Yuubin Ninshou-shi

[gsw]

Hello all.

I wonder if anyone knows of a suitable term for a 郵便認証司. It is a new
position created when Japan Post was privatised.

The term appears in a letter I'm translating.

When Japan Post went private, the civil-servant 郵便職員 became company
employees but, by law, only civil servants are allowed to certify 内容証明郵
便 and the like so they created this new position (国家資格 and all!) so
they'd have staff who are legally able to perform those tasks.

I haven't been able to find an official-looking translation for this
term (one guy has a blog called "Mailclerk--Diary" but "mail clerk"
doesn't cover it). Do you have any suggestions?


Thanks in advance. All help appreciated.


Gareth Swain
trans...@transoul.com

[Richard Thieme]

How about "postal notary"?

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[gsw]

Hello Richard, and thanks for the quick reply.

> How about "postal notary"?

Great! Very helpful.
I was dithering around with "certifier" and all sorts of unwieldy
words. "Postal notary" is much more like it.

Given that it's a kokka shikaku, I wonder if the title needs "public"
somewhere in there...


Gareth Swain
trans...@transoul.com

[Richard Thieme]

----- Original Message -----
From: "gsw" <kiri...@gmail.com>
To: "Honyaku E<>J translation list" <hon...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Yuubin Ninshou-shi

>
> Hello Richard, and thanks for the quick reply.
>
>> How about "postal notary"?
>
> Great! Very helpful.
> I was dithering around with "certifier" and all sorts of unwieldy
> words. "Postal notary" is much more like it.
>
> Given that it's a kokka shikaku, I wonder if the title needs "public"
> somewhere in there...
>

Well it was only my idea. The problem with saying public, is the confusion
with 公証人. Of course a 内容証明郵便物 is also a 公正証書 so that might not
be important, but you are going to have to work that one out for myself.

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[Adam]

On 2009/08/05, at 20:17, "Richard Thieme" <rdth...@gol.com> wrote:

>
>
> that might not be important, but you are going to have to work that
> one out for myself.

Good deal!
>

Har-har,
Adam

[Richard Thieme]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam" <mvag...@gmail.com>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Yuubin Ninshou-shi

>

Thanks for correcting me. I seem to be making these spoonerisms fairly
frequently lately so I am going to have to watch that.

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[gsw]

Thanks Richard. Most helpful.

I've decided to go with "postal notary" without the "public" and flag
it for further discussion with the client.


Gareth Swain

[Rusty Allred]

-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of gsw

"postal notary"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The image I get is Yosemite Sam with one of his revolvers replaced by a
notary's seal...

Rusty Allred
Allen, Texas USA
ru...@mustangtechnology.com

[jknagai]

Keep in mind that the concept of the notary may be very
different in other countries.

In Californiat, the notary public is prohibited from
commenting on the content of a document.

Joseph Kei Nagai




gsw ????????:

[Dale Ponte]

Gareth seems to have already turned in the job, so just for the
record, Joseph's comment touches on some doubt I have about "postal
notary." Not only does it simply sound kinda funny, but it seems to
have no currency.

I'd guess that "on-staff" notary or whatever should do. Other than
notary, "contents verification clerk" plus "postal" gets 62.6K
googits.

So, on-staff contents verification clerk ?

~
Dale Ponte

[Alan Siegrist]

Gareth Swain writes:

> I wonder if anyone knows of a suitable term for a 郵便認証司. It is a new
> position created when Japan Post was privatised.
>
> The term appears in a letter I'm translating.
>
> When Japan Post went private, the civil-servant 郵便職員 became company
> employees but, by law, only civil servants are allowed to certify

> 内容証明郵便 and the like so they created this new position (国家資格 and

> all!) so they'd have staff who are legally able to perform those tasks.

I think therein lies the rub. From what I can tell, 内容証明郵便 has a very
specific role in the Japanese legal system, somewhat analogous to the role
of "serving" a complaint under the US legal system. If you send someone such
a Naiyo Shomei Yubin, you are basically saying you will either sue them or
pursue a settlement of some sort. It is considered a hostile act.

There does not seem to be an exact equivalent in Western countries, where
the personal service of complaints is the norm.

In such cases where there is not an exact equivalent or fixed translation in
the target language (English), I would tend to favor a Romanized Japanese
term with a literal translation or explanation like: Yubin Ninsho Shi (a
"postal attestation clerk" filling a role somewhat analogous to the "server"
of certified legal documents to be delivered by registered mail).

As J.K. Nagai suggested, using a newly coined term with no currency in the
target language may not clarify the situation to the reader at all and may
actually be misleading.

Regards,

Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA

[Dale Ponte]

Alan writes:

>(a "postal attestation clerk" filling a role somewhat analogous to
>the "server" of certified legal documents to be delivered by
>registered mail).

If you'll pardon my impulse to pare down, perhaps just (said Yosemite-
Sam-cum-Notary) "is empowered to serve process"? Though in fact he
has a range of other duties, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_of_process
mentions, if somewhat wiki-flimsily, a possibly relevant discrepancy
concerning Japan under the heading "Civil law systems."

~
Dale Ponte

Thanks, Adam, for fixing things!

[Richard Thieme]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Ponte" <dpo...@cybermesa.com>
To: "Honyaku E<>J translation list" <hon...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Yuubin Ninshou-shi

>

Well actually he isn't really serving process. He is certifying the content
of a document, and that the document was mailed. Someone else in the system
will get the receipt of delivery (assuming the mail is registered).

It is of course interesting that even though they sought fit to have a new
国家資格　for the 郵便確認司 they didn't feel the need for a 配達確認司 for
registered mail.

Which gets to the next question. Is the 内容証明 system unique to Japan, or
invented here? Or is there another country that has, or had, it? I looked on
the website for the German postal system but couldn't find anything.

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[Dwight Van Winkle]

It appears that these officials may certify service of court papers,
including original complaints, by mail carrier delivery of registered
mail, using the 特別送達 procedure. So one might be able to say they
certify service of process, in addition to certifying delivery of
content-verified registered mail. They don't do the service
themselves, though - they certify the mail carrier's report of
delivery. I guess the mail carrier swears an oath?

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/郵便認証司

郵便認証司（ゆうびんにんしょうし）は、内容証明・特別送達とする書留郵便物の認証業務を行うために必要となる国家資格。

http://www.shinginza.com/jitsumu-souron9.htm

６．　特別送達の方式。民事訴訟法における「送達」は、「特別送達」と言って、郵便配達人が配達交付してその事実関係について郵便認証司（郵便会社の管
理職、資格者で郵便局の中にいます）の認証を受けて送達報告書を作成し裁判所に提出することになります。勿論執行官でも手続きは可能です（郵便法４９
条、民事訴訟法１０９条）。郵便配達のほうが執行官より費用も安ですし担当者が地理に詳しく受け取る人の事情に詳しいので通常郵便による方法が利用され
ています。上記の通り、送達は、当事者の裁判を受ける権利、適正公平な裁判に影響する可能性を持つ重大な手続ですので、毎回、このように、確認・証明さ
れ、報告書が記録として保管されることになっているのです。

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/特別送達

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/送達

The 内容証明 system appears to be used to suspend the running of the
prescription period (roughly, statute of limitations), and preserve
one's right to sue.

http://www.naiken.jp/jikou.htm

Dwight Van Winkle

[Dwight Van Winkle]

Actually, it looks like they certify the content of the content-
verified mail. What about its delivery? That's not clear to me from
this article.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/内容証明郵便

[Fred Uleman]

It is my understanding (from having used the system) that naiyou shoumei are not court papers. Rather, these things are more like pre-court papers.
They signal that the sender is serious about pursuing this issue. They are shot-across-the-bow mail, and the purpose of sending them naiyou shoumei is to leave a record of what was sent when -- a record that will stand up in court if it comes to that.

--
Fred Uleman, who would not be unhappy with "mail certification officer"

[demayer]

 

> It is my understanding (from having used the system) that naiyou shoumei are not court papers. Rather, these things are more like pre-court papers.
They signal that the sender is serious about pursuing this issue. They are shot-across-the-bow mail, and the purpose of sending them naiyou shoumei is to leave a record of what was sent when -- a record that will stand up in court if it comes to that.

The Taiwan postal service offers a type of letter (存証信函) that serves the exact same purpose. For what it's worth, I've seen the term translated as evidentiary letter, legal attest letter, and documented certified mail. Google doesn't turn up overwhelming webidence in support of any of these terms, but maybe there's a clue in there somewhere.

 

Dave M, Taipei

 

[Mark Spahn]

> Which gets to the next question. Is the 内容証明 system unique to Japan,
> or
> invented here? Or is there another country that has, or had, it? I looked
> on
> the website for the German postal system but couldn't find anything.
>
> Regards,
> Richard Thieme

I once had occasion, when working for a law office in Japan,
to mail a "content-certified letter" (in Japanese) at a
post office. The sender gets a xerox copy of what was sent,
along with a post-office certification that that letter was
mailed to such-and-such an address on such-and-such a date.

While walking by a lawyer's office in West Seneca, NY
that did not seem very busy, curiousity led me to stop in
and ask what people here do in order to have proof that they
sent a certain person a certain document (e.g., some
legal notice). I was told that there is no way to do this
by U.S. Mail. With a registered letter, the sender gets a
postcard reply signed by the person who accepted the mailing,
but with no proof that the the recipient got a non-empty
envelope containing a document of specified wording.
Strange but true.
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)