Cheater

Cheater (pronounced chee-ter)

(1) A person who cheats.

(2) A device or component used to evade detection of non-compliance with rules or regulations (such as the (Dieselgate) mechanical and electronic devices used by Volkswagen and others to cheat emissions testing programmes).  As a mechanical device a cheater is thus "a modifier" and the would is also often used as one.

(3) Slang for eyeglasses or spectacles (archaic).

(4) In mechanical repair, an improvised breaker bar made from a length of pipe and a wrench (spanner), usually used to free screws, bolts etc proving difficult to remove with a ratchet or wrench alone; any device created ad-hoc to perform a task not using the approved or designated tools.

1300-1350: From the Middle English cheater from cheat, from cheten, an aphetic variant of acheten & escheten, from the Old French eschetour, escheteur & escheoiter, from the noun; it displaced native Old English beswican.  The -er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, probably borrowed from the Latin -ārius.  The adoption was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant was -our), from the Latin -(ā)tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  The suffix was added to a person or thing that does an action indicated by the root verb, thereby forming the agent noun.  The noun cheatery is now rare, existing only in old texts.  Escheat refers to the right of a government to take ownership of estate assets or unclaimed property, most often when an individual dies without making a will and with no heirs.  In common law, the theoretical basis of escheat was that (1) all property has a recognized owner and (2) if no claimants to ownership exists or can be identified, ownership reverts to the King (in modern terms the state).  However, in some circumstances escheat rights can also be granted when assets are held to be bona vacantia (unclaimed or lost property).  The original sense was of the "royal officer in charge of the king's escheats," and was a shortened form of escheater, agent noun from escheat.  The meaning “someone dishonest; a dishonest player at a game” emerged in the 1530s as the Middle English chetour, a variant of eschetour following the example of escheat +‎ -er which evolved in English in the modern form cheater (cheat + -er).

Heav'n has no rage, like love to hatred turn'd, nor Hell a fury like a woman scorn'd. William Congreve, The Mourning Bride (1697).

Cheater cars are a frequent sight on several social media platforms, posted presumably by impressed spectators rather than victims or perpetrators.  Techniques and artistry vary but there does seem to be a trend whereby the more expensive the car, the larger and more lurid will be the lettering.  Red, pink and fuchsia appear the colours of choice except where the automotive canvas is red; those artists adorn mostly in black or white.

Hell also hath no fury like a woman cheated upon.   

For some reason, the (anyway incorrectly quoted) phrase “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is often attributed to William Shakespeare (1564–1616), possibly because it’s plausibly in his voice or maybe because for most the only time the Middle English “hath” is seen is in some Shakespearian quote so the association sticks.  The real author however was actually Restoration playwright William Congreve (1670–1729) who coined the phrase for his 1697 play The Mourning Bride, the protagonist of which, although becoming a bit unhinged by the cruel path of doomed love, doesn’t resort to leporidaecide (bunny boiling).  Congreve’s line, “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned” was good but actually was a more poetic rendition of a similar but less elegantly expressed version another playwright had used a year earlier.  The Mourning Bride is also the source of another fragment for which the bard is often given undeserved credit: “Music has charms to soothe a savage breast” although that’s often bowdlerized as “Music has charms to soothe a savage beast”.

Politicians are notorious liars and cheaters, some even cheerfully admitting it (usually when safely in their well-provided for retirement) but in the privacy of their diaries, they’ll often happily (and usually waspishly) admit it of others.  Although he has a deserved reputation for telling not only lies but big lies, no one has ever disputed Joseph Goebbels’ (1897–1945; Reich Minister of Propaganda 1933 to 1945) assessment of a fellow cabinet member, foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Minister of Foreign Affairs 1938-1945) of whom he said “He bought his name, married his money and cheated his way into power”.

Guilty as sin.  Oliver Schmidt (b 1969; inmate number 09786-104 in US Federal, York Township, Michigan) received a seven year sentence for his involvement in the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal.  Herr Schmidt (right) is pictured here receiving a Ward’s “Best Engine” award in 2015.

Volkswagen certainly gave cheating a bad name and in May 2022 the company announced the latest out-of-court settlement would be Stg£ 193 million (US$242 million) to UK regulators, following the Aus$125 million (US$87 million) imposed by the Federal Court of Australia.  To date, Dieselgate has cost the company some US$34 billion and some criminal cases remain afoot.

Smokey Yunick’s 1966 Chevrolet Chevelle #13 which some alleged was a 7:8 or 15:16 rendition, here aligned against a grid with a stock body.

In simpler, happier times, cheating was sometimes just part of the process and was something of a contest between poacher and gamekeeper.  In the 1960s, NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) racing in the US was a battle between scrutineers amending their rule-book as cheating was detected and teams scanning the same regulations looking for loopholes and anomalies.  The past master at this cheating was Henry "Smokey" Yunick (1923–2001), a World War II (1939-1975) bomber pilot whose ever-fertile imagination seemed never to lack some imaginative idea that secured some advantage while remaining compliant with the letter of the law (at least according to his interpretation).  His cheats were legion but probably the most celebrated (and there would have been judges who would have agreed this one was legitimate) concerned his interpretation of the term “fuel tank capacity”.  NASCAR specified the maximum quantity of fuel which could be put in a tank but said nothing about the steel fuel line running from tank to engine so Mr Yunick replaced the modest ½ inch (12.5 mm) tube with one 11 feet (3.6 m) long and two inches (50 mm) wide, holding a reputed 5 (US) gallons (19 litres) of gas (petrol).  That was his high-tech approach.  Earlier he’d put an inflated basketball into an oversized fuel tank before the car was inspected by scrutineers and when they filled the tank, it would appear to conform to regulations; these days it’d be called “inflategate”.  After passing inspection, Mr Ynuick would deflate the ball, pull it out and top-up his oversized tank for the race.  Pointing out there was nothing in the rules about basketballs didn’t help him but did lead to the rule about a maximum “fuel tank capacity”, hence the later 11 foot-long fuel line.

NASCAR's letter of approval.

Mr Yunick’s 1966 Chevrolet Chevelles were different from the stock models but by the mid 1960s, all NASCAR’s stock cars were.  The difference was certainly perceptible to the naked eye and an urban legend arose that it was a 7:8 (some said 15:16) scale version.  The body’s external dimensions were however those of a stock Chevelle although the body was moved back three inches for better weight distribution, the floor was raised and the underside was smoothed out to improve the aerodynamics.  For the same reason the bumpers were fitted flush with the fenders.  The first car passed inspection (after making the modifications decreed by NASCAR) and took pole position at the 1967 Daytona 500.  He built another imaginative Chevelle for the 1968 race but it never made it past inspection.  In 1990, Smokey Yunick was inducted into the International Motorsports Hall of Fame, a recognition as richly deserved as it was overdue.

Singer and dancer Josephine Baker (1906–1975) with Chiquita, her pet cheetah.

A true homophone of cheater, cheetah (the plural cheetahs) is wholly unrelated.  Cheetahs are large cats (Acinonyx jubatus) of south-western Asia and Africa, resembling a leopard but noted for certain dog-like characteristics which is why they’re sometimes been trained for hunting game (deer, antelope etc) and they have even occasionally been fully domesticated as pets.  Dating from the early eighteenth century, cheetah was from the Hindi चीता (cītā (leopard, panther), from the Sanskrit citraka (leopard) & citrakāya (tiger) the construct being चित्र (citra) (multicoloured; speckled) + काय (kāya) (body, thus “beast with a spotted body”.  The Sanskrit citra was akin to the Old High German haitar (bright), the German heiter and the Old Norse heiðr (bright) and ultimately was from the primitive Indo-European kit-ro-, from the root skai- (to shine, gleam, be bright).  Kāya ultimately was from the primitive Indo-European kwei- (to build, make).  The now archaic alternative spellings were cheetah & cheetah and historically, the creatures were known also as the guepard, hunting cat or hunting leopard.  Understandably, given their size and predatory nature, it’s not uncommon for cheetahs to be referred to as “big cats” but in zoological taxonomy, felinologists restrict the “big cat” classification to the genus Panthera (lions, tigers, leopards, snow leopards & jaguars) and one defining feature of the Panthera cats is their ability to roar, made possible by a specific structure in their larynx.  Lacking the anatomical feature, cheetahs can purr, chirp & hiss but not roar.

A female cheetah at speed.

According to Dr Anne Marie Helmenstine, computer modelling suggests a cheetah should be able (briefly) to attain a speed of 75 mph (120 km/h) although its hunting technique is to maintain an average speed of 40 mph (65 km/h), sprinting to the maximum only when making a kill.  If required, it can go from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds (in three strides) which in the class of the quickest Lamborghinis, Ferraris and such but it’s a sprinter with little endurance, able to sustain its speed for little more than a quarter-mile (400 m).  Still, that’s almost three times as quick as the best recorded human, the men’s world record for the 100 m sprint standing a 9.58 seconds, compared with an eleven year cheetah (in captivity) which was clocked at 5.95 and her top speed of 61 mph (98 km/h) remains the highest verified.  That makes the cheetah the fastest land animal on Earth; only some birds can go faster.

Cheetah cutaway, published in Sports Car Graphics, November, 1963.  Not many front-engined cars had space sufficient to for a plausibly-sized frunk.

A contemporary of the Shelby American AC Cobra (1962-1967) and very much in the same vein, the Cheetah (1963-1966) was designed and constructed by California-based race car builder Bill Thomas (1921-2009).  As part of his work as an engineering consultant, Mr Thomas undertook projects for General Motors (GM), his focus on the somewhat clandestine motorsport activities of its Chevrolet division, and he parlayed this influence into securing corporate support for the concept which became the Cheetah.  The support was practical in that it yielded most of the mechanical components needed for a prototype including a Chevrolet Corvette 327 cubic inch (5.3 litre) V8 engine, Muncie four-speed gearbox, independent rear suspension and a miscellany of stuff from the GM parts bin.  It was obviously the pre-CAD (computer-aided-design) era but Mr Thomas didn’t trouble himself with drawing boards or blueprints, instead laying out the drive-train components on the floor of his workshop in seemed to his practiced eye an ideal arrangement and, with white chalk, he then sketched on the concrete the outline of the chassis frame members.  At that point, a draftsman (with tape measure) was brought in and blueprints were rendered; remarkably, Mr Thomas with great success for decades used this novel design technique.  Once the chassis dimensions were finalized, a body was designed and it’s important to note the project was initially envisaged only as a “concept car”, built for the purpose of impressing GM and thus securing further contracts.  It was conceived as something to be admired rather than used for any serious purpose and it was only as construction continued Mr Thomas sort of “fell in love” with his creation and decided to use it also in competition, something to which its low weight and prodigious power should have made it well-suited.  However, the compromises in chassis design which mattered not at all for a concept car meant some structural rigidity had been sacrificed and that was a quality essential in race cars; later rectification work would be required.  The first two Cheetahs were fabricated in aluminium (later models used GRP (glass reinforced plastic, better known as fibreglass) and one was sent to the Chevrolet Engineering Center for testing and evaluation.

1964 Cheetah with clamshell hood open.

The layout was not so much radical as extreme, the conventional F/R (front engine-rear drive) approach taken to a kind of logical conclusion with the engine located so far back the driver’s legs were alongside the block.  In the same way the “mid-engine” configuration was being defined as “engine behind the driver and in front of the rear axle line”, the Cheetah’s variation was “engine in front of driver and behind the front axle line”, now familiar on race cars and in a number of exotics but novel in the early 1960s.  As well as offering most of the weight-distribution and handling advantages offered by a mid-engine, the Cheetah’s layout avoided the complication of a transaxle but the drawbacks included inefficiencies in packaging (ie a cramped cockpit) and extraordinary heat-soak, the latter a familiar issue in an ears when small, low volume coupés were fitted with large displacement US V8 engines, the elegant AC 428 “Fura” (1965-1973) an exemplar of the phenomenon.  When the Cheetah was tested prior to being used on the track, it was found to be prone to over-heating, largely because the body had been designed to look decorative and no vents had been installed to extract hot air from under the long hood (bonnet).  That was addressed by the use of a larger radiator and the addition of various vents & ducts, along with a full-length belly pan, meaning subsequent versions lacked the visual purity of the original, the effect not dissimilar to the way the addition of this and that to provide for heat management meant the production versions of the Lamborghini Countach (1974-1978) lacked the sleek starkness of the original prototype, first shown at the 1971 Geneva Motor Show.  Still, compared with how subsequent versions of the Countach (1978-1990) would be adorned, the comparative elegance of the early run remains compelling.

1964 Cheetah, note the cut-outs and vents, subsequent additions to handle the heat generation.

The Cheetah’s dubious structural rigidity was a result of the original chassis being merely a quickly-assembled platform on which the striking body could be mounted to be admired but it was marginal for use even as a road car, let alone one subjected to the stresses of competition and even before testing it was anticipated substantial changes would have to be made.  Because so little triangulation had been incorporated in the original design, the chassis was susceptible to the loads imposed by the lateral forces created when negotiating high-speed curves, meaning the suspension geometry changed, challenging even skilled drivers accustomed to the rigid frames which guaranteed at least predictable behavior.  Additionally, for the testing, the Cheetah was provided with more power which exacerbated the alarming tendencies which included the rear suspension’s trailing arms bending, slighting altering (sometimes while at high speed) the location of the wheels.  Adding gusseting and triangulation to the frame and redesigning the trailing arms ameliorated the worst of the characteristics but some things were inherent in the design and subsequently, some owners of Cheetahs, seduced by its many virtues, undertook was essentially a re-engineering of the underpinnings and the many replicas and "continuation" editions significantly differ from the originals.  Still, whatever the quirks, the Cheetah was powerful, light and clearly aerodynamic for in a straight line few could match its pace; the name was chosen for a reason.

Unfortunately, the early 1960s were the end of an era in sports car racing because in addition to the regulatory body changing the rules for the class for which the Cheetah was intended so that 1,000 rather than 100 would be required for homologation, in the top flight, the days of the classic front-engined cars was nearly done and the future lay with the rear-mid configuration.  Given all that, Chevrolet withdrew its support although small-scale production continued and some two-dozen were constructed before the last was built in 1965.  The survivors are now high-priced collectables and there have been dozens of replicas although in the twenty-first century, this cottage industry was stalled by a dispute over ownership to the intellectual property associated with the design.  Predictably, although the Cheetah wasn’t obviously a car in need of more power, some owners of the replicas have concluded exactly that and fitted a variety of engines including big-block V8s and others with turbochargers or superchargers attached.  Fundamentally, what this approach meant was the “handle with care” injunction which applied to the original remained; just more so.

1929 Mercedes-Benz SSK (left) and 1964 Cheetah (right)

The distinctive lines of the Cheetah, its driver sitting over the rear wheels behind a long nose, recalled the pre-war roadsters which provided the model for most of the era’s grand prix cars, the motif lasting into 1960 when (in unusual circumstances in the Italian Grand Prix at Monza), a Ferrari secured one last win for the front-engined anachronisms.  The Mercedes-Benz SSKs (W06, 1928-1932) & SSKLs (WS06RS, 1929-1931) were classic examples and among the last of the road cars able to win top-flight grand prix events.  The red example (above left) is a 1929 model SSK (one of 33 built) and although the hue is untypical of the breed, in fashion and on the highways, the interwar years were more colourful that the impression left by the volume of monochrome and sepia images which form so much of the photographic record.  Interestingly, although Mercedes-Benz race cars are much associated with white (the racing color originally allocated to Germany) and silver (adopted by the factory racing team in the 1930s although in not quite the circumstances once claimed) there was a precedent for the use of red because that was the paint applied to the Mercedes Tipo Indy 2.0 used to win the 1924 Targa Florio (setting a race-record time which would stand for a decade), chosen because of the habit of the Sicilian crowds to pelt with rocks any car not painted in Italian Racing Red.  Not since 1920 had a non-Italian car won so it was a wise precaution.

1969 Pontiac Grand Prix Model J.

Such is the appeal to stylists of the “long nose” that over the years many have ignored the packaging inefficiencies its use imposes.  It was one of the most commented-upon aspects of the Jaguar E-type (1961-1974) and probably it’s rare for an analysis of the shape to have been written without the word “phallic” appearing at least once.  Even when the effect is not so exaggerated it can be effective, the third generation Pontiac Grand Prix (1969-1972) the last of the memorable designs to emerge from the golden years of GM’s PMD (Pontiac Motor Division) during the 1960s.  Intended to be evocative of the aspect ratios of machines such as the big Duesenbergs of pre-war years, PMD even purloined the “J” & “SJ” designations although with its straight-8 engines a Duesenberg really did need a long nose; under the hood of the exclusively V8-powered Grand Prix, there was much empty space.

Modified 1973 Volkswagen 1303 Super Beetle.

Nor was it just the manufacturers who have been fond of the style.  In Canada, somebody with the requisite skills decided the “Cheetah look” was what a 1973 Volkswagen Super Beetle really needed and while it’s obvious the body extensively has been modified, the distorted dimensions are deceptive because the (presumably unique) project sits on an unmodified chassis, the wheelbase unchanged.  Unfortunately or not, the opportunity was not taken to install up front a straight-8 or V16, the car still running the modest, rear-mounted, 1.6 litre (97 cubic inch) flat-4 fitted by the factory.  As well as the curved windscreen, the 1303 featured the 1302’s improved front suspension (which one tester claimed made it faster point-to-point than a 1963 Porsche 356), the design of which allowed the capacity of the frunk to be increased and this one will be more capacious still; given it’s now a two seater, luggage capacity should be adequate although the front bucket seats have been replaced with a full-width bench so three adults could be accommodated, BMIs (body mass index) and a willingness to rub shoulders permitting.  Because it’s on the same wheelbase, any increase in weight may be minimal and the handling (anyway improved by the revised suspension) presumably will be affected (for better or worse) only by the change in weight distribution.  That said, given the thing is now more tail-heavy, the Beetle's inherent tendency to oversteer (somewhat tamed by 1973) might be more apparent but with the power available, even if it behaves something like an early Porsche 930, should a situation drama occur, probably it'll be at a lower speed.     

1980 Cadillac Eldorado “Valentino” by the unimaginatively named Conversions Incorporated, a Michigan-based customizing house (left) and 1981 Cadillac Eldorado "Regal Coach" by Florida's International Coach Works Company, a selling point the Rolls-Royceish “flying lady” hood ornament, said to make it a “real head turner” (right).

In the sometimes weird world that was the world of modified PLCs (personal luxury coupe) in the US of the 1970s and 1980s, the “long nose” style didn't exist in isolation.  It was one of a number of design elements which were part of the “neo-classical” movement which included also side-exit, flexible exhaust pipes (referencing the often supercharged pre-war machines (a la the Mercedes-Benz SSK but by the 1970s almost always fake), upright chrome-plated grills (Rolls-Royce the preferred inspiration), T-roof assemblies (a modern take on the old sedanca de ville coach-work, fake wire wheels and external spare tyres, the rear one in a "Continental kit" (a look which to this day refuses to die), the fender-mounted pair taking advantage of the eighteen-odd inches (460 mm) spliced between A-pillar and front wheel.  The spares used the space where sometimes sat the external exhaust pipes so it was a choice which had to be made although some builders just left the expanse of sheet metal, emphasizing the elongation.

Billigung

Billigung (pronounced bill-a-ghin)

(1) To approve.

(2) To acquiesce.

(3) Tacitly to accept; not to oppose.

(4) "Looking the other way" from something one would not wish to admit knowledge of; a means of creating a defense of plausible deniability; a self-denial of knowledge.

1300s: A Modern German form from the Old High German billīh (appropriate), from the Proto-Germanic biliz (merciful, kind, decent, fair), the variant being Billigung (approval; acceptance), the construct being billig(en) +‎ -ung (from the Middle High German -ung & -unge, from the Old High German -unga, from the Proto-Germanic -ungō; it was used to forms nouns from verbs, usually describing either an event in which an action is carried out, or the result of that action).  The third-person singular & simple present tense is billigt, the past tense is billigte, the past participle is gebilligt and the auxiliary haben.  In German, bein a noun there's always an initial capital but when used in English as a general descriptor (sepecially in a legal context), it usually all in lower-case.  Billigung is a noun and in German, there's no plural form although in English-language texts it might for the sake of clarity appear as "billigungs".

When wishing not to know, look the other way

The German Billigung is not so much hard to translate as able to be translated in a number of senses; context is everything.  The way it is used to mean “looking away; avoiding specific knowledge of something which one knows or suspects is happening” was clarified in 1977.  Albert Speer (1905-1981, Reich Minister for Armaments 1942-1945), the convicted war criminal, had always denied any knowledge of the Holocaust and was displeased when sent the English translation of a profile to be published in Die Zeit magazine in which Billigung had been rendered as his “...tacit consent...” of the final solution.  This he corrected, explaining Billigung in this context meant “looking away”.  This meant he averted his gaze from the worst crime of the criminal regime he served in order to be able to deny he knew of it.  Speer, predictably, was able to summon a word to explain this too: Ahnumg (the sensing of something without quite knowing exactly what).  He did at least concede the implication of his translation “...is as grave…” as the original, one biographer noting that had Speer said as much at his trial “…he would have been hanged.”

Albert Speer in conversation with his lawyer Dr Hans Flächsner (1896-dod unrecorded, right) and a legal associate, Nuremburg, 1945.

Other historians and some lawyers disagreed with that but it was an assertion the author was unable to pursue.  When she tried to nudge Speer a little further, pointing out that for one to look away from something, one must first know it's there, he didn’t deny what he’d earlier said but added they “…must never speak of it again".  The moment passed and within weeks he would be dead, dying "on the job" in police slang.  Some have noted the feeling Speer conveyed of always somehow longing to confess his knowledge of the Holocaust.  He so often came so close to admitting he knew what he'd always denied (indeed, in one letter discovered after his death he conceded, despite decades of denial, he'd in 1943 attended the session of a conference during which Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945) explained the mechanics of the the Holocaust and the Nazi rationale for its execution) as if the last great act of his life would have been to admit worst of the the guilt he convinced himself (and some others) he'd evaded when the IMT (International Military Tribunal) at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) convicted him of war crimes & crimes against humanity (counts 3 & 4) and sentenced him to 20 imprisonment.

Looking the other way.

In what he described as a “...leadership failure...", former Australian cricket captain Steve Smith (b 1989) has admitted he "didn't want to know about it" when he became aware “something” was being planned after seeing team mates in a dressing room discussion.  Their talks he witnessed were about ball-tampering, a form of cheating which came to be known as sandpapergate.  Billigung is one of those useful German creations (zeitgeist, schadenfreude etc) which in one word conveys what might in English take a dozen or more.  Operating somewhere on the spectrum of plausible deniability, Billigung is where someone hears of or perhaps “senses” something of which they’d prefer there be no admissible evidence of their knowledge; they “look the other way”.

Gladys Berejiklian (b 1970; Premier (Liberal) of New South Wales 2017-2021) & Daryl Maguire (b 1959, MLA (Liberal) for Wagga Wagga 1999-2018).

For some, Billigung might have come to mind when pondering the recording of a telephone call between then New South Wales (Australia) Premier Gladys Berejiklian and Daryl Maguire, another member of the same parliament with whom she was in an intimate relationship, a man forced to resign as an MP as a result of an (ongoing)  investigation by the NSW Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) for allegedly using his political influence in business activities.  Of interest was the premier’s use of the phrase "I don't need to know about that bit" when the former member began to tell her some details of his dubious deals.  To that pertinent observation, Mr Maguire replied "No, you don't".  The suggestion is the premier failed to declare a conflict of interest when dealing with the allocation of taxpayer funds which would be to the benefit of her then lover.  The words used by the then premier: "I don't need to know about that bit" may be compared with how Speer described his response in mid-1944 to being warned by a friend "never, under any circumstances" "to accept an invitation to inspect a concentration camp in Upper Silesia".  Speer's friend explained that at that place he'd "...seen something there which he was not permitted to describe and moreover could not describe".  Having received what he claimed was his first knowledge of Auschwitz, Speer asked no questions of anyone, later admitting: "I did not want to know what was happening there".  That was what he later called Billigung.     

At the time the recording was made public, the former premier denied any wrongdoing beyond having appalling taste in men.  Apart from the men in her life (and not a few women would ruefully admit to having "had a Daryl"), she probably was unlucky.  Billigung has long been a part of that essential tactic of political survival: "plausible deniability".  Actually, as practiced these days, because standards of accountability seem to have declined a bit, denials needs no longer be plausible, just not actually disproven by a publicly available audio tape or film clip.  Others, beyond NSW, might be taking interest, especially those south of the border intimately involved in party machines who, apparently for decades, didn't notice certain things going on around them.     

On 1 October 2021, the NSW ICAC announced certain investigations into the former premier's conduct in office.  Specifically, ICAC is focusing on the period between 2012-2018 and her her involvement in the circumstances in which public money was given to a shooting club and a conservatorium of music and whether that conduct was “...liable to allow or encourage the occurrence of corrupt conduct by Mr Maguire”.  The ICAC will explore whether the conduct constituted a “breach of public trust” by placing the former premier in a position where a conflict of interest existed between her public duties and private interests “...as a person who was in a personal relationship” with Mr Maguire.  The commission will also investigate whether she failed to report what could be defined as reasonable suspicions that “...concerned or may concern corrupt conduct in relation to the conduct of Mr Maguire”.  As a point of law, the ICAC is concerned with actual substantive conduct and conflicts of interest.  It is not the test of "apprehended bias" applied to the judiciary where judgements can be set aside if a court finds there could have been a "reasonable perception" of bias or conflict of interest in some way involving a judge.  To the ICAC, any degree of perception, reasonable or not, is not relevant, their findings must be based on actual conduct.

On 1 October 2021, Berejiklian announced her resignation from both the premiership and the legislative assembly.  There are critics of the NSW ICAC who oppose the public hearings and feel its rules permit an exercise of powers rather too much like the Court of Star Chamber which they say it too closely resembles.  However, the former premier can reflect that unlike the IMT at Nuremberg, neither the Star Chamber nor the ICAC were vested with capital jurisdiction so there’s that.

Dieselgate and implausible deniability

Former Audi CEO Rupert Stadler (b 1963, right) with his lawyers Ulrike Thole-Groll (left) & Thilo Pfordte (centre) during his trial, Munich District Court, May 2023.

The billigung defense is still heard in German courts and if not always exculpatory, lawyers still appreciate its effectiveness in mitigation.  Rupert Stadler began his career with Audi AG (a subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group) in 1990 and between 2010-2018 was Audi’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO).  The scandal which came to be known as “dieselgate” involved companies in the Volkswagen group (and others) installing “cheat” software in diesel-powered vehicles so excessive exhaust emissions wouldn’t be detected during official testing and, after years of obfuscation, Volkswagen in 2015 admitted that was what exactly they’d done.  Civil and criminal proceedings in a number of jurisdictions ensued and thus far the fines alone have cost the group well over €34 million.  There have also been jail sentences imposed, something which presumably would have been in Herr Stadler’s thoughts when, in March 2018, Munich prosecutors named him as a suspect in their investigations.  A week later, he was arrested and held in an Augsburg prison, apparently as a precautionary move because it was claimed he was tampering with evidence by making a telephone call in which he suggested putting a witness “on leave”.  After a month, he was released on bail, subject to certain conditions.

In September 2020, Herr Stadler’s trial on charges of fraud began and for years (proceedings now take rather longer than in 1945-1946) he denied all wrongdoing until, in May 2023, he accepted a plea deal offered by Judge Stefan Weickert which would require him to admit guilt.  To date, he’s the highest-ranking executive to confess, tempted apparently by (1) the preponderance of evidence before the court which made it clear he was guilty as sin and (2) the deal limiting his punishment to a €1.1 million fine and a suspended sentence which would not see him jailed, an attractive alternative to the long term of imprisonment he otherwise faced upon conviction.  As confessions go however, it was among the more nuanced.  His lawyer read a statement saying the defendant (1) did not know that vehicles had been manipulated and buyers had been harmed, but (2) he acknowledged it was a possibility and accepted that, adding that in his case (3) there was a need for more care.  A classic piece of billigung, was the line (4) “I didn't know, but I recognized it as possible and accepted that the properties of diesel engines might not meet legal approval requirements” while the statement (5) “I have to admit the allegations overall” had an echo of Speer’s admission of “a general responsibility” while denying personal guilt.  Still, it must have conformed with the terms of the plea bargain because it was accepted by the judge.  His lawyer read the statement, apparently because he couldn’t bring himself personally to utter it but when asked by the judge if the words were his own, Herr Stadler replied (6) “Ja”.

Lindsay Lohan with Audi A5 cabriolet, Los Angeles, May 2011.  Ms Lohan apparently avoided being affected by the dieselgate scandal, all the photographs of her driving Audis have featured gas (petrol) powered cars.

Outside the court, his lawyer was a little more expansive, admitting her client had allowed vehicles equipped with manipulating software to remain on sale even after learning of the scam.  “In the course of addressing the diesel issue" after the revelations became public, Stadler “neglected” to inform business partners that cars with so-called defeat devices were still going on the market, meaning he was “accepting that vehicles equipped with the illegal software would go on sale” she said.  Although it may have been stating the obvious, she added Herr Stadler regretted he’d been unable to “resolve the crisis”.  The carefully composed text may however have averted another crisis, lawyers noting the cryptic nature of some of his comments might be explained by a desire not to create grounds for additional claims by consumers for financial compensation.

How that might unfold remains to be seen but on 27 June 2023 the Munich court handed down a 21 month sentence, suspended for three years, a fine of €1.1 million (US$1.2 million) also imposed; that will go to the federal government and charities, the court ruled without providing details.  Herr Stadler was the first member of the Volkswagen board member to be sentenced for his part in the scandal, the judgment coming some four years after prosecutors first laid fraud charges.  Guilty verdicts were also delivered against two former Audi executives: head of engine development Wolfgang Hatz (b 1959) and lead diesel engineer Giovanni Pamio (b 1963) who were handed suspended jail sentences of 24 months and 21 months, respectively.  Hatz was fined €400,000 (US$437,000) and Pamio €50,000 (US$55,000).  All three were guilty as sin so the verdicts were unsurprising.

Dr Angela Merkel (b 1954; chancellor of Germany 2005-2021) & Dr Martin Winterkorn (b 1947; CEO of Volkswagen AG 2007-2015).

The long-running scandal (the fines and settlements thus far ordered having cost the group some €33 billion (US$36 billion)) still has some way to run because the case against former CEO Martin Winterkorn has yet to be heard although he’s already agreed to pay VW €11.2 million (US$12.3 million) after an internal investigation found he failed properly to respond to signs the company may have been using unlawful technology which enabled its diesel engines to evade emissions testing and it's not yet clear if Dr Winterkorn will try the billigung defense.  Herr Stadler was required to pay VW €4.1 million ($US4.5 million) under terms agreed following the same investigation.  The company clearly wished to move on and in separately issued statements, Volkswagen and Audi said they were not party to Tuesday’s proceedings, which should be “viewed independently” of proceedings against the companies which had (in Germany) been finalized in 2018.  Audi seemed anxious to confirm it was now a righteous corporation, saying “Audi has made good use of the crisis as an opportunity to start over.  We have updated our systems, processes and checks to ensure compliance company-wide.”  It concluded by noting it had since “cultivated and strengthened a culture of constructive debate.”  In exchange for agreeing to pay the fines, prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Volkswagen and Audi.

1973 Pontiac Trans-Am SD-455.

In being caught cheating by programming the control systems on diesel engines to comply with exhaust emissions rules during testing, but not in real-world driving, Volkswagen was not unique.  In 1973, noting the extinction of the genuine “muscle car” (an ecosystem which only a half-decade earlier had been wildly vibrant), GM’s (General Motors) PMD (Pontiac Motor Division), after some hesitation, decided that there was potential in being the only player in a market segment which, though shrunken, still existed.  To be the exclusive supplier of what demand there was, Pontiac resurrected its storied “SD” (Super Duty) moniker and concocted a high-output variant of their 455 cubic inch (7.5 litre) V8, the central feature of which was a pair of cylinder heads with a better flow-rate than anything Detroit had to that point manufactured for street use, the design emerging from California’s famed Air Flow Research company.  The engineering was impressive as it had to be meet the twin-fork parameters of (1) generating 300 net HP (horsepower) and (2) complying with the EPA’s (Environmental Protection Authority) tail-pipe emission rules.  Unfortunately, on-board electronic circuitry hadn’t then advanced to the point where such a compromise could (lawfully) be achieved; the SD-455 could produce the power or it could reach the emission standards but couldn’t do both.

1973 Pontiac Trans-Am SD-455.

As a work-around (a euphemism for cheating), what PMD’s engineers did was read the EPA’s protocols and, noting the test duration was 50 seconds, rig up a clever device which shut off the EGR (exhaust gas re-circulation) valve after 53 seconds, thereby gaining the desired additional HP.  However, the EPA’s engineers smelled a rat and it didn’t take them long to trace the trick.  Pontiac’s team received an (unofficial) commendation for cleverness but were also graded an “F” (fail) and told to try again.  That’s why the production SD-455 was rated at 290 HP rather than the original 310, the missing power the result of the Ram-Air III camshaft being used in lieu of the more aggressive Ram-Air IV unit.  Still, the EPA’s staff turned in a more impressive performance than that of the later eurocrats who “caught” Volkswagen only because Mercedes-Benz snitched on them in exchange for immunity from prosecution.  As things turned out, the SD-455 was available for two seasons in that troubled decade although production numbers were low, 295 in 1973 (252 Trans Ams & 43 Firebird Formulas) and 1001 in 1974 (943 Trans Ams & 58 Formulas).  At the time, genuinely it was the most powerful US built car and as the “last of the original muscle cars”, the SD-455s went on to become a collectable with fine examples typically now attracting US$100-125,000 although, in 2023, one exceptional specimen at auction realized US$200,000.

1974 Pontiac Trans-Am SD-455.

So, although it may seem those in the Fourth Reich were very harshly treated compared with PMD which received not even a “slap on the wrist” and merely was asked to “come back when it’s fixed”, the situation was very different in that not one non-compliant Pontiac ever appeared in a showroom compared with the 11 million-odd toxic VW and Audi diesels sold to unsuspecting customers.  The other difference is that nobody in PMD’s boardroom had any knowledge of the low skulduggery being visited upon innocent EGR valves whereas in Wolfsburg and Stuttgart, in that redolent phrase from German historiography: “they all knew”.  Although the final accounting hasn’t yet been done, by mid 2026, Dieselgate’s global cost to Volkswagen (covering regulatory fines, criminal penalties, civil settlements, vehicle buybacks, technical refits & repairs, legal costs and customer compensation) is estimated to have been some US$30–35 billion thus far.  Calculations of the hit to “reputational damage” vary but all concede it “was not a good look”.