Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Term - Eng - Jurisdiction

Expand Messages
  • Pavel Trusina
    Mile kolegyne a kolegove (nejspise asi cesti rodili mluvci), obratila se na mne jedna kolegyne s prosbou o pomoc s vyjasnenim jedne vety. Jelikoz si sam nejsem
    Message 1 of 12 , May 2 10:29 AM
      Mile kolegyne a kolegove (nejspise asi cesti rodili mluvci),

      obratila se na mne jedna kolegyne s prosbou o pomoc s vyjasnenim jedne vety.
      Jelikoz si sam nejsem zcela jist, prosim o radu.
      Uryvek z jejiho dopisu je zde :


      "nechci moc obtezovat, ale potrebovala bych pomocit s jednou vetou.
      Jde o zavet z USA a k ni je pripojeny papir od soudu s nazvem DECREE
      ADMITTING WILL TO PROBATE, kde v podstatě potvrzuji, ze je ta zavet prava a
      ze se muze zacit rizeni. Zacina to ale vetou, se kterou si moc nevim rady,
      hlavne s
      "jurisdiction has been obtained of all persons" , ktere mají pravo byt
      vyrozumeny o tomto rizeni:

      It appearing that satisfactory proof having been made that jurisdiction has
      been obtained of all persons entitled to notice of this proceeding....

      Je to, ze soud ma dostatecne dukazy o tom, ze ma pravomoc vyrozumet ty
      osoby???
      Predem dekuji za pomoc"

      Potud uryvek z dopisu. I ja predem dekuji vsem za pomoc.
      Pavel
    • Jirka Bolech
      Ahoj Pavle, ... has been obtained of all persons entitled to notice of this proceeding.... Gramaticky mi neni uplne jasny zacatek vety; bud tam neco schazi
      Message 2 of 12 , May 2 11:17 AM
        Ahoj Pavle,

        > It appearing that satisfactory proof having been made that jurisdiction
        has been obtained of all persons entitled to notice of this proceeding....

        Gramaticky mi neni uplne jasny zacatek vety; bud tam neco schazi nebo to na
        neco navazuje jinak nez jako zacatek nove vety.

        Od prvni spojky 'that' to chapu tak, ze "bylo dostatecne prokazano, ze byla
        obdrzena jurisdikce vsech osob, ktere jsou opravneny byt upozorneny na toto
        rizeni...". "Obdrzeni jurisdikce" podle me znamena obdrzeni informaci o tom,
        do jake jurisdikce, cili soudni pusobnosti, tyto osoby patri. To asi v
        zasade hlavne zalezi na tom, jake zeme je kdo statnim prislusnikem, jinymi
        slovy se zrejme predpoklada, ze by jina nez americka jurisdikce mohla mit
        dopad na prubeh rizeni, a mozna to je i tak, ze i v ramci Spojenych statu
        jsou rozdilne jurisdikce podle jednotlivych statu. To se ale jen dohaduji.

        Mazne u kriticke fraze mate jenom slovosled, protoze by asi bylo
        srozumitelnejsi 'jurisdiction of all persons has been obtained", ale vnimam
        to jako platnou alterntivu...

        Jirka Bolech
      • Romana
        Mily Pavle, Je to chybna anglictina. Podle mne by tato veta mela znit: It appears that satisfactory proof has been provided and that the place of jurisdiction
        Message 3 of 12 , May 3 3:09 AM
          Mily Pavle,

          Je to chybna anglictina. Podle mne by tato veta mela znit:

          It appears that satisfactory proof has been provided and that the place of
          jurisdiction has
          been obtained of all persons entitled to receive a notice of these
          proceedings....

          "The place of jurisdiction" se pravdepodobne vztahuje na soud prislusny pro
          bydliste prijemce "notice".

          S pozdravem

          Romana
          (z Australie)


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of Pavel Trusina
          Sent: Saturday, 3 May 2008 3:00 AM
          To: czechlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [Czechlist] Term - Eng - Jurisdiction

          Mile kolegyne a kolegove (nejspise asi cesti rodili mluvci),

          obratila se na mne jedna kolegyne s prosbou o pomoc s vyjasnenim jedne vety.

          Jelikoz si sam nejsem zcela jist, prosim o radu.
          Uryvek z jejiho dopisu je zde :


          "nechci moc obtezovat, ale potrebovala bych pomocit s jednou vetou.
          Jde o zavet z USA a k ni je pripojeny papir od soudu s nazvem DECREE
          ADMITTING WILL TO PROBATE, kde v podstatě potvrzuji, ze je ta zavet prava a
          ze se muze zacit rizeni. Zacina to ale vetou, se kterou si moc nevim rady,
          hlavne s
          "jurisdiction has been obtained of all persons" , ktere mají pravo byt
          vyrozumeny o tomto rizeni:

          It appearing that satisfactory proof having been made that jurisdiction has
          been obtained of all persons entitled to notice of this proceeding....

          Je to, ze soud ma dostatecne dukazy o tom, ze ma pravomoc vyrozumet ty
          osoby???
          Predem dekuji za pomoc"

          Potud uryvek z dopisu. I ja predem dekuji vsem za pomoc.
          Pavel





          ------------------------------------

          Translators' tricks of the trade:
          http://czeng.wetpaint.com/




          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Michael Trittipo
          Pavel Trusina napsal: It appearing that satisfactory proof having been made that jurisdiction has been obtained of all persons entitled to notice of this
          Message 4 of 12 , May 3 8:54 AM
            Pavel Trusina napsal:
            "'It appearing that satisfactory proof having been made that
            jurisdiction has been obtained of all persons entitled to notice of
            this proceeding....'

            Je to, ze soud ma dostatecne dukazy o tom, ze ma pravomoc vyrozumet
            ty osoby???"

            Ne. Jde o to, zda ma soud pravomoc _nad jistymi osobami_.

            Zacinam tim, ze veta neni vubec chybna. Samozrejme jste napsal
            celou vetu. Tady mame jenom prvni cast; veta pokracuje po carce.
            Ale ta cast je perfektne bezvadna.

            Kdybych mel to prepsat, asi bych to prepsal tak, ze bych udelal od
            prvni zavisle vety samostatnou vetu, a zmenil bych trochu jinde
            takhle: "Satisfacotry proof has been made that jurisdiction has been
            obtained _over_ all persons who are entitled to notice of this
            proceeding." Potom bych pokracoval s druhou casti vety, kterou jste
            nenapsal. "Jurisdiction over" je obvyklejsi v pravnictine nez
            "jurisdiction of," kdzy jde o pravomoc nad osobami ("in personam").
            Ale jak vidite, nezmenil jsem moc, a originalni neni chybna.

            Jirka ma pravdu, kdyz pise ze "to chap[e] tak, ze 'bylo dostatecne
            prokazano, ze byla obdrzena jurisdikce vsech osob, ktere jsou
            opravneny byt upozorneny na toto rizeni...'"

            Mozna, ze pod vlivem svou materske anglictiny bych napsal "Vzhledem
            k tomu ze bylo dostatecne prokazano, ze byla ziskana** pravocmoc
            soudu nad vsemi osobami, ktere maji pravo na upozorneni ze tohle
            rizeni existuje." Ale smysl je stejny.

            Mozna, ze problem pro ceskeho ctenare je v obsahu vety, ne ve
            slovech ani v gramatice. Ceske soudy obvykle mluvi jenom o
            pravomoci vecne a o pravomoci mistne, skoro nikdy nemluvi o
            pravomoci nad tim nebo jinym clovekem.

            Napriklad, v jedne knize se pise: "Soud musi zkoumat, zda byla
            zaloba podana u prislusneho soudu, a to prislusneho mistne
            (zpravidla podle bydliste ci sidla zalovaneho) i vecne (zda vec
            spada do pravomoci soudu a zda je tedy vubec opravnen o ni jednat).
            ... Pote, kdy soud overi, ze jsou splneny podminky, za nichz
            muze ve veci jednat (vecna a mistni prislusnost soudu, procesni
            zpusobilost ucastniku a dalsi), naridi ...." (Sima/Suk, Zaklady
            prava pro stredni a vyssi odborne skoly, 1997).

            Tam neni ani slovo o tom, ma-li soud pravomoc _nad zalovanym_. V
            ceskych podminkach, otazka mistni pravomoc _ve veci_ zda byt
            tototzna s otazkou, jestli ma pravomoc nad zalovanym. Ve Spojenych
            statech jsou ale dve rozlisne samostatne otazky. Jeden stat (napr.
            Minnesota) muze byt mistne i vecne prislusny, ale jestli nema TAKY
            pravomoc _nad zalovanym_, nemuze ve veci jednat. The Court must
            _obtain_ jurisdiction over the defendants; it doesn't _have_
            jurisdiction over anyone, until certain conditions are met.

            Tady jso tri dalsi pripady velmi podobneho pouziti te terminologie
            "obtain":

            "A court can enter a valid judgment in personam only, when
            jurisdiction has been obtained by personal service of process in the
            state, although it does not matter that the defendant was in the
            state only briefly."
            -- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877)

            "Valid service of process is a prerequisite to in personam
            jurisdiction. Jones v. Fliteline Motors, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 179, 181
            (Mo.App. W.D. 1991). "Failure to comply with statutory requirements
            governing process deprives the court of authority to adjudicate."
            Id. (citations omitted). When a court enters judgment when no valid
            personal jurisdiction has been obtained over the defendant, the
            judgment is void. Id."
            -- Grooms v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co., (Mo. Ct. App. ED77337,
            filed 10/24/2000)

            "No personal jurisdiction has been obtained over the taxpayer Omar.
            ... Furthermore, in United States v. Ross, 302 F.2d 831 (2d Cir.,
            1962) the power of a district court to order the taxpayer, over whom
            personal jurisdiction had been obtained, to transfer stock
            certificates, located in the Bahamas, to a receiver appointed by the
            district court, was upheld. See also S.E.C. v. Minas De Artemisa,
            S.A., 150 F.2d 215 (9th Cir., 1945)."
            -- U.S. v. First Nat'l City Bank, 321 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1963)


            Michal Trittipo
            J.D. 1981 U. of Minn. Law
          • Jirka Bolech
            Hi Michael: Great you ve pitched in. Great for that colleague of Pavel s anyway. I d like to ask, if you spare a minute, just out of curiosity (being a perfect
            Message 5 of 12 , May 3 9:19 AM
              Hi Michael:

              Great you've pitched in. Great for that colleague of Pavel's anyway.

              I'd like to ask, if you spare a minute, just out of curiosity (being a
              perfect legal layman): is it in the United States in this kind of proceeding
              that, although all of the participants are US citizens, they may fall under
              different jurisdictions? Is that only about courts' scopes of power or may
              different rules apply to them because of different state legislations?

              Jirka Bolech
            • James Kirchner
              ... Usually different laws apply in different states. This is why most contracts will specify the state under whose law disputes will be settled, much as they
              Message 6 of 12 , May 3 11:56 AM
                On May 3, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Jirka Bolech wrote:

                > I'd like to ask, if you spare a minute, just out of curiosity (being a
                > perfect legal layman): is it in the United States in this kind of
                > proceeding
                > that, although all of the participants are US citizens, they may
                > fall under
                > different jurisdictions? Is that only about courts' scopes of power
                > or may
                > different rules apply to them because of different state legislations?

                Usually different laws apply in different states. This is why most
                contracts will specify the state under whose law disputes will be
                settled, much as they do in Europe when they specify the country of
                jurisdiction.

                If the state is not specified in the contract, then some interstate
                disputes have to be settled in federal court, but others are tried
                wherever the hell the plaintiff thinks he'll get the best deal. He
                might file suit in a state where neither one of the parties live or do
                business, if he thinks the outcome will be better. Sometimes
                plaintiffs even choose municipalities for the same reason. Certain
                states and cities are known for having "Santa Claus juries", and
                people know that if they take their disputes there, they have a better
                chance of an outrageously big damage settlement, such as $1.3 million
                for coffee being too hot or $2.5 million because a BMW dealer carried
                out routine dealer prep and paint touchup before selling a car. (Most
                of these really wild settlements are overturned on appeal, by the way.)

                Banks like to locate their credit card subsidiaries in states that
                have no usury laws, such as Delaware. This is why, even though the
                company is really in New York, Chicago, Detroit or Charlotte, North
                Carolina, they've got a token headquarters in some state that allows
                them to charge stratospheric, Jimmy-Carter-era interest rates.

                If a criminal offense involves crossing state lines, then it comes
                under federal law. For example, in the old days, when it was legal in
                some states to get married at 12, if you drive a 13-year-old girl
                from Ohio to Kentucky in order to have sex with her legally, you
                weren't guilty of statutory rape in Kentucky, but you were guilty of a
                federal crime called something like "transporting a minor across state
                lines for immoral purposes", which also had a very stiff penalty.

                If a serial killer or someone murders in more than one state, the
                states agree on which state will prosecute him in what order. If it's
                a slam-dunk, red-handed conviction, they usually give it to whichever
                state has the death penalty, and then the other states don't have the
                case clogging up their schedule.

                In some smaller, crazier civil cases, the disputants agree to have the
                case heard and settled on TV by a retired or currently inactive
                judge. This gets dumb cases off the schedule, and it makes great TV.
                Here are a couple of cases for your viewing pleasure.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r13fttHz_s

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnJnA_mt_UA

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJDK6ctRjqw

                It's all real. No actors.

                That's probably not how a lawyer would explain it, but that's how an
                avid new reader would describe it.

                Jamie




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jirka Bolech
                Hi Jamie: Thanks for your comments. The YouTube videos you ve sent links to are sort of hilarious. US courtrooms are sometimes much like showbiz. On the other
                Message 7 of 12 , May 3 1:47 PM
                  Hi Jamie:

                  Thanks for your comments. The YouTube videos you've sent links to are sort
                  of hilarious. US courtrooms are sometimes much like showbiz. On the other
                  hand, the judges seem to be much more efficient than anything I've ever
                  heard or been part of taking place in the Czech Republic...

                  Jirka Bolech
                • Michael Trittipo
                  ... Yes, you re right, if I m understanding the question: just being a U.S. citizen doesn t mean being subject to suit any any court in the U.S. To the
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 3 3:29 PM
                    Jirka Bolech wrote:
                    > I'd like to ask, if you spare a minute, just out of curiosity (being a
                    > perfect legal layman): is it in the United States in this kind of proceeding
                    > that, although all of the participants are US citizens, they may fall under
                    > different jurisdictions? Is that only about courts' scopes of power or may
                    > different rules apply to them because of different state legislations?

                    Yes, you're right, if I'm understanding the question: just being a
                    U.S. citizen doesn't mean being subject to suit any any court in the
                    U.S. To the contrary, most people can be made defendants in only a
                    few courts, and all the others lack power over them. It is because
                    the scope of the court's proper exercise of power is limited.

                    That's because each state is technically a different country (that
                    has given up some of its sovereignty to the central government), and
                    most lawsuits are handled in state courts, not in the federal
                    (national) system.

                    Just as France's courts can't reach into the Czech Republic, and the
                    Slovak courts can't reach into Spain, even though all of each
                    country's citizens are "Europeans," neither can Indiana's courts
                    touch a California defendant, nor Oregon touch a South Dakotan
                    defendant, unless the defendant's contacts with the would-be forum
                    state exceed a certain minimum threshold level.

                    Thus, Jamie can't maintain a lawsuit against me in Michigan; I have
                    insufficient contacts with Michigan for it to do so. He could
                    always waste money trying to sue me there, but I can guarantee he'd
                    fail: the Michigan courts would throw the suit out because they
                    couldn't obtain jurisdiction over me.

                    That's actually true of the federal courts, too, in most cases.
                    There are some extra wrinkles, that I won't get into. But there's
                    not a month that goes by that I don't read a judge's decision
                    telling the plaintiff that the judge has to throw out plaintiff's
                    lawsuit, precisely because the defendant doesn't have sufficient
                    contacts with the state where the court sits.

                    Actually, the existence of different rules because of different
                    state legislations (different rules in Italy than in Switzerland) is
                    not a limit on the courts' powers. There's no reason why an Iowa
                    court can't apply New York law (if that's the right body of law to
                    apply) or vice-versa.

                    I hope that answers your questions?
                  • James Kirchner
                    ... I think the cases chosen for those shows are the ones that make the best showbiz. They re very entertaining, but they re often educational at the same
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 3 3:53 PM
                      On May 3, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Jirka Bolech wrote:

                      > Thanks for your comments. The YouTube videos you've sent links to
                      > are sort
                      > of hilarious. US courtrooms are sometimes much like showbiz.

                      I think the cases chosen for those shows are the ones that make the
                      best showbiz. They're very entertaining, but they're often
                      educational at the same time. I understand that after they started
                      showing real cases on TV, instead of actors, judges noticed people
                      showing up in court better prepared.

                      My favorite case ever was one where a young woman had collected $3,000
                      in parking tickets in her sister's car and then went to prison on a
                      drug charge. She was out again, and her sister was suing her to get
                      the money back from paying the parking fines. The deadbeat insisted
                      to the judge that she didn't have to pay the money, "Because Jesus
                      done forgive my debts when I became a Christian in prison." The judge
                      barked at her, "Jesus died for your SINS, not for your parking tickets!"

                      You don't have to watch TV to see cases like that, though. One of my
                      sisters used to skip school and spend the day watching court trials.

                      > On the other hand, the judges seem to be much more efficient than
                      > anything I've ever
                      > heard or been part of taking place in the Czech Republic...

                      These happen to be the cases selected because they could be resolved
                      within 15 minutes or a half hour.

                      Jamie




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • James Kirchner
                      ... This is true even to the point that if one state wants to try a criminal who is resident in another state, they have to request extradition from that
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 3 4:01 PM
                        On May 3, 2008, at 6:29 PM, Michael Trittipo wrote:

                        > That's because each state is technically a different country (that
                        > has given up some of its sovereignty to the central government), and
                        > most lawsuits are handled in state courts, not in the federal
                        > (national) system.

                        This is true even to the point that if one state wants to try a
                        criminal who is resident in another state, they have to request
                        extradition from that state, just as they would from another country.

                        And sometimes that extradition is refused. In high school we were
                        taught about a case where a man crossed the state line in order to
                        escape prosecution for a crime he'd committed. Decades later, the
                        state he'd left from found him and requested extradition. However, in
                        the meantime the man had become a completely model citizen -- not only
                        never committing any more crimes, but also greatly contributing to the
                        betterment of his community. His state of residence refused to turn
                        him over for prosecution.

                        Jamie




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Jirka Bolech
                        Thanks, Michel and Jamie, for educating me further on the subject. We ve basically started a new thread and not a very linguistic one. ... within 15 minutes or
                        Message 11 of 12 , May 3 11:32 PM
                          Thanks, Michel and Jamie, for educating me further on the subject. We've
                          basically started a new thread and not a very linguistic one.

                          > These happen to be the cases selected because they could be resolved
                          within 15 minutes or a half hour.

                          To pay justice (in exchange ;-)) to the Czech Republic's courts, they do
                          deal with some cases efficiently, for example if you fail to have a valid
                          fare ticket using city transport and refuse to pay the fine if cought by the
                          wardens (or whatever you would call these guys who on a random basis check
                          the passsangers for having paid the fare). There's normally no standing for
                          that, only a kind of buraeucratic procedure. The same for failing to pay
                          your insurance policy; policy contracts leave no space for defence.

                          I also admit that the cases in those three particular YouTube shots were
                          rather simple and the defendants rather simple too (although the middle one
                          [as listed] was just unlucky to upset the judge). What I can't imagine being
                          in this country is the way the judges shown there speak to the defendants.
                          Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the only real difference is we don't yet have TV
                          shows like that over here...

                          Jirka Bolech
                        • James Kirchner
                          ... The fact that it doesn t deal with syntax or linguistic terminology doesn t mean it s not useful to translators. I m finding more and more that people s
                          Message 12 of 12 , May 5 5:21 AM
                            On May 4, 2008, at 2:32 AM, Jirka Bolech wrote:

                            > Thanks, Michel and Jamie, for educating me further on the subject.
                            > We've
                            > basically started a new thread and not a very linguistic one.

                            The fact that it doesn't deal with syntax or linguistic terminology
                            doesn't mean it's not useful to translators. I'm finding more and
                            more that people's problems with translation are often due to an
                            inability to visualize what's behind the words, and absorbing more
                            knowledge about legal systems, technical processes or social behavior
                            helps people make the jump from words on a page to actual
                            understanding and sensible translation.

                            It's possible to know every word on a page, and not understand
                            anything. As I've mentioned before on the list, I demonstrate this
                            with my ESL classes. I give them this paragraph, which contains no
                            words that they don't know:

                            "It was the day of the big party. Jennifer wondered if Tom would like
                            a kite. She went to her room and shook her piggy bank. There was no
                            sound."

                            Then I ask them these questions:

                            1. What kind of party is it?
                            2. How old are Tom and Jennifer?
                            3. Why is there no sound?

                            A woman recently arrived from Lebanon says:

                            1. "The party is a wedding."
                            2. "I don't know how old Tom and Jennifer are, but they're definitely
                            not children."
                            3. "There's no sound because the guests haven't arrived yet."

                            A man from Macedonia says:

                            3. "There's no sound because the wind isn't blowing on the beach, and
                            they can't fly the kites."

                            A woman from Vietnam -- the best student in the class -- says:

                            "I think this paragraph has no meaning!"

                            The Chinese woman agrees.

                            Most of the people who misunderstand the paragraph -- whose meaning is
                            obvious to Americans -- come from countries with no tradition of
                            children's birthday parties or of children having their own money.

                            The same thing can happen to translators, even though they have
                            relatively sophisticated language knowledge. I've done many a repair
                            job on translations that were botched because the first translator
                            couldn't picture the situation. I got one that had a Bohemian glass
                            producer delivering large quantities of glass to St. John twice a
                            year. Of course, by medieval times, St. John had been dead for
                            centuries, but the original translator apparently had no clue about
                            scheduling things according to the Catholic liturgical calendar (such
                            as on the feast of St. John), rather than according to numerical dates.

                            I've seen a Czech interpreter translate an explanation of how vacant
                            housing in an American city is rehabilitated as if the US city were
                            reenacting the 1948 communist seizure of the Czech bourgeoisie's
                            houses and their breaking them up into apartments. The city was
                            actually selling abandoned houses to people at a discount. The Czech
                            interpreter lacked the mental schema for abandoned housing and its
                            disposal, because this doesn't really exist in Europe.

                            The same day, I saw an American banker talk about a volunteer
                            organization of bankers that met a couple of times a week to research
                            and apply for improvement grants for the city. It was all totally for
                            free, but the then mayor of Brno talked to me later and had understood
                            it as a scheme for flowing the grant money through the banks so that
                            the banks could take a piece of it. This was not stated, and it
                            wasn't happening, but because His Honor the Mayor lacked the right
                            cultural schema in his mind, he completely misunderstood what was
                            being told to him, even in his own language.

                            So this cultural stuff is important.

                            Jamie



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.