(Warnung: vereinfachte Darstellung – der Rest lässt sich ergoogeln!).

In England wurde die Ehescheidung früher modernisiert (1969) als in Deutschland (1977), und daher wirkt es etwas merkwürdig. Eine Ehe wird geschieden, wenn sie zerrüttet ist – der einzige Grund – aber dieser Grund muss durch eine von fünf Tatsachen bewiesen werden.
1. Ehebruch – adultery (must be intolerable for other spouse)
2. Unzumutbares Benehmen “unreasonable” behaviour
3. Böswilliges Verlassen – desertion
4. 2-jährige Trennung und Einwilligung des Antragsgegners – separation and consent
5. 5-jährige Trennung

Da 2 Jahre eine lange Zeit ist (bei Trennung), ist es üblich, sich auf Grund von Ehebruch oder unzumutbares Benehmen zu scheiden. Das kann auch fast alles per Post und ohne Anwalt gemacht werden, solange es keine minderjährige Kinder gibt. Der “schuldige” soll nicht finanziell oder im Zuspruch des Sorgerechts benachteiligt werden. Trotzdem kommt es in schlimmen Fällen vor, dass ein richtiger Streit anfängt.

The Daily Mail and other papers got hold of what are apparently Heather Mills McCartney’s divorce papers – more specifically, it looks as if Paul petitioned for unreasonable behaviour and Heather decided to defend the divorce, cross-petitioning for unreasonable behaviour too. The papers are full of her accusations (and of self-questioning as to whether they should have published), but we don’t know what he accused her of. This reminds me of my time as an articled clerk. It’s really a waste of the court’s time to cross-petition, but no doubt we only see the tip of the iceberg.

Here’s the end of the document quoted:

THE RESPONDENT THEREFORE PRAYS:
1. That the prayer of the Petition may be rejected.
2. That the marriage may be dissolved.
3. That she may be granted such ancillary relief by way of maintenance pending suit, periodical payments, secured periodical payments, lump sum or sums, property adjustment orders and pension sharing orders for herself and/or for the said child of the family Beatrice Milly McCartney as may be just.
4. That the Petitioner may be ordered to pay the costs of this suit.

The lawyers.

LATER NOTE: The Sunday Times later established that this leaked document was an earlier draft of the cross petition later filed at court.

Youtube video of Der billige Jakob
at the Michaeliskirchweih in Fürth.

His jokes are usually better. There’s another video of the Kirchweih where I can’t even understand the punchline.

Where a noun ends in s and needs a possessive s, I used to tell students they could write/say either Prince Charles’ ears or Prince Charles’s ears – some people think the latter sounds ugly.

At LegalTimes.com, Jonathan Starble comments on a Supreme Court case, Kansas v. Marsh.
Majority opinion (ThomaS, RobertS, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia): Kansas’ statute
Dissenting opinion (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and StevenS): Kansas’s statute

Souter boldly began his Marsh dissent as follows: “Kansas’s capital sentencing statute provides . . .” This dramatic and gratuitous use of the possessive was an obvious attack on Thomas, who, as one of three s-ending members of the Court, is viewed as a role model for the millions of children who grow up with the stigma of grammatical ambiguity attached to their names.

What I don’t understand is why they didn’t just say the Kansas statute. But there is more:

Yet in other parts of the opinion, Scalia added only an apostrophe to form the words Stevens’, Adams’, and Tibbs’. Based on this, it would seem that he believes the extra s should be omitted if the existing s is preceded by a hard consonant sound.

Who actually does the final polishing to these decisions? I can’t believe the Bundesverfassungsgericht would allow such discrepancies through.

Finally, Starble concludes that the only proper form, at least in American English, is Kansas’s:

By a margin of 7-2, the strict anti-s view appears to be the clear preference of the land’s highest court. Yet experts on American usage overwhelmingly agree that Souter’s approach is the only one that is proper. As explained by Bryan Garner, author of A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, most authorities on the subject recognize only two types of singular nouns for which it is acceptable to omit the additional s: biblical or classical names, such as Jesus, Moses, or Aristophanes, and nouns formed from plurals, such as General Motors or Legal Times. (Journalists are often more liberal in excluding the additional s, but that is typically based on the pragmatic goal of conserving print space rather than on any ideological grounds.)

I really find that odd. I would avoid Kansas’s for euphony, unless it would be ambiguous. And on top of this, the issue is actually one of spoken English too: what did the justices actually say? And Starble does have a subheading ‘What about Arkansas?’ – since the last S in Arkansas is not pronounced, the problem doesn’t arise.

(Thanks to the Forensic Linguistics mailing list)

Seen at zeiser+büttner (does that mean there’s been an amalgamation with Zeiser + Ress? yes, apparently so) in Nuremberg:

A great Christmas present for the law student who has everything. Law students have to have the looseleaf Schönfelder, to take into exams. In this way they can also keep orthopaedic doctors in work in future years when they get problems with their shoulders. Outside Germany you could probably even use it as a handbag. Also works with Sartorius.