Yesterday Martin Hohmann, a member of the CDU, was expelled from the party for remarks he made in a speech on October 3rd, which are seen as anti-Semitic. I don’t intend to discuss the speech itself, which I have skimmed. Its main point was that Germans ought not permanently to be seen as beyond the pale, and that other nations could get away with things Germans couldn’t. The comparison that most struck me was a reference to the way Napoleon is remembered in France, with an implied comparison to Hitler – but surely Napoleon’s legacy and Hitler’s were somewhat different?

Anyway, Hohmann said the Jews could just as much be considered a Tätervolk (race of perpetrators) as the Germans. I wondered if there were varying translations – the word Täter can be a problem, but perpetrator seemed the right choice. The Independent had race of perpetrators. The BBC didn’t mention the term. The Guardian had nation of perpetrators. The New York Times wrote:

bq. As an example of those other people, Mr. Hohmann singled out the Jews, whom he called Tätervolk, a German term that has been widely translated as “race of perpetrators” but is probably more accurately translated as “nation of perpetrators.”

It also called Hohmann a legislator, which was a new term to me in this context.

I found nothing in the Telegraph online, but there was an article about the poor quality of German pop music:

bq. So dire has the situation become that some German chart toppers pretend they are foreigners. The red-haired Kelly Family pretend to be Irish, while the singer Sascha hints that he is Canadian….
Predictably, American and British acts are hogging the current top ten, while only three are German. But who has heard of Alexander, Jeanette or Sarah Connor?

Cat recommends bird: The IPKAT recommends Media Beak in the following terms:

bq. What do Larry Flynt, Jessica Lynch, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Gail Hipgrave, Prince Charles and a High Court judge have in common? They all get a mention on Media Beak, a new blog, recommended by the IPKat, which bills itself as “the new hot-off-the-press top topic discussion forum for media law”. The IPKat wishes the Media Beak well, and looks forward to reading his views and news.

The Herald reports that many Scottish lawyers think a new UK supreme court would be unconstitutional in Scotland. (via An Oasis)

The 1707 Act of Union provides that no Scottish case can be heard in an English court. It also removed Scotland’s parliament, but left it its judicial independence. The Faculty of Advocates, the equivalent of the Bar Council in England and Wales, says the supreme court would be unlawful and unconstitutional.

Apparently the Act of Union is entrenched, so it should not be possible for it to be amended (but it must have been an amendment when Scotland was given a parliament). That is one question. Another is, why would the supreme court be an ‘English’ court? It would be for the whole of the UK. And another: how is it that some Scottish appeals (in civil matters) go to the House of Lords?

In fact, the Herald article suggests that the main difficulty is with the proposals for a supreme court in their present form. There have always been one or two Scottish law lords, and similar provisions need to be made for a UK supreme court (if there ever is one). And perhaps the court is too closely integrated into the system of English and Welsh courts for the Scots to accept.

Delia Venables, in her portal for UK legal resources, reports on The Oxford Standard Citation of Legal Authorities, OSCOLA for short, the nearest equivalent in the UK to the U.S. Blue Book (or ALWD, I might add – see earlier entry).

It was produced by the Oxford Law Faculty in consultation with leading academic law publishers and serves as the style guide for the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, as well as for theses written in the Law Faculty.

There is a big OSCOLA and a small OSCOLA, both PDF files, 103 pages and 32 pages in length respectively.

Like everything else, these are house style guides. In particular, many British people don’t like to spell using -ize rather than -ise (but I do), as is the Oxford University Press standard. That’s a peripheral issue, however. Here is a quote from the big OSCOLA:

1 Pinpoint References in Statutes
Rules: Abbreviations are only to be used in footnotes. They adopt the
following format:
section s
sections ss
sub-section sub-s
sub-sections sub-ss
paragraph para
schedule sch
part pt
article art
articles arts
There are no full stops after abbreviations.

Harvard Law School has a good summary of books on this topic.

Via Legal Memo-Randum, The Smoking Gun quotes a genuine job application :

bq. Matthew Toll is in his final year at the Tulane University School of Law and, like many fellow students approaching graduation, is seeking an associate’s position paying at least $70,000 per year. The 25-year-old, though, has taken a unique approach to that hunt. Last month, he sent 20-30 law firms his resume and a five-page interview request drafted to resemble a legal filing … Noting that, “I am VERY hungry right now,” Toll promised prospective employers that, “If my mother’s funeral was the day of a key deposition, I would do the eulogy via teleconference after the deposition.”

Here’s the beginning:

bq. Plaintiff, Matthew S. Toll, pursuant to his lifelong dream of practicing law, hereby requests Defendant, Wolff & Samson, PC, to provide Plaintiff with an interview, whether in person, or via telephone, in Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for an Interview.

The Smoking Gun (mentioned here before) has a big collection of genuine but bizarre legal documents.

Is this real? I heard it quoted on TV today and I’m probably the last person to hear it. It’s said to be have been issued as an internal memorandum by the Deutsche Post, to be attached to § 49 of the Allgemeine Dienstanordnung. It distinguishes between Wertsack (sack for valuables) and Wertbeutel (bag for valuables). It’s all over the Internet – I got it from here (I won’t translate it into English):

bq. Der Wertsack ist ein Beutel, der auf Grund seiner besonderen Verwendung im Postbeförderungsdienst nicht Wertbeutel, sondern Wertsack genannt wird, weil sein Inhalt aus mehreren Wertbeuteln besteht, die in den Wertsack nicht verbeutelt, sondern versackt werden. Das ändert aber nichts an der Tatsache, daß die zur Bezeichnung des Wertsackes verwendete Wertbeutelfahne auch bei einem Wertsack mit Wertbeutelfahne bezeichnet wird und nicht mit Wertsackfahne, Wertsackbeutelfahne oder Wertbeutelsackfahne. Sollte sich bei der Inhaltsfeststellung eines Wertsackes herausstellen, daß ein in einen Wertsack versackter Wertbeutel hätte versackt werden müssen, so ist die in Frage kommende Versackstelle unverzüglich zu benachrichtigen. Nach seiner Entleerung wird der Wertsack wieder zu einem Beutel, und er ist auch bei der Beutelzählung nicht als Sack, sonder als Beutel zu zählen. Bei einem im Ladezettel mit dem Vermerk “Wertsack” eingetragenen Beutel handelt es sich jedoch nicht um einen Wertsack, sondern um einen Wertpaketsack, weil ein Wertsack im Ladezettel nicht als solcher bezeichnet wird, sondern lediglich durch den Vermerk “versackt” darauf hingewiesen wird, daß es sich bei dem versackten Wertbeutel um einen Wertsack und nicht um einen ausdrücklich mit “Wertsack” bezeichneten Wertpaketsack handelt. Verwechslungen sind insofern im übrigen ausgeschlossen, als jeder Postangehörige weiß, daß ein mit Wertsack bezeichneter Beutel kein Wertsack, sondern ein Wertpaketsack ist.

Quelle: Kilian, Jurisprudenz zwischen Technik und Kunst; s. aber auch Anmerkung zu “Dienstweihnachtsbäume”

Here’s a link to the equally spurious text Dienstweihnachtsbäume (official Christmas trees) referred to above.

This reminds me of the text of a bill of regulations for hunting and harvesting attorneys. Here are some extracts:

bq. 370.01 Any person with a valid in-state rodent or snake
hunting license may also hunt and harvest attorneys for
recreational and sport (non-commercial) purposes.

370.02 Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is
permitted. The use of United States currency as bait,
however, is prohibited.

…

370.05 It is unlawful to shout, “WHIPLASH”, “AMBULANCE”, or
“FREE SCOTCH” for the purposes of trapping attorneys.

370.06 It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of
BMW, Mercedes or Porsche dealerships, except on Wednesday
afternoon.