and never worked again.Indictment, Trial, and ExecutionHauptmann was indicted in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, New York, on charges of extortion on September 26, 1934, and on October 8, 1934, in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, he was indicted for murder. Two days later, the Governor of the State of New York honored the requisition of the Governor of the State of New Jersey for the surrender of Bruno Richard Hauptmann and on October 19, 1934, he was removed to the Hunterdon County Jail, Flemington, New Jersey, to await trial.The trial of Hauptmann began on January 3, 1935, at Flemington, New Jersey, and lasted five weeks. The case against him was based on circumstantial evidence. Tool marks on the ladder matched tools owned by Hauptmann. Wood in the ladder was found to match wood used as flooring in his attic. Dr. Condon’s telephone number and address were found scrawled on a door frame inside a closet. Handwriting on the ransom notes matched samples of Hauptmann’s handwriting.Lindbergh takes the witness stand during the 1935 trial of Hauptmann in Flemington, New Jersey. Hauptmann was found guilty on February 13, 1935. Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress.Lindbergh takes the witness stand during the 1935 trial of Hauptmann in Flemington, New Jersey. On February 13, 1935, the jury returned a verdict. Hauptmann was guilty of murder in the first degree. The sentence: death. The defense appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey on October 9, 1935, upheld the verdict of the Lower Court. Hauptmann’s appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied on December 9, 1935, and he was to be electrocuted on January 17, 1936. However, on this same day the Governor of the State of New Jersey granted a 30-day reprieve and on February 17, 1936, Hauptmann was resentenced, to be electrocuted during the week of March 30, 1936. On March 30, 1936, the Pardon Court of the State of New Jersey denied Hauptmann’s petition for clemency, and on April 3, 1936, at 8:47 p.m., Bruno Richard Hauptmann was electrocuted. Now since Hauptmann never admitted to the crime, they just assume that he was the person responsible. People are still making theories of who it could be, some people say it was the baby’s nurse, or it was the father. But now it’s too late to find out. But the person who killed Charles is a sick monster who killed an innocent baby out of greed and for money. It makes me ashamed to be a human being.Sorry for it being so long. If you read all this way, thank you :).Stay hydrated,Sofia <3

I would like to present before u the scenario and info abt Jharkhand. The decision whether it is developing is left to u..Majestic hills, wild waterfalls, verdant valleys, steeped in rich history and a rich, diverse tribal culture, the eastern state of Jharkhand is a paradox. It's rich in natural resources, including forests, minerals, rivers, with abundant rainfall and fertile soil, yet the majority of its people live in abject poverty. Jharkhand has 40 per cent of India's total mineral reserves but accounts for only 10 per cent of the country's total mineral production in terms of value.A second paradox is that the state (then part of Bihar) started industrialising and urbanising as early as 1907 when the Tatas set up a steel plant in Jamshedpur, and Dhanbad developed as the country's coal capital (over a century ago). Yet, 110 years later, Jharkhand has one of the largest rural populations in the country. The urban population of 24 per cent (2011 census) is much below the national average (31 per cent).Also read:State of the State: India Today's in-depth report on JharkhandThe state presents a third paradox though it began as a mining and manufacturing hub, recent data shows that the biggest decline is in the manufacturing sector. The state does surprisingly better in services. The increase in the share of services has been at the expense of its share in manufacturing, the latter dropping from 34 per cent in 2004-05 to only 20 per cent in 2013-14. The share of services increased by 12 percentage points while the share of manufacturing declined by 14 percentage points.A fourth paradox lies in Jharkhand being the country's capital for coal, a mining hub for several minerals (mica, manganese and bauxite) and iron ore, with two of India's largest steel plants-Tata Steel, the first private steel plant in Jamshedpur, and the largest public sector steel plant in Bokaro and yet languishing near the bottom among the 29 states on most Human Development Indices (HDI).Why is Jharkhand such a paradox? Is there a way out of this low-level equilibrium trap the state seems stuck in? To answer this conundrum, India Today began the State of the State intelligence report.STATE OF THE STATE (SOTS) REPORTWith a firm belief that the future of India lies in its 29 states, India Today's annual State of the States survey has since 2003 emerged as the gold standard for analysing the performance of the provinces. The State of the State (SOTS) survey was the next logical step. We prepare an X-ray view of each state, a SWOT analysis, a micro-analysis at the district level.Cut to Jharkhand: 24 districts, 16 years, 9 categories of human development, each composed of a few key parameters. The SOTS report comprehensively tracks historical change and economic, social and human development in Jharkhand. Taking an out-of-the-box view of the state, the report analyses the state's key categories based on continuous time-series comparative and reliable data available. (Consistent time-series data are available for 18 of the 24 states).The SOTS Jharkhand report concludes with a big picture, a road map for the future of the state and a vision model laying out the top priorities that can turn around the state's economy and provide it good governance by replicating some of its core strengths. These are what the SOTS investigation reveals and also some best practices from outside.The findings are astonishing. It is a story full of surprises, unexpected results that challenge conventional wisdom. At one level, the narrative is one of paradoxes: potentially rich but actually poor, early starter on the path of industrialisation but languishing in the rate of urbanisation. At another level, the story is one of changing fortunes of districts, of intense competition between the various administrative units, of backward regions showing improvement at a faster rate than developed areas. It is a dramatic story of the rise and fall of districts, the basic units of governance.Other than ranking the districts in terms of the various categories, the study answers the following key questions: what are the main drivers of development? What causes economic and social change? What empowers people? What transforms a state? What are the main obstacles to economic growth? What leads to the paradoxes that Jharkhand finds itself trapped in? What can be the possible way out from a low-level equilibrium trap? Finally, the big picture: what should be the top five priorities for the state if Jharkhand is to aim for an economic take-off?Conventional wisdom suggests that greater the level of industrialisation, commercialisation and urbanisation, greater the level of human development. Therefore, districts that are more industrialised, urbanised and commercialised should end up trumping those that are less industrialised, less commercialised and less urbanised. The trajectory of economic development of Jharkhand partly follows conventional wisdom, like any other state. Yet, when we look at the rate of change brought about over the last 16 years, since the state was created on November 15, 2000, we find a lot of surprises. Relatively backward districts have forged ahead at a faster rate than advanced ones. So East Singhbhum with its headquarters in the steel city of Jamshedpur created by the Tatas, might end up as a top district in a few categories but the rate of change (improvement over the years) in a relatively backward district, say Pakaur or Deoghar, might be higher than Jamshedpur. Sustaining Jamshedpur and replicating it may be as important as developing Pakaur and Deoghar. This trend parallels the pattern set by emerging economies catching up with the developed West in global competition. Encouraging the laggards causes faster growth and greater equity.The report is divided into five sections. In the introduction, we have discussed the main problems: the four paradoxes of Jharkhand. In the next section, in order to answer the reason for the paradoxes, we compare Jharkhand with the other two states (Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand) that were formed around the same time in 2000 as well as with Bihar (from which the state bifurcated) and the rest of India. Third, we research and rank the various districts under nine categories in order to understand the micro picture. Ranking is on a dual basis-best performance category and the change (or improvements) since the state was formed. Finally, we conclude with the big picture, a possible solution to Jharkhand's problems from the SOTS study. We also add an appendix of the various districts that are the winners.COMPARING THE THREE STATES CREATED IN 2000Born on November 15, 2000, after the bifurcation of Bihar, mineral-rich Jharkhand was potentially the richest among the three newly created states. It had plenty of mines, minerals and industry, compared to Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal (later renamed Uttarakhand). Yet, today, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand are ahead of Jharkhand in terms of the Gross State Domestic Product as well as in terms of human development indices.Consider the inter-state comparative data from the most comprehensive survey, Public Affairs Index, conducted by the Public Affairs Centre in Bengaluru, the 'Governance in the States of India 2016 report'. In the category 'women and children', Jharkhand stands at the bottom of all 29 states, Chhattisgarh is in 22nd position and Uttarakhand, 17th. Similarly, in terms of human development, Jharkhand stands 26th, Chhattisgarh 25th and Uttarakhand ranks ninth. In infrastructure, Jharkhand is in 24th place, Chhattisgarh in 20th and Uttarakhand is ninth again.WHY DID JHARKHAND SLIP?Why did the state lag behind the other two states? Most observers offer three reasons: political instability, massive corruption among the political elite in Jharkhand and the short-sighted policy of freight equalisation which led to several decades of industrial stagnation in Jharkhand (then part of Bihar).Political instability is the name of the game in Jharkhand ever since it was created. The state has had six chief ministers in 13 different regimes in 16 years while Chhattisgarh had only two chief ministers and Uttarakhand seven. Jharkhand chief minister Raghubar Das admitted that political instability was the main reason behind its relative economic and social backwardness. "The main reason for the economic backwardness of Jharkhand is political instability. I am the first chief minister in Jharkhand who is leading a majority government. Fortunately, today we have the same party (BJP) ruling Delhi and Ranchi with majority governments. This will lead to rapid economic development for Jharkhand in the future," Das told India Today.In the past, corruption too has been very high, with major scandals rocking the political firmament from time to time. From the mining and coal scams, in which former chief minister Madhu Koda was arrested, to other big scandals, Jharkhand has been a crucible for venality. Even before its bifurcation from Bihar, Jharkhand was the main hub for the fodder scam in which RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav was incarcerated. Corruption has led to crony capitalism and mafia culture in the mining sector. The Bollywood film Gangs of Wasseypur is perhaps a mirror of the state mining mafiadom in the past.The shortsighted freight equalisation policy (from 1952 to 1993) was adopted by the central government to facilitate the equal growth of industry all over the country. This meant a factory could be set up anywhere in India and Centre would subsidise the transportation of minerals. The policy hurt the economic prospects of mineral-rich states like Bihar and other eastern Indian states since it weakened the incentives for private capital to establish production facilities in these areas. Says former chief secretary of Jharkhand, P.P. Sharma: "The freight equalisation policy did incalculable damage to the Jharkhand region and Bihar for over four decades, stagnating industries and crippling mining."COMPARING JHARKHAND'S ECONOMY WITH THE REST OF INDIAJharkhand's economic structure today has changed markedly since its formation in 2000. Using data from 2004-05 onwards, the following observations can be made regarding changes and the state's comparison with the rest of India.In 2004-05, more than half of the state GDP output in Jharkhand was in industry-52 per cent-compared to 15 per cent for agriculture, 33 per cent for services. Within industry, the share in state GDP of the three components was as follows: Manufacturing, 34 per cent; mining, 11 per cent; and construction, 7 per cent. In contrast, industry in India had only a 31 per cent share. The share of mining in India was only 4.3 per cent. Services in India had a much larger share at 41 per cent.The sectoral landscape in Jharkhand changed markedly between 2004-05 and 2013-14. While the share of mining stayed about the same, the share of services such as insurance, telecom and hospitality increased dramatically to 45 per cent, about the same as the national average of 47 per cent. The increase in the share of services has been at the expense of the share in manufacturing, which dropped from 34 per cent in 2004-05 to only 20 per cent in 2013-14. In summary, the share of services increased by 12 percentage points but the share of manufacturing declined by 14 percentage points.In other words, Jharkhand is now evolving towards being a "typical" Indian state, with the share of agriculture, services and manufacturing being broadly comparable. The all-India share in GDP of these three sectors in 2013-14 was 16, 16 and 47 per cent respectively. For Jharkhand, it is 16, 19 and 45 per cent.Comparing Jharkhand with Bihar and the rest of the country is a story of contrasts if we look at real per capita income (in 2004-05 prices) and growth in real GDP and real GDP per capita. In 2004-05, Jharkhand per capita income was 70.3 per cent of the all-India average, a ratio that declined marginally to 67 per cent by 2015-16. This is indicated by the somewhat slower per capita growth in Jharkhand: 5.5 per cent compared to the al-India growth of 5.9 per cent. In contrast, Bihar, starting off from a very slow base in 2004-05, with per capita income of only 30 per cent of the all-India average, grew quite rapidly during 2004-05 and 2015-16, with an average per capita growth of 7.5 per cent per annum. By 2014-15, Bihar's per capita income was 35 per cent of the all-India average. In short, while Bihar grew faster in per capita growth, Jharkhand slipped behind.RANKING OF DISTRICT PERFORMANCE IN JHARKHANDThe Seventh Finance Commission increased the share of resources going to states from the previous 32 per cent of total tax revenue to 42 per cent now. This means that the burden of responsibility, and policies and expenditure on development, will be increasingly handled at the state level.Jharkhand, with a population of around 31 million, is the same size as Peru, which is about the 40th largest country in the world (out of 204 countries). What policies should Jharkhand policymakers initiate in order to improve their below average growth performance of the last 15 years-an average per capita GDP growth rate of 5.6 per cent compared to the national average of 5.9 per cent? Out of 21 large states (including Delhi), Jharkhand's per capita growth rate is ranked 13th. In the last three years, Jharkhand's growth performance has improved; the state has grown faster at 7.8 per cent compared to the national average of 6.5 per cent.The SOTS study answers some prior questions, and at a more micro level than that of a state (district, for example). But the more micro one gets, the more data availability becomes a problem. And even if data were available, the question of assessing performance becomes critical.In performance terms how well has the state, or district, done in terms of some development parameters? As illustration, let us just look at two indicators of development-per capita income (how rich is the district) and how well "educated" it is.But wait, what about legacy issues, how does one account for "initial conditions"? For example, Kerala has always had the highest living standards, particularly in health and education. A detailed investigation of the data suggests that the state of Kerala always had (at least since Independence) higher educational achievement than the rest of the Indian states too.Similarly, because of industrial development in Jamshedpur, the district of East Singhbhum has always been "richer" than the rest of Jharkhand. So while richer because of "initial conditions", East Singhbhum has maintained its relative ranking as the richest district. However, a phenomenon well known to developing countries like India is "catch-up", that is poorer countries (districts) having a tendency to grow faster than richer countries (districts). This is the second dimension of performance examined for the districts of Jharkhand: what is the magnitude of improvement or change over a certain time period (in this study, between 1999 and 2011, the two end-points for which data are continuously available.To summarise, we separately examine two measures of performance or achievement for a broad array of indicators -which district was the best performer according to the level achieved in 2011, and which district showed the greatest improvement since 1999.Even if all the data are available, there remains an apple and oranges problem-how does one assess the performance level for a combination of indicators? Let us take the following example: East Singhbhum had the highest female educational achievement in 2011-12 (according to National Sample Survey or NSS data), but Ranchi had the highest level of male educational achievement. Which district should be ranked higher for education then? All such questions, including assessing the joint overall performance for per capita income, level of absolute poverty, male and female education, etc, are answered through anordinal ranking of non-comparable cardinal values.For each indicator, there is a rank from best to worst, with the best in the chosen category as 1 and the worst as 18 (for 18 out of 24 districts, comparable data are available for both the start of the period (1999 NSS or 2000-01 census) and the end of the period 2011-12. So the best rank a district can obtain for one indicator is 1.Assuming East Singhbhum was the best in all of the above four non-comparable (both in units and conceptually) categories-years of educational attainment, percentage of poor, and per capita income in rupees. Then the combined "score" in terms of ranks would be 4.But now let us assume that East Singhbhum has a combined score of 10. Can it still be ranked number 1? Yes, if the combined rank score of any other district is more than 10. In other words, we can obtain a rank of ranks, called the Borda rank, named after the French mathematician and political scientist Jean-Charles de Borda, who devised this method in 1770! The Borda rank is used all over the world and has some practical use in terms of selection of candidates for elections (our Rajya Sabha selection method should move towards a Borda rank, rather than the complicated and relatively unintelligible method currently in use).With the Borda rank, one can robustly combine apples and oranges, levels and changes, education and income. The district ranking study reveals that education has a direct role in reducing crime and improving health. Murder rates were negatively affected by overall education in the district. For each 1 per cent increase in average education in the district, murders per capita declined by 0.3 per cent. Similarly, rape rates were negatively affected by overall education in the district. For each 1 per cent higher male education in the district, rapes declined by 1 per cent. Increase in male education also had a negative effect on dowry deaths. For each 1 per cent increase in male education in the district, dowry deaths went down by 2.2 per cent. For each 1 per cent increase in female education in the district, fertility went down 0.15 per cent and lower infant mortality rate by 0.32 percent. Each 1 per cent higher GDP growth leads to a 0.75 per cent decline in absolute poverty. Each 1 per cent higher growth in average education leads to a negative 0.5 per cent decline in the fraction of the poor. Education surely is the most crucial driver of economic and social change, according to the india today SOTS study. A serious attempt by the Jharkhand government in spreading education throughout the state, with an emphasis on women's education, can do wonders in terms of economic and social development.As the analysis of Jharkhand shows, the top five priorities for the government should be education, health, agriculture, reviving mining and manufacturing and encouraging the already surging services sector to grow exponentially.Hope this helps u:)