Embezzle

Embezzle (pronounced em-bez-uhl)

In law, fraudulently to appropriate or convert (money or property entrusted to one's care) for one's own use (applied especially to fraud committed by an employee).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English embesilen, from the fourteenth century Anglo-French embesiler, embesillier & embeseillier (to destroy, make away with; to steal, cause to disappear), the construct being em- + beseiller, from the Old French beseiller (to torment, destroy, gouge) of uncertain origin.  The sense of “dispose of fraudulently to one's own use” dates from the 1580s.  The earliest known use of the noun embezzler (one who embezzles) was in the 1660s but it may pre-date that because the noun embezzlement was known in the 1540s while the noun embezzling dates from the early fifteenth century.  The em- prefix (used before certain consonants, most often the labials b and p) was a variant of the Middle English en-.  It was originally from the Old French en- (and an-), from the Latin in- (in, into) but was also from an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin and Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into).  The intensive use of the Old French en- & an- is due to confluence with the Frankish an- (the intensive prefix), related to Old English intensive prefix on-.  It was used to impart the sense of (1) in, into, (2) on, onto, (3) covered, (4) caused or (5) as an intensifier.  Embezzle, embezzles, embezzled & embezzling are verbs and embezzlement & embezzler are nouns; the most common noun plural is embezzler. 

In English law, embezzle was a special class of theft or fraud which was distinguished by two characteristics: (1) the act was committed by a person employed by the owner of the misappropriated property and (2) the property misappropriated was in the (legal) possession of the employee.  The fine distinctions arose early in the development of common law because of the practical difficulties caused by the long-established legal doctrine that to constitute a larceny, the property must be removed from the possession of the owner.  Servants and others were thus able to steal with impunity goods entrusted to them by their masters and a stature of 1529 was enacted, providing that it would be a felony were employees to convert to their own use jewels, money, goods or chattels delivered to them by their employers (masters in the terminology of the time).  It's an illustration of the difference between "in legal possession of" and "lawfully possessing".   

On the way out: Bernard Madoff leaving Manhattan Federal Court, Tuesday, 10 March 2009.

Confessed embezzler Bernie Madoff (1938-2021) embezzled almost US$20 billion using as a platform history's largest (known) Ponzi scheme.  After being arrested, the DoJ (Department of Justice) and the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) stated referring to him as “Bernard Madoff”, the media and most politicians following their lead; it was felt an affectionate diminutive like “Bernie” was no longer appropriate.  Between 1990-1993, during his respectable period, Mr Madoff served three one-year terms as chairman of the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (the Nasdaq (one of those initialisms which became an acronym)); the New York-based stock exchange described usually as "tech heavy").  Even today, Mr Madoff's scheme is sometimes described as "a US65 billion scam" but the actual embezzlement was around US$20 billion, the additional funds all in his imagination.  Predictably, those who did best were the lawyers involved in the case who charged a reputed US$800 million.  

The idea that “theft as a servant” was an offense which deserved a greater punishment that theft by a stranger remains a doctrine in common law jurisdictions, the rationale being that such crime is also a violation of trust.  In Australia, the concept has attracted interest of late because of the increasing frequency of “wage-theft” cases in which employers have been found to have been engaged in deliberately under-paying their staff, sometimes in a manner which is so carefully constructed as to have been held to have been systemic.  In most jurisdictions, the penalties available remain civil but two states have recently passed laws permitting criminal prosecutions of both corporations and individuals.  Legal commentators have generally welcomed the development, noting the frequently cited defense that organizations lacked the resources to deal with the complexity of the award wage system didn’t appear to constrain them when engaging in the tax minimization exercises made possible by the intricacies of tax law.  The law reform does nothing to alter the notion of “theft as a servant” being higher order of offending that done by a stranger but it does slightly redress the injustice of embezzlement by employees being by definition a criminal act yet embezzlement by employers was only ever a matter redressed by civil action and, in a practical sense, usually claimed to be “an error” rather than a “deliberate act”, a defense rarely tolerated if raised by an employee (an in this judges were doubtlessly usually correct).  The first case under a criminal code is now before the Victorian courts.

In idiomatic use, someone with their “fingers in the till” is committing embezzlement.  Synonyms exist but because of precise definitions in law, not all are interchangeable in a legal context.  In general use they include filch, loot, misappropriate, misuse, pilfer, purloin, skim, abstract, defalcate, forge, misapply, peculate, thieve, defalcate, flog, pinch and peculate.  Most tempting because of the rarity is probably the verb peculate (embezzle, pilfer, appropriate to one's own use public money or goods entrusted to one's care) from 1749, from the Latin peculatus, past participle of peculari (to embezzle), from peculum (private property (and originally "cattle"), the related forms being peculated, peculating & peculator.

The Great Crash 1929

The Great Crash 1929 (1955) by JK Galbraith.

Bezzle was a back-formation from embezzle, coined by the economist JK (Ken) Galbraith (1908-2006) in his 1955 book The Great Crash, 1929.  In the technical language of economics, bezzle is the temporary gap between the perceived value of a portfolio of assets and its long-term economic value.  The actions and forces which operate in economies over time create bezzle which unleash consequences understood usually only in retrospect.  The significance of the derivation from embezzlement was that Galbraith called it “the most interesting of crimes”, noting: Alone among the various forms of larceny [embezzlement] has a time parameter. Weeks, months or years may elapse between the commission of the crime and its discovery. (This is a period, incidentally, when the embezzler has his gain and the man who has been embezzled, oddly enough, feels no loss. There is a net increase in psychic wealth.) At any given time there exists an inventory of undiscovered embezzlement in—or more precisely not in—the country’s business and banks.

The conditions which exist at certain times Galbraith observed, are especially conducive to the creation of bezzle, and “…at particular times this inflated sense of value is more likely to be unleashed, giving it a systematic quality”.  Those times tend to be defined by the business cycle in that “…in good times, people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful.  But even though money is plentiful, there are always many people who need more.  Under these circumstances, the rate of embezzlement grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the bezzle increases rapidly. In depression, all this is reversed.  Money is watched with a narrow, suspicious eye. The man who handles it is assumed to be dishonest until he proves himself otherwise. Audits are penetrating and meticulous.  Commercial morality is enormously improved and the bezzle shrinks."

The Great Crash 2005

Crashed and towed, Los Angeles, 2005.

In October 2005, Lindsay Lohan went for a drive in her Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG roadster.  It didn’t end well.  Based on the R230 (2001-2011) platform, the SL 65 AMG was produced between 2004-2012, all versions rated in excess of 600 horsepower, something perhaps not a wise choice for someone with no background handling such machinery though it could have been worse, the factory building 400 (175 for the US market, 225 for the RoW (rest of the world)) of the even more powerful SL 65 Black Series, the third occasion an SL was offered without a soft-top and the second time one had been configured with a permanent fixed-roof.  A production number of 350 is sometimes quoted but those maintaining registers insist it was 400.

Fixed and simonized, Texas, 2007.

By 2007, the car (still with California registration plates (5LZF057) attached) had been repaired, detailed & simonized and was being offered for sale in Texas, the odometer said to read 6207 miles (9989 km).  Bidding was said to be “healthy” so it was thought all's well that ends well but once the vehicle's provenance was brought to the attention of the repair shop, it was realized the celebrity connection might increase its value so it was advertised on eBay with more detail, including the inevitable click-bait of LiLo photographs.  However, either eBay doesn't approve of commerce profiting from the vicissitudes suffered by Hollywood starlets or they'd received a C&D (cease & desist) letter from someone's lawyers and the auction ended prematurely.  It proved a brief respite, the SL 65 soon back on eBay Motors but with the offending part of the blurb limited to "previously owned by high profile celebrity", leaving it to prospective buyers to join the dots.

Jacqueline Kennedy (1929-1994; US First Lady 1961-1963) with the elongated Ken Galbraith who at the time was serving as US ambassador to India.  Galbraith later recalled how difficult it was to get John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963) interested in subjects like agriculture, a matter then (as now) of great matter in the Indian economy.

In other words, there can exist a temporary (and not necessarily short) difference between the actual economic value of a portfolio of assets and its reported market value, especially during periods of irrational exuberance.  At these times, there is “…a net increase in psychic wealth” because (1) the embezzler both feels and is richer while the original owners of the portfolio do not realize that they are poorer.  The classic case studies of the phenomenon are those duped in Ponzi schemes, a mechanism of deception in that two people simultaneously can enjoy the same wealth but the effect is similar when accounting fraud is involved, companies like Enron and WorldCom booking overvalued assets and excessively high stock valuations.   Until accounting frauds are uncovered, there is a collective increase in psychic wealth as the value of the bezzle rises.  Bezzle is of course temporary and when the truth emerges perceived wealth decreases until it once again approximates real wealth but this is not an abstract measure of value, the perceptions greatly influencing patterns of consumption with obvious effects upon the real economy.  Many recessions have followed the unwinding of a bezzle and of course, Galbraith’s 1955 book was about the worst of them, the Great Depression of 1929.

Others have since refined the idea of bezzle, noted investor Charles Munger (b 1924) explaining the net effect of a bezzle doesn’t actually demand that there be some form of constructive embezzlement as described by Galbraith.  It needs only that when the reported market value of an asset or portfolio temporarily exceeds its real economic value (which he defined as the value of future returns on that asset), the economy goes through the same cycle of increase and decrease in psychic wealth.  Munger tracked the way rising asset prices, disconnected from their underlying long-term economic value, can contribute to what he called the febezzle.  The word didn’t linger in the language as bezzle has but his insight certainly has, his point being that rising stock or real estate prices can generate income and wealth effects whether or not these rising prices reflect real increases in the earning capacity of these assets.  When asset prices rise for reasons other an increases in actual productive capacity, the overall economy doesn’t benefit because there will be no corresponding increase in the productive capacity of that economy.  The owners of the over-valued assets so of course feel richer but only temporarily because prices eventually converge to a value that represents their real contribution to the production of goods and services, thus the concern some express during periods of irrational exuberance in markets such as fashionable equities, real estate, cryptocurrencies or tulip bulbs.

Interestingly, Munger was discussing things in the distant world of the 1990s when commentators were expressing concern about the economic pattern in Western economies simultaneously to drive up asset prices while restricting the money supply.  Some of the range of possible consequences of that had unfolded since the early 1980s but those events provided little guidance to what might happen were the same forces to be unleashed when the money supply was allowed rapidly to expand and sold at marginal cost.  In the twenty-first century, the successive reactions of central banks to (1) the “tech wreck” of 2000-2001, (2) the global financial crisis (2008-2011) and (3) the COVID-19 pandemic mean the implications can be explored.

The photograph used on the cover of some editions of Galbraith's book was one of two staged on 30 October 1929 (shortly after the "Wall Street crash") which purported to show investor Walter Clarence Thornton (1903–1990) offering to sell his 1928 Chrysler Imperial 75 Roadster for US$100, a new one at the time typically costing between US$1550-2000 depending on the configuration.  The Imperial name was used by Chrysler for its upper range models between 1926-1954 after which it was the corporation's stand-alone marque designed to compete with Cadillac, Lincoln and Packard, an approach abandoned in 1975 and few care to recall the abortive revival of 1990-1993.  At this time, Mr Thornton was working as a model and the "lost all on the stock market shoot" was just another gig.  He's remembered also for founding the Walter Thornton Modeling Agency which would be one of the most successful in the industry until the mid-1950s when he was the victim of a malicious prosecution.  All charges were dropped before going to court but so much was his reputation damaged by "trial-by-tabloid" he retired to Mexico.

Consecutive

Consecutive (pronounced kuhn-sek-yuh-tiv)

(1) Following one another in uninterrupted succession or order; successive without interruption.

(2) Marked or characterized by logical sequence (such as chronological, alphabetical or numerical sequence).

(3) In grammar & linguistics, as “consecutive clause”, a linguistic form that implies or describes an event that follows temporally from another (expressing consequence or result).

(4) In musical composition, a sequence of notes or chords which results from repeated shifts in pitch of the same interval (an alternative term for “parallel”).

1605-1615: From the sixteenth century French consécutif, from the Medieval Latin cōnsecūtīvus, from the Latin cōnsecūtus (follow up; having followed), from consequī (to pursue) & cōnsequor (to travel).  The construct was consecut(ion) + -ive.  Consecution dates from the early fifteenth century and by the 1530s was used in the sense of “proceeding in argument from one proposition to another in logical sequence”.  It was from the Middle English consecucioun (attainment), from the Latin consecutionem (nominative consecution), noun of action from the past-participle stem of consequi (to follow after), from an assimilated form of com (in the sense of “with, together”) + sequi (to follow (from the primitive Indo-European root sekw- (to follow).  The meaning “any succession or sequence” emerged by the 1650s.  The Latin cōnsecūtiō (to follow after) was from the past participle of cōnsequor (to follow, result, reach).  The –ive suffix was from the Anglo-Norman -if (feminine -ive), from the Latin -ivus.  Until the fourteenth century, all Middle English loanwords from the Anglo-Norman ended in -if (actif, natif, sensitif, pensif et al) and, under the influence of literary Neolatin, both languages introduced the form -ive.  Those forms that have not been replaced were subsequently changed to end in -y (hasty, from hastif, jolly, from jolif etc).  The antonyms are inconsecutive & unconsecutive but (except in some specialized fields of mathematics) “non-sequential” usually conveys the same meaning.  Like the Latin suffix -io (genitive -ionis), the Latin suffix -ivus is appended to the perfect passive participle to form an adjective of action.  Consecutive is a noun & adjective, consecutiveness is a noun and consecutively is an adverb; the noun plural is consecutives.

In sport, the most celebrated consecutive sequence seems to be things in three and that appears to first to have been institutionalized in cricket where for a bowler to take three wickets with three consecutive deliveries in the same match was first described in 1879 as a “hat trick”.  Because of the rules of cricket, there could be even days between these deliveries because a bowler might take a wicket with the last ball he delivered in the first innings and the first two he sent down in the second.  A hat trick however can happen only within a match; two in one match and one in another, even if consecutive, doesn’t count.  Why the rare feat came to be called “hat trick” isn’t certain, the alternative explanations being (1) an allusion to the magician’s popular stage trick of “pulling three rabbits out of the hat” (there had earlier also been a different trick involving three actions and a hat) or (2) the practice of awarding the successful bowler a hat as a prize; hats in the nineteenth century were an almost essential part of the male wardrobe and thus a welcome gift.  The “hat trick” terminology extended to other sports including rugby (a player scoring three tries in a match), football (soccer) & ice hockey (a player scoring three goals in a match) and motor racing (a driver securing pole position, setting the fastest lap time and winning a race).  It has become common in sport (and even politics (a kind of sport)) to use “hat trick” of anything in an uninterrupted sequence of three (winning championships, winning against the same opponent over three seasons etc) although “threepeat” (the construct being three + (re)peat) has become popular and to mark winning three long-established premium events (not always in the same season) there are “triple crowns).  Rugby’s triple crown is awarded to whichever of the “home countries” (England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales) wins all three matches that season; US Horse racing’s triple crown events are the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes and the Belmont Stakes.

Graham Hill (1929–1975) in BRM P57 with the famous (but fragile) open-stack exhausts, Monaco Grand Prix, 3 June 1962.  Hill is the only driver to have claimed motor-racing's classic Triple Crown.

The term is widely used in motorsport but the classic version is the earliest and consists of the Indianapolis 500, the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the Formula One (F1) World Drivers' Championship (only one driver ever winning all three) and there’s never been any requirement of “consecutiveness”; indeed, now that F1 drivers now rarely appear in other series while contracted, it’s less to happen.

Donald Trump, a third term and the 22^nd Amendment

Steve Bannon (left) and Donald Trump (right).

Although the MAGA (Make America Great Again) team studiously avoided raising the matter during the 2024 presidential election campaign, now Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) is President elect awaiting inauguration, Steve Bannon (b 1957 and a one the most prominent MAGAs) suggested there’s a legal theory (that term may be generous) which could be relevant in allowing him to run again in 2028, by-passing the “two-term limit” in the US Constitution.  Speaking on December 15 at the annual gala dinner of New York’s Young Republican Club’s (the breeding ground of the state’s right-wing fanatics), Mr Bannon tantalized the guests by saying “…maybe we do it again in 28?”, his notion of the possibility a third Trump term based on advice received from Mike Davis (1978, a lawyer who describes himself as Mr Trump’s “viceroy” and was spoken of in some circles as a potential contender for attorney general in a Trump administration).  Although the 22^nd Amendment to the constitution states: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”, Mr Davis had noted it was at least arguable this applied only to “consecutive” terms so as Mr Bannon confirmed, there was hope.  Warming to the topic, Mr Bannon went on to say :“Donald John Trump is going to raise his hand on the King James Bible and take the oath of office, his third victory and his second term.” (the MAGA orthodoxy being he really “won” the 2020 election which was “stolen” from him by the corrupt “deep state”.

Legal scholars in the US have dismissed the idea the simple, unambiguous phrase in the 22^nd amendment could be interpreted in the way Mr Bannon & Mr Davis have suggested.  In the common law world, the classic case in the matter of how words in acts or statutes should be understood by courts is Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers (1891) AC 107, a bills of exchange case, decided by the House of Lords, then the UK’s final court of appeal.  Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers was a landmark case in the laws relating to negotiable instruments but of interest here is the way the Law Lords addressed significant principles regarding the interpretation of words in statutes, the conclusion being the primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intention of Parliament as expressed in the statute and that intention must be derived from the language of the statute, interpreted in its natural and ordinary sense, unless the context or subject matter indicates otherwise.  What the judgment did was clarify that a statute may deliberately depart from or modify the common law and courts should not assume a statute is merely a restatement of common law principles unless the statute's language makes this clear.  The leading opinion was written by Lord Herschell (Farrer Herschell, 1837–1899; Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain 1886 & 1892-1895) who held that if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it should be interpreted as it stands, without assuming it is subject to implicit common law principles; only if the language is ambiguous may courts look elsewhere for context and guidance.

So the guiding principle for courts is the words of a statute should be understood with what might be called their “plain, simple meaning” unless they’re not clear and unambiguous.  While the US Supreme Court recently has demonstrated it does not regard itself as bound even its own precedents and certainly not those of a now extinct UK court, few believe even the five most imaginative of the nine judges could somehow construe a constitutional amendment created for the explicit purpose of limiting presidents to two terms could be read down to the extent of “…more than twice…” being devalued to “…more than twice in a row…”.  Still, it was a juicy chunk of bleeding raw meat for Mr Bannon to throw to his hungry audience.

The ratification numbers: Ultimately, the legislatures of 41 of the then 48 states ratified the amendment with only Massachusetts and Oklahoma choosing to reject.  

What the 22^nd amendment did was limit the number of times someone could be elected president.  Proposed on 21 March 1947, the ratification process wasn’t completed until 27 February 1951, a time span of time span: 3 years, 343 days which is longer than all but one of the other 26, only the 27^th (delaying laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives) took longer, a remarkable 202 years, 223 days elapsing between the proposal on 25 September 1789 and the conclusion on 7 May 1992; by contrast, the speediest was the 26^th which lowered the voting age to 18, its journey absorbed only 100 days between 23 March-1 July 1971.  While not too much should be read into it, it’s of interest the 18^th Amendment (prohibiting the manufacturing or sale of alcohol within the US) required 1 year, 29 days (18 December 1917-16 January 1919) whereas the 21^st (repealing the 18^th) was done in 288 days; proposed on 20 February 1933, the process was completed on 5 December the same year.

The path to the 22^nd amendment began when George Washington (1732–1799; first president of the United States, 1789-1797) choose not to seek a third term, his reasons including (1) a commitment to republican principles which required the presidency not be perceived as a life-long or vaguely monarchical position, (2) the importance of a peaceful transition of power to demonstrate the presidency was a temporary public service, not a permanent entitlement and (3) a desire not to see any excessive concentration of power in one individual or office.  Historians have noted Washington’s decision not to seek a third term was a deliberate effort to establish a tradition of limited presidential tenure, reflecting his belief this would safeguard the republic from tyranny and ensure no individual indefinitely could dominate government.

AI (Artificial Intelligence) generated images by Stable Diffusion of Lindsay Lohan and Donald Trump having coffee in the Mar-a-Largo Coffee Shop. 

For more than a century, what Washington did (or declined to do) was regarded as a constitutional convention and no president sought more than two terms.  Theodore Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; US president 1901-1909), celebrating his re-election in 1904 appeared to be moved by the moment when, unprompted, he announced: “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination” and he stuck to the pledge, arranging for William Howard Taft (1857–1930; president of the United States 1909-1913 & chief justice of the United States 1921-1930) to be his successor, confident he’d continue to pursue a progressive programme.  Taft however proved disappointingly conservative and Roosevelt decided in 1912 to seek a third term.  To critics who quoted at him his earlier pledge, he explained that “…when a man at breakfast declines the third cup of coffee his wife has offered, it doesn’t mean he’ll never in his life have another cup.”  Throughout the 1912 campaign, comedians could get an easy laugh out of the line: “Have another cup of coffee”? and to those who objected to his violating Washington’s convention, he replied that what he was doing was “constitutional” which of course it was.

Puck magazine in 1908 (left) and 1912 (right) wasn't about to let Theodore Roosevelt forget what he'd promised in 1904.  The cartoon on the left was an example of accismus (an expression of feigned uninterest in something one actually desires).  Accismus was from the Latin accismus, from Ancient Greek ακκισμός (akkismós) (prudery).  Puck Magazine (1876-1918) was a weekly publication which combined humor with news & political satire; in its use of cartoons and caricatures it was something in the style of today's New Yorker but without quite the same tone of seriousness.

Roosevelt didn’t win the Republican nomination because the party bosses stitched thing up for Taft so he ran instead as a third-party candidate, splitting the GOP vote and thereby delivering the White House to the Democrats but he gained more than a quarter of the vote, out-polling Taft and remains the most successful third-party candidate ever so there was that.  His distant cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, US president 1933-1945) was the one to prove the convention could be ignored and he gained not only a third term in 1940 but also a fourth in 1944.  FDR was not only a Democrat but also a most subversive one and when Lord Halifax (Edward Wood, 1881–1959; British Ambassador to the United States 1940-1946) arrived in Washington DC to serve as ambassador, he was surprised when one of a group of Republican senators with whom he was having dinner opened proceedings with: “Before you speak, Mr Ambassador, I want you to know that everyone in this room regards Mr Roosevelt as a bigger dictator than Hitler or Mussolini.  We believe he is taking this country to hell as quickly as he can.”  As a sentiment, it sounds very much like the discourse of the 2024 campaign.

"The Trump Dynasty has begun" four term coffee mugs (currently unavailable) created for the 2020 presidential campaign. 

The Republicans truly were appalled by Roosevelt’s third and fourth terms and as soon as they gained control of both houses of Congress began the process of adding an amendment to the constitution which would codify in that document the two-term limit Washington had made a convention.  It took longer than usual but the process was completed in 1951 when the 22^nd Amendment became part of the constitution and were Mr Trump to want to run again in 2028, it would have to be repealed, no easy task because such a thing requires not only the concurrence of two thirds of both the House of Representatives & Senate but also three quarters of the legislatures of the fifty states.  In other countries where presidential term limits have appeared tiresome to those who have no intention of leaving office the “work-arounds” are usually easier and Mr Trump may cast the odd envious eye overseas.  In Moscow, Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) solved the problem by deciding he and his prime-minister temporarily should swap jobs (though not authority) while he arranged a referendum to effect the necessary changes to the Russian Constitution.  The point about referendums in Russia was explained by Comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) who observed: “it matters not who votes, what matters is who gets to count the votes.”  Barring accidents or the visitation of the angel of death, Mr Putin is now set to remain as president until at least the mid-2030s.  

Some mutual matters of interest: Donald Trump (left) and Vladimir Putin (right).

There have been many African presidents who have "arranged" for constitutional term limits to be "revised" but the most elegant in the handling of this was Pierre Nkurunziza (1964–2020; president of Burundi 2005-2020) who simply ignored the tiresome clause and announced he would be standing for a third term, tidying up loose ends by having Burundi's Constitutional Court declare the president was acting in accordance with the law.  It would seem the principle of statutory interpretation in Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers wasn't brought before the court (formerly part of the empire of Imperial Germany and later a Belgian-administered territory under a League of Nations mandate, Burundi follows the civil law tradition rather than the common law inheritance from the old British Empire) and shortly before the verdict was handed down, one judge fled into exile, claiming the government had applied "pressure" on the court to deliver a ruling favorable to the president. 

Pheasant

Pheasant (pronounced fez-uhnt)

(1) Any of various long-tailed gallinaceous birds of the family Phasianidae, esp Phasianus colchicus (ring-necked pheasant), having a brightly-coloured plumage in the male: native to Asia but now widely dispersed.

(2) Any of various other gallinaceous birds of the family Phasianidae, including the quails and partridges

(3) Any of several other gallinaceous birds, especially the ruffed grouse.

(4) The meat of such a bird, served as food.

1250–1300: From the Middle English fesaunt & fesant, from the Anglo-French fesaunt, from the Old French fesan, from the Latin phāsiānus, from the Ancient Greek φᾱσιανός (phāsiānós órnis) (Phasian bird; bird of the river Φᾶσις (Phâsis (in Colchis in the Caucauses were the birds existed in prolific number)), named after the River Phasis, in which flows into the Black Sea at Colchis in the Caucauses.  It replaced the native Old English wōrhana, a variant of mōrhana.  The ph- from the Greek was restored in English by the late fourteenth century while the wholly unetymological -t exists because of confusion with –ant (a suffix of nouns, formed from present participle of verbs in first Latin conjugation (ancient, pageant, tyrant, peasant; also talaunt, a former Middle English variant of talon, etc.).  The Latin was the source also of the Spanish faisan, the Portuguese feisão, the German Fasan and the Russian bazhantu; the Welsh was ffesant and the Cornish fesont.  In England, Pheasant was used as surname from the mid-twelfth century (and assumed occupational (pheasant farmer)).  The form in the Medieval Latin was fasianus.  A pheasantry is a place for keeping and rearing pheasants and the most common collective noun for a group of pheasants is bevy (less commonly a bouquet (when flushed), or nye.  Pheasant & pheasantry are nouns, pheasantless & pheasantlike are adjectives; the noun plural is pheasants.

The golden pheasants

Chrysolophus pictus (the golden pheasant or Chinese pheasant).

There are more than two dozen taxonomic species within the family Phasianidae (pheasants), one of which is the golden pheasant (Chrysolophus pictus, known also as the “Chinese pheasant”), a game bird native to the forests of mountainous areas of western China.  The plumage of the males is famously vibrant which makes it a favorite among bird watchers and photographers while the female is a duller-mottled brown plumage, something common among many avian species including the peacock & peahen, the evolutionary advantage being the fine camouflage it afforded against the forest floor.

Nazi Kreisleiter (District Leader) standard four pocket open collar tunic (circa 1940).  The party’s regulations about uniforms first appeared in 1920 and the details were often revised until things were standardized in 1939.

In the Third Reich (1933-1945) the term Goldfasane (golden pheasants) was a derisive nickname used of high-ranking members of the Nazi Party (and their wives), the name an allusion to (1) the golden hue of the fabric of the party uniform, (2) their tendency to appear well fed (al la a plump pheasant fattened for slaughter) at a time when much of the population was living under harsh food rationing and (3) their ostentation and self-importance (like a colorful and strutting pheasant).  Shades of brown actually became the part’s official color only by chance.  When Germany lost its African and tropical Pacific colonies after World War I (1914-1948), a huge stock of khaki uniforms and other kit became available and these the party purchased at low cost.  As a general principle, the more exalted the office, the more golden the shade of fabric used for the garb.

Portrait of Auguste Escoffier.  The decoration is the Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur (National Order of the Legion of Honour, France’s highest order of merit, awarded to both civilians and the military.  It was established in 1802 by Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815)).  It’s a wholly appropriate honor for a French chef.

The Brigade de cuisine (kitchen brigade) was a hierarchical organizational chart for commercial kitchens, codified from earlier practices by French chef, Georges-Auguste Escoffier (1846–1935) who, following his service in the French army, had refined and codified the the kitchen structure which had existed since the fourteenth century.  The military-type chain-of-command became formalized but what was novel was what he dubbed the chef de partie system, an organizational model based on sections which were both geographically and functionally defined.  His design was intended to avoid duplication of effort and facilitate communication.  The economic realities of technological innovation, out-sourcing to external supply chains and the changing ratio of labour costs to revenue have meant even the largest modern kitchens now use a truncated version of the Escoffien system although the sectional chef de partie structure remains.  In the pre-modern era, Escoffier’s idealized structure was adopted only in the largest of exclusive establishments or the grandest of cruise liners and, like the Edwardian household, is a footnote in sociological, organizational and economic history.  In the late 1870s, after army service of some seven years, Monsieur Escoffier opened his own restaurant in Cannes.  It was called Le Faisan d'Or (The Golden Pheasant).

Kiji-shō (きじ章; Order of the Golden Pheasant).

There is also the Golden Pheasant Award (きじ章 (kiji-shō) or 金鳳賞 (Kinpōshō)), the highest award for adult leaders in the Scout Association of Japan and although it was first conferred in 1952, there’s no record of whether the earlier sardonic German slang was discussed when deciding on a name.  Officially awarded by the Chief Scout of Japan, recipients are chosen by a selection committee (an institution at which the Japanese excel) on the basis of their eminent achievement and meritorious service to the Association for a period of at least twenty years.  Most awards have been granted to Japanese citizens but the distinction may be granted to any member of a scout association affiliated with the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM).  The golden pheasant has symbolic significance in Japanese culture, where pheasants (particularly the green pheasant (Phasianus versicolor), Japan's national bird) have been revered for their grace and connection to nature and they convey an aura of prestige and distinction due to the majestic appearance.  The award consists of a medallion depicting a stylized golden pheasant, suspended from a white ribbon with two red stripes worn around the neck.  The attendant uniform ribbon (worn above the left breast pocket), consists of two red stripes on a white background with a 5 mm golden device of the Japanese Scout emblem.

Lindsay Lohan with an honorary Order of the Golden Pheasant.  (Digitally altered image from Flaunt Issue 195, November 2024, original photograph by the Morelli Brothers).

It is of course a great honor to join the exclusive club of those with a Golden Pheasant but the evidence does suggest it’s something of a kiss of political death for those statesmen (Golden Pheasants a male thing) so dubbed, their careers ending often not well.  Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) was awarded his in 1953 during a visit to Japan while VPOTUS (vice-president of the US (an office he held 1953-1961), the brief ceremony conducted in Tokyo after his luncheon address to the America-Japan Society.  In 1974, Mr Nixon was forced to resign the presidency after revelations of his conduct during the Watergate Scandal.

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (1919–1980; the last Shah of Iran 1941-1979) gained his Golden Pheasant in 1957.  In 1979 he was overthrown in the revolution which brought to power Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989) and the establishment of the Islamic Republic.  Also honored in the same year was Sir Walter Nash (1882–1968; prime-minister of New Zealand 1957-1960); he lost the 1960 general election and never regained power.  A royal recipient was Constantine II (1940–2023; the last King of Greece 1964-1973) who was honored upon assuming the throne in 1964.  Constantine was forced into exile after a military putsch in 1967 (the so-called “Colonels' Coup”) and the monarchy was abolished in 1973, something confirmed by two subsequent referenda (1973 & 1974).

Golden Pheasant aspirant: A Japanese scout pack leader (left) with his pack of cub scouts, circa 1964.

Gerald Ford (1913–2006; US president 1974-1977) was in 1974 created a Golden Pheasant (while VPOTUS) and he went on to lose the 1976 presidential election.  He did however have the satisfaction of knowing not only did the man who beat him (Jimmy Carter (b 1924; US President 1977-1981)) never become a Golden Pheasant, but also turned out to be “a bit of a turkey”.  Paras Bir Bikram Shahdev (b 1971; last Crown Prince of Nepal, heir apparent to the throne 2001-2008) became a Golden Pheasant in 2005.  In 2001, there was what is now an uncommon act of regicide known as the Durbar Hatyakanda (Nepalese royal massacre) which was actually a family squabble, the assassin of nine members of the dynasty (including the king & queen) being Crown Prince Dipendra (1971-2001) who, by virtue of the constitutional arrangements, for three days reigned while in a coma before succumbing to a self-inflicted gunshot wound.  Subsequently, there was a peaceful transition to a republic and in 2008 the world’s last Hindu monarchy was abolished.  Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989) was the last POTUS to become a recipient and his second term was tainted by Iran-Contragate affair.  Given the history, it may be the State Department has instructed the ambassador to Tokyo quietly to inform the Chief Scout presidents prefer not to become Golden Pheasants and that perhaps a gift like a ceremonial woggle would be more appropriate.

Yoshirō Mori san OGP (centre) meeting the official mascots (boy in blue, girl in pink) for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics and Paralympics, Tokyo, 2018.  While serving as president of the Tokyo 2020 organizing committee, an international human rights advocacy group awarded him a “gold medal” for sexism after he complained women members of the committee “talked too much” due to their “strong sense of rivalry”: “If one says something, they all end up saying something.”

Yoshirō Mori (森 喜朗, Mori Yoshirō san, b 1937; prime minister of Japan 2000-2001) actually anticipated the “curse of the Golden Pheasant” leaving office after a gaff-prone two year term some time before he gained the award in 2003.  Mori san was notable for his consistently low approval ratings while prime-minister and most public opinion polls published towards the end of his tenure hovered between 7-12% of Japanese voters having a positive view of his premiership.  However, one newspaper published a poll which reported he had a zero (0%) rating, believed to be the lowest suffered by any politician since polling became (more-or-less) scientific in the 1940s.  It can’t have been much fun for Mori san at breakfast; he’d have just started to enjoy his gohan (steamed rice), misoshiru (miso soup) yakizakana (grilled fish), tsukemono (pickled vegetables), tamagoyaki (rolled omelette) and ryokucha (green tea), only to open the morning paper and find out nobody in the country liked him.  Still, as a consolation, Mori san has his Golden Pheasant.

Pheasant wars: A golden pheasant and a Lady Amherst's pheasant contesting occupancy of a rock.

Pheasant Plucking

The pheasant features in a favorite schoolboy rhyme, said to have origins in an eighteenth century English village where it was composed by Elias, a wandering bard performing at one of the hamlet's “grand pheasant festivals”; he’d been much impressed by the efficient and rhythmic plucking of pheasants by champion pheasant plucker Tom Fletcher.  Whether or not that story is true isn’t known but it (and other variations) is a common tale.  In its modern form the tongue-twister appears usually as:

I'm not the pheasant plucker,
I'm only the pheasant plucker's son,
But I'll keep on plucking pheasants
'Till the pheasant plucker comes.

The verse was soon as much a part of the festivals as the pheasant plucking proper and was popular drinking game, those making a mistake during a recital having to drink a pint of ale before having another attempt.  The extended version read:

I'm not a pheasant plucker,
I'm a pheasant plucker's mate,
And I'm only plucking pheasants
'cause the pheasant plucker's late.
 
Plucking pheasants is a pleasure
when the pheasant plucker's near,
But when pheasants pluck at pheasants,
then the plucking's rather queer.
 
So, if I'm plucking pheasants,
where the pleasant pheasants roam,
I'll pluck enough for supper
till the pheasant plucker's home.
 
And when the pheasant plucker comes,
we'll pluck them side by side,
Through pleasant plains and pheasant fields
where pheasants love to hide.