King-Gamache Family History Page

Print Bookmark



Matches 201 to 250 of 2,660

      «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 54» Next»

   Notes   Linked to 
201 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Family F128
202 1] Divorce - Decree - Inclusion of Grounds Not Pleaded. Where a wife's evidence in a divorce action overwhelmingly established that her husband had inflicted personal indignities upon her rendering life burdensome, which was the statutory ground alleged in her complaint, it was harmless error for the decree of divorce to include cruelty, which was not alleged in the complaint, in addition to personal indignities as the basis for the divorce, since, under these circumstances, whether the husband's conduct also constituted cruel treatment within the meaning of the divorce statute was immaterial.
[2] Same - Fees and Costs - Frivolous Appeal. A wife was allowed $1,000 for attorney fees on appeal, notwithstanding the rule that a wife is not entitled to free litigation at the expense of her husband when she is seeking a divorce, and that the wife in this particular action could have paid her own counsel fees without impoverishing herself, where the husband's unexplained failure to appear personally at the trial of the action was a likely cause of the appeal, and the husband instigated the instant appeal for the apparent purpose of causing the wife expense and delay.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 21230, George H. Freese, J., entered December 4, 1963. Affirmed.
Action for divorce. Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Velikanje, Moore & Countryman and Palmer, Willis &McArdle, by Charles C. Countryman, for appellant.
J. P. Tonkoff (of Tonkoff, Holst & Hanson), for respondent.
Donworth, J. -
Appellant husband has appealed from the decree of divorce granted to his wife. His principal contention is that the trial court erred in granting the divorce on a ground not alleged in the complaint, to wit, cruelty, and on the ground alleged in the complaint, to wit, personal indignities rendering life burdensome.
The parties were married in 1921 and resided near Yakima. They had no property at the time of their marriage,
«*» Reported in 409 P.2d 859.
[2] See Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation § 1024.
Sept. 1965] GAMACHE v. GAMACHE 823
but at the time of the trial of this divorce action, in 1963, they had acquired community property worth more than half a million dollars. The greater portion of the record relates to the various items of property owned by the parties and the value thereof. However, the portion of trial court's decree which provided for a division of the property between the parties is not involved in this appeal.
Appellant did not testify at the trial. He was not present in the courtroom at any time, although respondent's counsel repeatedly demanded that he be produced as a witness. Consequently, the only testimony as to the ground for divorce was that given by respondent.
She testified that her husband started drinking to excess about 4 years after their marriage. About 1953, she started a divorce proceeding because of his abusive conduct toward her while he was intoxicated. They were separated for about a year at that time. He told her that he had had a heart attack and she felt sorry for him. He promised that he would never drink or abuse her again, and the parties resumed living together. He stopped drinking for a period of several years, but started again shortly before the present action was instituted in December, 1962.
The incident which precipitated their final separation occurred in Bend, Oregon, while the parties were returning from a vacation trip to Reno. They were accompanied by another married couple, although each couple drove in their own car. They stopped at Bend for the night. Respondent testified:
Q. What happened? A. He was very belligerent, and he wouldn't come and eat dinner with us at night, or anything, and on the way home he was very sarcastic and we stopped at Bend. Q. At that time were your friends with you? A. No, they had their own car. There was a time that they were with us - that is another incident. We stopped at Bend, and there was something wrong with our car and we brought it to the garage. The next morning he went to the bathroom first and he was to pick up the car, and in the meantime he went and had breakfast and he came back and never told me. We usually stopped at an inn, a lovely place a half a block off the
824 GAMACHE v. GAMACHE [66 Wn. (2d)
highway and I wanted to go in there to eat and he didn't want to. He wanted to go in a little dirty pastime restaurant right close by. I said: "If that is the way you feel about it, but it doesn't look appetizing, it is just a half a block, you go there and I will eat here." He got angry and wanted to quarrel on the street. He ran after me and grabbed me with both arms and was pounding me against the building, and I tried to get away from him and he tore my clothes off of me.
Mr. Beaulaurier: I object to any physical abuse. It is not alleged in the complaint.
The Court: We will let it stand. Let's take the points
- these are not contested.
Mr. Beaulaurier: Yes, they are.
The Court: Just from the standpoint you deny the facts. The only thing taking into consideration his abuse, that she should have more property.
Mr. Beaulaurier: The thing I am concerned about is,
Your Honor, the complaint sets forth personal indignities as rendering life burdensome, and as the Court is aware under the divorce code itself, the grounds upon which the plaintiff seeks to rely must be set forth in the complaint, and I am concerned for fear that this testimony coming in without an objection on my part could be considered by the Court to establish other and different grounds than those pleaded.
The Court: The Court will not consider anything other than considering: did his acts, while living together, influence her health and have an effect on the division of property, if that hadn't happened?
Mr. Tonkoff: For the purpose of the record, Your Honor,
I think this does show indignities. I don't know how you can be any more abused than a man-handling when on the street.
The Court: Let's proceed.
Q. What happened? A. There were a lot of people on the street and he didn't even see them. It was like a hideous nightmare. I got away from him and ran in the restaurant and got in a booth, so people could not see the condition of my clothes. He followed me in the restaurant and asked if I had ordered, and he said: "You are not going to eat here either," and he pulled me out of the booth and all the way down the street to the car and then we got in the car and he started to scream and use vile language, and he stopped twice in a wooded area threatening to kill me. Q. Where is the wooded
Sept. 1965] GAMACHE v. GAMACHE 825
area? A. Between Bend and Goldendale. Q. Then you got home? A. Then we got home. One of my sons had been using his car and we used my car, and I asked him to bring my car back. I was mortally afraid of him. The boy brought the car and Mrs. Cooper went to Seattle with me and she found an apartment near her daughter in Bellevue, and I stayed there six weeks. I wrote and said I wanted the apartment, I was coming back, and I wanted it. He let me know if anyone had the apartment he was and I was to move out.
On cross-examination, she further testified as to the Bend incident:
Q. When did you decide with reference to your trip to Bend, Oregon, when did you decide to file a divorce?A. I told him on the way home that I was through and I wanted the apartment and that I was going to apply for a divorce. Q. And it was several days after you got back? A. It was just a day and a half and that is because I didn't have a car. The youngest son had his car because our car was in the garage.
In his first assignment of error, appellant challenges the trial court's finding of fact No. 4, which states:
That the defendant has by his conduct demonstrated that he has neither love nor affection for the plaintiff, and has on occasions embarrassed, assaulted, and directed profane language toward the plaintiff, and has on various occasions when in an intoxicated condition heaped personal indignities upon plaintiff and has threatened her life so that her life became burdensome in the extreme, and as a consequence thereof the plaintiff and defendant can no longer cohabit as husband and wife.
Appellant argues that there is no evidence in the record to show that his conduct had any subjective adverse effect upon respondent. He quotes her testimony (which is set out above) concerning the Bend incident and also with respect to the prior period when appellant was not drinking. He relies on Robuck v. Robuck, 62 Wn.2d 917, 385 P.2d 50 (1963) (and cases cited therein), which correctly states the rule to be that in such cases we must apply a subjective test rather than an objective test.
826 GAMACHE v. GAMACHE [66 Wn. (2d)
But in this case the uncontradicted testimony of respondent is that appellant assaulted her on the street in Bend by grabbing her with both arms and pounding her against the building, and when she tried to get away from him he tore her clothes off. She said that it was like a hideous nightmare. She then went into a restaurant and he followed her, pulled her out of the booth and down the street to their car, where he started to scream and use vile language. After they left Bend, he stopped the car twice in a wooded area between Bend and Goldendale and threatened to kill her. After getting home, as soon as she could get her car, respondent and the lady who had been on the Reno trip with them drove to Bellevue, where respondent found an apartment near where her friend's daughter lived, and she stayed there for six weeks. She said that during the few days she was in Yakima after the Reno trip she was mortally afraid of appellant.
Appellant did not appear at the trial to deny or explain his conduct as testified by respondent. See footnote 1, infra.
In this record there is an abundance of testimony as to the subjective effect of appellant's conduct and words upon respondent. No additional medical or lay testimony is needed. A continuing assault by a husband on a public street and in a restaurant followed later by two threats of homicide in a lonely wooded area can hardly have a soothing effect on a wife. We think that the rule of the Robuck case has been fully complied with.
Appellant next argues that respondent's testimony is insufficient to support finding No. 4 (quoted above). He particularly objects to the portion thereof stating that appellant, when in an intoxicated condition, heaped personal indignities upon respondent "so that her life became burdensome in the extreme."
Respondent alleged in paragraph 4 of her complaint as follows:
That the defendant has not concealed the fact that he has neither love nor affection for the plaintiff and has by various and sundry acts heaped personal indignities upon plaintiff, rendering her life burdensome in the
Sept. 1965] GAMACHE v. GAMACHE 827
extreme, so that there now exists a total incompatibility of temperament and that the parties can no longer Cohabit as husband and wife.
Appellant denied these allegations in his answer.
At the trial, appellant's counsel objected during respondent's testimony regarding her husband's assaulting her on the street in Bend because cruel treatment had not been alleged as a ground for divorce but only personal indignities rendering life burdensome.
RCW 26.08.020 (5) includes, in stating grounds for divorce, the following:
(5) Cruel treatment of either party by the other, or personal indignities rendering life burdensome.
The trial court, in ruling on the objection, said:
The Court will not consider anything other than considering: did his acts, while living together, influence her health and have an effect on the division of property, if that hadn't happened?
[1] The examination of respondent then proceeded. Appellant's counsel did not claim surprise or ask for a continuance or demand a bill of particulars. We think that respondent's testimony as to her husband's conduct (which he did not controvert or explain by any testimony at the trial) was ample to support the decree of divorce. It overwhelmingly established that appellant inflicted personal indignities upon respondent rendering life burdensome and thus entitled respondent to a divorce on the ground for divorce alleged in the complaint.
The fact that the decree also included the ground of cruelty is at most harmless error. Whether appellant's conduct also constituted cruel treatment within the meaning of the above quoted statutory provision is immaterial.
There is no merit in appellant's contention that respondent proved only incompatibility, dissatisfaction, and unhappiness in her marriage as reasons for seeking a divorce. He cites Bang v. Bang, 57 Wn.2d 602, 358 P.2d 960 (1961), and cases cited therein, which hold that proof of the existence of these factors are not sufficient to warrant the
828 GAMACHE v. GAMACHE [66 Wn. (2d)
granting of a divorce. From our references to respondent's testimony, it is clear that she was mortally afraid of appellant after he had assaulted her in public at Bend and had twice threatened her life on the way home from there. This was no case of mere incompatibility between the parties. It was a case of severe physical public assault by appellant (who is an alcoholic) followed by threats of more violence and death. The cases cited by appellant have not the slightest bearing upon the case at bar.
Appellant correctly points out that only the legislature may make incompatibility and similar matters legal cause for divorce, and that it has not done so. However, the facts proved at trial show far more than mere incompatibility. Appellant appears to argue that only if the legislature changed the law would respondent have grounds for divorce. This is patently incorrect.
Parenthetically, the practical futility of denying respondent a divorce is demonstrated by the enactment of Laws of 1965, Ex. Ses., ch. 15, which became effective August 6, 1965, and amends RCW 26.08.020 (9) to read as follows:
(9) A divorce may be granted to either or both parties in all cases where they have heretofore lived or shall hereafter live separate and apart for a period of two consecutive years or more, without regard to fault in separation.
Since the record shows that respondent and appellant have lived separate and apart for over 2 years already, a reversal of the trial court's decree could not terminate the litigation, but would inevitably precipitate another divorce proceeding in which this additional statutory ground could be made a factual issue.
We do not intend to intimate that the matter just referred to has been given any weight in arriving at our conclusion about the adequacy of proof of grounds under the present law of divorce, but the effect of the new amendment, referred to above, upon the situation of these parties is obvious.
On the basis of the record in this case, we find no merit
Sept. 1965] GAMACHE v. GAMACHE 829
in appellant's assignments of error, and the decree of the trial court must be affirmed.
In her brief, respondent requests this court to allow her $7,500 additional attorney fees for services rendered in the trial court and on this appeal. Prior to the trial, the sum of $1,000 had been allowed to each counsel and had been paid by respondent out of a $30,000 balance in a fund created and given to her by consent of the parties.
Since respondent has not cross-appealed from the provision in the decree which provided that "each party shall pay his own attorneys' fees and costs in this action," this court cannot review the allowance of attorney fees made by the trial court for services rendered therein.
[2] With respect to respondent's request for attorney fees to be allowed her in this court, we think that she should be allowed the sum of $1,000. If appellant had appeared and testified at the trial relative to his conduct toward respondent, this appeal might have been unnecessary. In a divorce case involving community property worth more than half a million dollars, he absented himself from the trial and failed to deny or explain his wife's testimony regarding his alleged personal indignities toward her which rendered her life burdensome. No showing was made by affidavit of a physician or otherwise that his health was such as to excuse his absence from the courtroom.«1»
We realize that a wife is not entitled to free litigation athe expense of her husband when she is seeking a divorce, if she is financially able to pay the expenses thereof. See Bang v. Bong. 57 Wn.2d 602, 358 P.2d 960 (1961). We are not departing from this rule. However, the property which respondent received in the case at bar was awarded to her
«1» When respondent's counsel first requested that appellant be produced as a witness at some time during the trial, the court inquired as to the reason for his absence and his counsel replied: "He is absent this morning because he is not feeling well. He is a man of quite delicate health. . ." Respondent's counsel stated: "his delicate healthwe may go into that. . . There is nothing wrong with his health. He can frequent the bars and get drunk." The court then said: "Let's argue it later. after we get all the facts."
830 GAMACHE v. GAMACHE [66 Wn. (2d)
by the trial court with the expectation that she would have to pay therefrom only the attorney fees for services in the trial court (as discussed above). Furthermore, until the decree of the trial court becomes final, she has no property available to her except the money remaining in the fund created by the previous agreement of the parties referred to above. Appellant appears to have prosecuted this appeal with the intention to cause respondent as much expense and delay as possible. We have found his assignments of error to be clearly without merit Appellant husband is the instigator of the litigation in this court. Respondent wife is satisfied with the trial court's decree. Under the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the wife should not be required to pay any attorney fees on this appeal. Nothing contained in this opinion shall be construed as affecting in any manner any arrangement made or to be made hereafter between respondent and her counsel with respect to compensation for their professional services in this case.
Under RCW 26.08.190, the court may, in its discretion allow attorney fees to either party when the complexities and legal problems of the base warrant such award, even though the wife has been awarded a substantial share of the community property in a divorce decree which has not yet become final because of appellant's appeal. See Abel v. Abel, 47 Wn.2d 816, 289 P.2d 724 (1955). We think that this statute also authorizes this court to charge attorney fees against appellant husband under the circumstances of this appeal even though respondent wife could, without impoverishing herself, pay her own counsel fees from resources available to her. Expenses incurred by respondent as the result of appellant's dilatory tactics should be paid for by him.
Accordingly, the decree of the trial court is hereby affirmed with directions to enter judgment in favor of respondent for $1,000 additional attorney fees. Respondent will recover her taxable costs in this court.
ROSELLINI, C. J., WEAVER and HAMILTON, JJ., and RYAN, J. Pro Tem., concur.
January 4, 1966. Petition for rehearing denied. 
Family F4118
203 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Living (I799)
204 20 Years ago

A rural Osceola man, Tim Gamache, 30, was injured when a Bobcat loader tipped over, landing on him and pinning him for four hours until he was discovered

Frederic Inter-County Leader
May 8, 2013, p b5 
Gamache, Timothy Ronald (I73334990)
205 20002-25 Lionel GAMACHE, 22, miner, Rockland, Cobalt, s/o Ephraim GAMACHE (b. Quebec City) & Louise GUINDEN, married Antoinette LEDUC, 19, Rockland, Cobalt, d/o Antoine LEDUC (b. Bourget Quebec) & Ubelding ROULEAU, witn: Maisie RAWSON of 36 Cobalt St & Evelyn RANIE of 12 Commission Street both of Cobalt on Oct. 17, 1925 at The Manse in Cobalt Family F8861
206 2011-10-09

DUQUETTE JOHN ALGER (JAC) Passed September 30, 2011 at age 83 in the company of family. Husband to Sue. Father to Cynthia, Amanda Demitrish (Daniel), Patrice (Steven Graff), and Tamara. Step-father to Glenn Hoffmeyer and Gretchen Hoffmeyer (Mark Roberts). Grandfather to Alissa, Joshua, John Paul, and Amelia. Donations can be made to the Detroit Institute of Arts.

From The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press
- See more at: 
Duquette, John Alger (I1803)
207 22 Jul 1880 acc. to WWI draft record Gamache, Hyppolite (I73332805)
208 23501 Grand River Avenue Detroit, MI 48219
(313) 531-2050 
Gamache, Elizabeth (I7229)
209 26-11-1875
Fonds Drouin,, St-Roch-des-Aulnaies 
Gamache, Adelard (I73340380)
210 5020 Carpenter Rd Hamburg, NY 14075 716-648-4123 Harris, Marilyn (I11136)
211 506th Parachute Infantry 101st Airborne
Gravesite Details Entered the service from Massachusetts. 
Brewer, Sgt. Daniel (I26242)
212 5: Francis ST. GAMACHE / Francios Gamache & Marg (Marguerite)
Francis ST. GAMACHE / Francios Gamache m: Marg LeBlanc 15 Jun 1812 Lacadie, St.-Jean, Quebec son of Francois Aubin Gamache and Therese Sylvestre
Marg (Marguerite) LEBLANC b: c1792 bapt: 3 Apr 1792 Lacadie, Ste. Marguerite De
Blairfinde, St.-jean, Quebec d/o: Pierre LEBLANC & Marguerite TRAHANT IGI
8605506 m: Francios Gamache 15 Jun 1812 Lacadie, St.-Jean, Quebec IGI:7832502
Child of Francis Gamache and Marg. LeBlanc is:
Mary GAMACHE b: 8 Sep 1819 Canada (French) d: 19 Jan 1907, River Rouge,
Wayne Co MI , m: Justus ST. AMANT when 22. (c1841) Marie Gamache
b. 08-SEP-1819 d. 19-JAN-1907 m. Louis Juste St. Amant 09-NOV-1841 
Family F1391
213 6 Jan 1899 acc. to Draft CArd Gamache, Joseph Phillip Oza (I73339342)
214 6. Francois Aubin Gamache and Therese Sylvestre
Francois Aubin Gamache b. 1748 son of Pierre Gamache and Marie Genevieve
Belanger m. Therese Sylvestre m. 13-FEB-1775 Aubin GAMACHE (AFN:13J3-1Q1)
Born: 2 Mar 1747/1748 Christened: 2 Mar 1748 Cap St. Ignace, Montmagny, Quebec
Married: 13 Feb 1775 Cap St. Ignace, Montmagny, Quebec Father: Pierre GAMACHE
Mother: Marie Genevieve BELANGER Aubin Gamache, born 02 Mar 1748 in Cap-StIgnace, PQ, Canada. He was the son of Pierre Gamache and Marie-Geneviève
Bélanger. He married Marie-Thérèse Sylvestre 13 Feb 1775 in Cap-St-Ignace, Québec,
Marie-Thérèse Sylvestre. She was the daughter of Eustache Sylvestre and MarieGeneviève Roussin. Therese SYLVESTRE (AFN:160Q-W6C) Born: Abt 1753 Of, ,
Quebec Married: 13 Feb 1775 Cap St. Ignace, Montmagny, Quebec
Childrenof Aubin Gamache and Marie-Thérèse Sylvestre:
i. Francois Gamache m. Marguerite Leblanc m. 15-JUN-1812
ii. Madeleine Gamache, married Joseph Mailloux 19 Feb 1810 in L'Acadie, PQ,
Canada. Son of of Louis-Joseph Mailloux and Marguerite Landry 
Family F1389
215 633 S Edison Ave Royal Oak, MI Wurtlin, George (I22001)
216 7 Dec 1888 is birthdate noted on naturalization paperwork Handelsman, Margaret (I123)
217 7/4/1891 baby born and died to William and Mary Moran Moran, Unknown (I11086)
218 72 years old, wife of late Teofil Klimaszewski,daughter of Yazu & Mary Levansavick,born,Velna,Lithuania.  Levansavick, Marcela (I17432)
219 9th child of these parents - per original birth certificate Gamache, Victor Joseph W. Arthur (I73337098)
220 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Living (I73342793)
221 A Tribute to Arthur Krause:
Delivered at Kent State University,
May 4 1989
glddivider.gif (2838 bytes)
Kendra Lee Hicks

KrausesKLHPgrave.JPG (18855 bytes)

Kendra Lee with Arthur and Doris
Krause at Allison's grave site
Photo by Alan Canfora

I am here before you to pay tribute to a man-Arthur Krause, the father of Allison Beth Krause, a student slain in a parking lot on the Kent State University Campus on May 4, 1970. Most of us here know him as the most prominent leader in the quest for justice for the murders that took place here in 1970, a man whose efforts enable us to gather here today.
When I questioned those who knew him well, I heard these descriptive words mentioned: "strong," "stubborn," "vital," "larger than life," "warm and generous," "fierce." I heard phrases like "the iron man of the Kent State family," "he was relentless in his quest for justice," "I felt lucky that I had the benefit of his friendship," "we are richer for having known him." I feel fortunate to have met him.

America first heard from Arthur the day after the shootings. When speaking with television newsmen, he expressed the sentiments of the horribly shocked citizens of this country: "Have we come to such a state in this country that a young girl has to be shot because she disagrees with the action of her government?"

We stopped and listened to him. And we heard from him again. For the next four years, Arthur continually asked for justice. He wanted someone held accountable for the death of his daughter. He called for congressional hearings and federal investigations into the shootings. He appealed for the right to a day in court. He pushed through the Ohio District Court, the United States District Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court, all the while trying to break down the wall of Ohio's sovereign immunity law-the law that said that defendants could not be sued without first giving their consent to such an action. But he would never back down. As Martin Scheuer, the father of Sandy Scheuer, once told me, "Arthur was a man of principle."

In the first year of the struggle, Arthur was joined by Peter Davies, an ordinary citizen from Staten Island, NY who had been appalled at the shootings and he himself had spent months researching the shootings, looking for clues to explain why the
National Guard had fired:

For almost a year ... we tilted at windmills alone, but without his dynamic strength I could not have stayed the course. Arthur's quest was never idealistic. He was always a realist in dealing with the Nixon administration, and despite his grief and anger, whenever we accomplished something that seemed to me a big step forward, he would laugh and say, "that and ten cents'll get us a cup of coffee." We had more cups of coffee than I care to remember.

Elaine Holstein, the mother of slain Jeff Miller, described Arthur as "totally indispensable," She writes, "Indispensable--because my life in those years after our children were killed and we struggled to find some semblance of justice--would have been far more hellish without the Rock of Gibraltar that was Art Krause.." In 1971, Arthur and Peter were joined by the Reverend John Adams of the United Methodist Church. This addition to the tea had a very positive effect. As Sanford Jay Rosen, attorney for the families in the final settlement, observes:

Two people, Arthur Krause and John Adams, are most responsible for the measure of justice the Kent State victims and their families have received. Arthur brought anger and passion to the cause. John brought hope and compassion. Without these two, all would have been for naught."

Arthur's passion was so deep due to the fact that he knew what lay at the root of the problem. As he recalled his life, he said, "I was like everyone else, and then this happened to us." In recalling other episodes of extreme violence in our country before May of 1970, he said:

I feel a great sense of guilt because I realized what was going on but didn?t do a damn thing about it. Like most Americans these days, we sit on the fence and depend on the lawyer, the church, and the government to do whatever should be done, but if the government doesn't have the right people on the job, nothing will be done .... and we, the people, have to make the government good. Apathy will not be part of my make-up anymore. Apathy is what caused Kent State.

In 1975, Arthur's four years of persistence paid off. The victims' families were given their day in court. Vindication should have been forthcoming. It was not. Elaine Holstein recounts:

It turned out to be many, many day--some of the most painful days of my life. As we sat in the courtroom and heard our lovely children vilified by the defendants and their lawyers ... I found myself increasingly seeking out Art, to become healed by his unshakeable determination and common sense and--most importantly--his humor. Even under the horrendous circumstances that brought us together ... Art's brilliant and sometimes bitter wit would break the tension and lift the oppressive burden we all carried and we would feel the blessed relief of laughter that enabled ...all of us to survive those terrible months.

When the verdict was announced in favor of the National Guardsmen, it was Arthur that announced that the trial proved that the constitution had been destroyed.

While the families waited during the appeal process, the Kent State Administration once again showed its insensitivity to the history of May 4, 1970. After the construction of the gymnasium annex on Blanket Hill, which destroyed part of the site of the shootings, Arthur Krause vowed never to step foot on the Kent State campus again.

In 1979, when the other families and victims decided on an out-of-court settlement for the murder of their children, it was Arthur who held out on giving in to that decision the longest. While some may have attributed this to his usual stubbornness, others attributed it to the devoted love he had for his daughter Allison. As one of the lawyers put it, "He doesn't want to give in to a settlement because it means he'll have to give up Allison."

Dean Kahler, shot on May 4, 1970, spoke truthfully when he told me "the sense of loss Arthur felt for his daughter was very prevalent when you were around him. He never really fully recuperated from her death. It was the focal point of his life and he
was determined to get justice." Tom Grace, also wounded in 1970, observes:

Without Arthur's drive, his fortitude, his unmovable presence, the drive for justice may well have stalled. Our quest is not finished. Yet, Arthur's efforts have allowed us, in some small measure to answer yes to the question that Doris Krause asked nineteen years ago: "Do we say that there is justice Allison?"

While Arthur's years in the battlefield of the United States' court system came to an end, the pain of the loss of his daughter did not. And his bitterness toward the Kent State administration did not fade either. Arthur told me this past summer that he was still waiting for an official notification of Allison's death. I am sure that he was conscious of this when he told the Ravenna Record Courier in 1986 that the Kent State administration was "a worthless organization."

Arthur?s last years were spent enduring the emotional roller coaster of the May 4 Memorial building process. And he did not keep his emotions to himself. Alan Canfora, another student wounded in 1970, told me of some of his last conversations with Arthur:

As Arthur suffered the pain of his terminal illness, he poignantly described his continued frustrations as a result of the cover-up of his daughter's murder and the continued failure of Kent State University to create a lasting memorial tribute in memory of his daughter Allison."

It's a shame that Arthur could not have observed the final vindication of his daughter's death. But, as pointed out earlier, he was very pragmatic. Arthur told me last July, "Anybody that would believe that Kent State University would make any attempt to meet the desires of the Kent State families must also believe in the tooth fairy."

What does Arthur Krause's death mean? It's too soon to know the broader ramifications in the struggle to remember May 4. 1970. On a more personal level, Sandy Rosen says it best: "He marked our lives, so that we are richer for having known him and much poorer now that he is gone." Speaking for myself and all of the others who have fought against the whitewashing of the facts of May 4, 1 feel like I've lost my father.

So how do we really pay tribute to such a man as Arthur Krause? Words are not enough.

We could start by emulating his passion for justice. We can remove the apathy from our own lives. We can build a proper memorial to the memory of Allison, Bill, Jeff, and Sandy--one that is fitting to the magnitude of the event. We can heed Arthur's own advice,

"If you don't stand up for your own rights they will be taken away from you just like they were from Allison."You can love your own children as Arthur loved his.  
Krause, Arthur Selwyn (I309)
222 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Living (I73341828)
223 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Living (I14528)
224 Abe Silverblatt Naturalization, 23 Sep 1909, Pittsburgh, PA Silverblatt, Ida (I725)
225 Abe Silverblatt Naturalization, 23 Sep 1909, Pittsburgh, PA Silverblatt, Anna Jennie (I724)
226 Abe Silverblatt Naturalization, 23 Sep 1909, Pittsburgh, PA Silverblatt, Samuel (I720)
227 Abe Silverblatt Naturalization, 23 Sep 1909, Pittsburgh, PA Silverblatt, Rose (I723)
228 Abe Silverblatt Naturalization, 23 Sep 1909, Pittsburgh, PA Silverblatt, Morris (I716)
229 Abe Silverblatt Naturalization, 23 Sep 1909, Pittsburgh, PA Silverblatt, Hyman (I719)
230 Abraham Silverblatt
Abraham Silverblatt, aged 59, 928
Vickroy Street, died Sunday evening,
August Thirteenth, in his home after
a brief illness. He was widely known
among the orthodox Jews for his
be­nevolent and untiring efforts. He took
an active interest in the Beth Jacob
Synagogue, where he held many of­
fices. He was a member of the Brith
Abraham Lodge and Brith Sho'em
He is survived by four sons: Mor­
ris Silverblatt, Imperial, Pa.; Sam
Silverblatt, Millsboro, Pa.; Hyman
Silverblatt, Mt. Pleasant, Pa., and
Louis Silverblatt, of Pittsburgh; four
daughters, Mrs. Tillie Aronson, La-
trobe, Pa.; Mrs. Jennie Rosenblatt,
Chicora, Pa.; Mrs. Ida Ehrlich, Pitts­
burgh; Rose Silverblatt, at home, and
Samuel Silverblatt, a brother, of this
city. Mr. Silverblatt was born in Rus­
sian Poland and came to this country
many years ago.
Pittsburgh Jewish Criterion, Aug 18, 1922, p. 15 
Silverblatt, Abraham (I718)
231 according to 1900 census Swanson, Alexander (I2978)
232 according to 1910 Federal Census of Ishpeming, Marquette County, Michigan Furton, Joseph M. (I2205)
233 according to 1910 Federal census of Ishpeming, marquette County, Michigan Family F651
234 According to Calvary Cemetery records Joseph was moved to Calvary May, 28 1924 from Mount Olive Cemetery. Gamache, Joseph Charles (I73339009)
235 According to Certifed Death Certificate, birthdate would have been 29 Dec 1878 King, Alice (I152)
236 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Family F440
237 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Family F444
238 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Family F784
239 According to her death certificate (Jefferson Co., #41347, MO State Archives; Cora E. Gamache [mother], informant) she was the daughter of John B. GAMACHE and Cora E. NULL, both of Jefferson Co., and the wife of Dana P. HADLOCK.

[Note that, although her death certificate gives her birth year as 1880, the 1900 and 1920 censuses and her marker show it as 1890. Given that her mother was born in 1870, making the 1880 date almost impossible, her year of birth is listed here as 1890.] 
Gamache, Edith Blanche (I73338370)
240 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Living (I2847)
241 according to Otmar Nagode  Rupnik, Ursa (I1287)
242 according to Otmar Nagode Nagode, Franc (I1281)
243 according to Rose B. Haller, 1930 Federal Census Renaud, Georgiana (I4145)
244 According to Ships record, he would have been born in 1913 Maddente, Giovanni Carmelo Victor (I10)
245 According to SSDI, Eugene was born on 5 Mar 1890 Miron, Eugene (I2460)
246 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Living (I2697)
247 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Living (I2698)
248 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Living (I2699)
249 According to US Census of 1900, Leon was 69 in 1900 putting his birth year at 1831.

Census of Marquette County, Humboldt Twp
vol. 49, ED 107, Sheet 1, Line 25 
Campeau, Leon (I1038)
250 At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. Living (I2756)

      «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 54» Next»

This site powered by The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding ©, v. 9.2.2, written by Darrin Lythgoe 2001-2018.