Source: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Czechlist/conversations/topics/36375
Timestamp: 2017-05-28 15:31:17+00:00
Document Index: 20228728

Matched Legal Cases: ['soud ', 'soud ', 'soud ', 'soud ', 'Soud ', 'soud ', 'soud ']

Term - Eng - Jurisdiction Expand Messages
Pavel TrusinaMile 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
, 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.
Jirka BolechAhoj Pavle, ... has been obtained of all persons entitled to notice of this proceeding.... Gramaticky mi neni uplne jasny zacatek vety; bud tam neco schazi
, May 2 11:17 AM
> 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...
RomanaMily 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
, May 3 3:09 AM
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
"The place of jurisdiction" se pravdepodobne vztahuje na soud prislusny pro
bydliste prijemce "notice".
(z Australie)
Sent: Saturday, 3 May 2008 3:00 AM
Subject: [Czechlist] Term - Eng - Jurisdiction
obratila se na mne jedna kolegyne s prosbou o pomoc s vyjasnenim jedne vety.
Jelikoz si sam nejsem zcela jist, prosim o radu.
Michael TrittipoPavel Trusina napsal: It appearing that satisfactory proof having been made that jurisdiction has been obtained of all persons entitled to notice of this
, 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 BolechHi 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
, May 3 9:19 AM
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?
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
, 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
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.
Jirka BolechHi 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
, May 3 1:47 PM
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...
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
, 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
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.
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
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.
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
, 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.
Jirka BolechThanks, 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
, 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...
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
, 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:
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.