5 thoughts on “Trabi customizer

  1. The typos you mentioned do bug me a little. When the Germans concepts appear for the first time, they are spelled correctly.
    However, as the judgment progresses, the judge seems to spell them the way he hears them. Strangely, they apparently did not go over the text to double check for mere consistency. Sloppy proof-reading right there.

    But then again, if they were that interested in legal language, they would probably be regular contributors to this blog.

    • If this were England, I would expect the judgment to come from a transcription service rather than the judge. In Germany, I think judges dictate quite a lot. Since this is an opinion of one judge, I suppose it may well come from the judge himself or his office. At all events, the bailii site got this from the Scottish Courts site:

      I used to enjoy reading a US court reporters’ forum where foreign words, punctuation and spelling were the standing topic. And under the English decisions you often read the name of the transcription service responsible.

      • So you say that in Eglish courts judgments are written not by the judge himself or herself, nor by a clerk of the court, but rather by a freelance transcription service that is also responsible for publishing them? While the judge is not even allowed to proofread the opinion.

        Does practice not almost beg for the losing party to try and bribe the transcription service to gain control whatever appears in the published version of the judgment?

        • You make it sound criminal! From the little I know: I know at the Amtsgericht the judge dictates summaries, but I don’t think the whole transcript is ever made. The common-law decision used to be noted by the parties – the orders, not the whole text. But the proceedings are oral, so a shorthand transcript is often made. I am referring to courts of first instance, btw.
          Look at the High Court decisions at http://www.bailii.org, e.g.[url]http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/142.html[/url]:

          Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
          WordWave International Limited
          A Merrill Communications Company
          190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
          Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
          (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

          It’s probably the only way to get the decision online fast. In the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the parties saw the transcript on the computer immediately, all done by transcription technology. I am not talking about written opinions in appeal cases. I do not see that the judge is not allowed to proofread it.
          If you look up “shorthand writers” in Google you will find a lot of sites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.