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

RE: [Czechlist] Term - Eng - Jurisdiction

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , May 3, 2008
      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 2 of 12 , May 3, 2008
        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 3 of 12 , May 3, 2008
          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 4 of 12 , May 3, 2008
            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 5 of 12 , May 3, 2008
              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 6 of 12 , May 3, 2008
                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 7 of 12 , May 3, 2008
                  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 8 of 12 , May 3, 2008
                    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 9 of 12 , May 3, 2008
                      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 10 of 12 , May 5, 2008
                        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.