On March 08, 2011 the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation announced their next Generation Identification System (NGI), built by Lockheed Martin, delivers an incremental replacement of the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). NGI provides automated fingerprint and latent search capabilities, electronic image storage, and electronic exchange of fingerprints to more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies and other authorized criminal justice partners 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Upon completion, NGI will have the ability to process fingerprint transactions more effectively and accurately.
“The implementation announced today represents a tremendous achievement in enhancing our identification services. Already, we’re seeing how the NGI system is revolutionizing fingerprint identification in support of the FBI’s mission,” said Louis E. Grever, executive assistant director, FBI Science and Technology Branch.
In addition to the new fingerprint identification technology, the NGI program has also delivered Advanced Technology Workstations to the FBI’s fingerprint examiner staff. The workstations include significantly larger display screens with higher resolution and true color support, allowing staff to see more detailed attributes of biometric data for more efficient decision-making."
The project's website can be seen at: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/ngi/ngi2
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
CTC-2011 Keynote Speaker Announced
“David Pogue writes the tech column for the New York Times every week, and in Scientific American every month. On TV, you may know him from his funny tech videos on CNBC every Thursday, or his stories for CBS Sunday Morning, or the NOVA miniseries he hosted on PBS, called "Making Stuff."
With over 3 million books in print, David is one of the world's bestselling how-to authors. He wrote or co-wrote seven books in the "for Dummies" series (including Macs, Magic, Opera, and Classical Music); in 1999, he launched his own series of complete, funny computer books called the Missing Manual series, which now includes 120 titles.
David graduated summa cum laude from Yale in 1985, with distinction in Music, and he spent ten years conducting and arranging Broadway musicals in New York. He's won an Emmy, a Loeb award for journalism, and an honorary doctorate in music. He's been profiled on "48 Hours" and "60 Minutes." He lives in Connecticut with his three children. His web site is www.davidpogue.com.”
His “short” biography does not do justice to all of his activities and interest. The tradition of interesting and thought provoking speakers at Court Technology Conferences continues.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Courts Have Always Charged Fees
In an earlier CTB post we noted a presentation by Prof. Stephen Schultze and graduate student Tim Lee that criticized several aspects of the US Federal Courts approach to public access to court information and in particular, the fees that are charged by the PACER system.
PACER currently allows for several queries per month for no charge. It is only when they exceed that number of queries that users are charged (a FAQ regarding PACER can be found by clicking here). In brief, it is the presenter’s contention that all of the information should be made available to the public for free. And they have taken action by creating the RECAP program to help in this effort. Unfortunately, history does not support this.
The UK courts website notes on a web page, appropriately named, “Why We Charge” that the tradition of court fees reaches back “to the 13th century”.
“Fees have always been charged to users of the courts. Originally, fees were paid directly to the judges of the courts, who kept them personally, for the work they carried out…
The County Courts Act 1846 saw the creation of the court system (mostly how we know it today) and the introduction of judicial salaries. The Act provided that court fees would cover the full cost of running the courts, and through this, the courts would be self-funding.
Court fees paid for judges, clerks, bailiffs and accommodation. However, in 1856, it was accepted that judges’ salaries, buildings and ancillary expenses should be met by the taxpayer and not the court user through fees.”
Thus history teaches that the courts were conceived to be a “fee-based-service” to the public. And current fees in federal and state courts for filing, e-filing, and records production are in that tradition.
The financial difficulties that nearly every government currently face also severely restricts the ability of the courts to make new services such as E-filing and E-Access free to the public. One possible reason is that it is difficult to receive funding via the legislative process because it is nearly impossible to estimate a specific return on investment (ROI). In contrast, a private corporation can seek a loan or investment (scenes from the recent movie, “The Social Network” are particularly appropriate) to expand their business technology and hopefully make more profit. The courts and government are asked to “prove a negative”; that by investing in technology that costs will either be maintained, decrease, or reduce staff. Since many courts have already had to reduce staff due to budget cuts, they are understandably resistant to make this promise.
That said, I don’t know anyone in the courts that wouldn’t like to make all of the public services free. But here is the rub. Access fees can also potentially serve as a barrier for misuse of the court information. Some courts have experience embarrassment when they made data freely available online that in turn exposed personal information that could be used for identity theft and crimes. A fee serves as a small barrier to those who are using the information for commercial use in credit and background checks but a significant one for those who wish to “mine” data for mischievous purpose. And from a court’s view, allowing commercial access is not necessarily a bad thing since it shifts the search and network bandwidth load from the court’s to the private commercial systems. In summary, an access fee for information has additional benefits to the courts aside from revenue.
Now this is not to say that information cannot be accessed for free. Nearly every court has some type of public access terminal in the courthouse where a person can search and find information. But online and “bulk” data poses a different set of issues that in turn cost the courts to address. In that case, fees can be justified by need and tradition.
PACER currently allows for several queries per month for no charge. It is only when they exceed that number of queries that users are charged (a FAQ regarding PACER can be found by clicking here). In brief, it is the presenter’s contention that all of the information should be made available to the public for free. And they have taken action by creating the RECAP program to help in this effort. Unfortunately, history does not support this.
The UK courts website notes on a web page, appropriately named, “Why We Charge” that the tradition of court fees reaches back “to the 13th century”.
“Fees have always been charged to users of the courts. Originally, fees were paid directly to the judges of the courts, who kept them personally, for the work they carried out…
The County Courts Act 1846 saw the creation of the court system (mostly how we know it today) and the introduction of judicial salaries. The Act provided that court fees would cover the full cost of running the courts, and through this, the courts would be self-funding.
Court fees paid for judges, clerks, bailiffs and accommodation. However, in 1856, it was accepted that judges’ salaries, buildings and ancillary expenses should be met by the taxpayer and not the court user through fees.”
Thus history teaches that the courts were conceived to be a “fee-based-service” to the public. And current fees in federal and state courts for filing, e-filing, and records production are in that tradition.
The financial difficulties that nearly every government currently face also severely restricts the ability of the courts to make new services such as E-filing and E-Access free to the public. One possible reason is that it is difficult to receive funding via the legislative process because it is nearly impossible to estimate a specific return on investment (ROI). In contrast, a private corporation can seek a loan or investment (scenes from the recent movie, “The Social Network” are particularly appropriate) to expand their business technology and hopefully make more profit. The courts and government are asked to “prove a negative”; that by investing in technology that costs will either be maintained, decrease, or reduce staff. Since many courts have already had to reduce staff due to budget cuts, they are understandably resistant to make this promise.
That said, I don’t know anyone in the courts that wouldn’t like to make all of the public services free. But here is the rub. Access fees can also potentially serve as a barrier for misuse of the court information. Some courts have experience embarrassment when they made data freely available online that in turn exposed personal information that could be used for identity theft and crimes. A fee serves as a small barrier to those who are using the information for commercial use in credit and background checks but a significant one for those who wish to “mine” data for mischievous purpose. And from a court’s view, allowing commercial access is not necessarily a bad thing since it shifts the search and network bandwidth load from the court’s to the private commercial systems. In summary, an access fee for information has additional benefits to the courts aside from revenue.
Now this is not to say that information cannot be accessed for free. Nearly every court has some type of public access terminal in the courthouse where a person can search and find information. But online and “bulk” data poses a different set of issues that in turn cost the courts to address. In that case, fees can be justified by need and tradition.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Court Automation Projects Critiqued
Courts automation projects can greatly benefit from receiving well-reasoned and researched critiques. Two projects recently received such input.
California CCMS
The California Court Case Management System audit report was published by the California State Auditor in February, 2011. The Los Angeles Times newspaper noted in an article about the report :
“The state Judicial Council and court systems have spent $407 million so far on developing the system and have installed a limited version in seven counties, including Los Angeles and Sacramento. They plan to launch the full system in three counties — Ventura, San Diego and San Luis Obispo — as a next step.”
The California AOC responded to the report noting that they will adopt all of the audit report recommendations. Justice Terence L. Bruiniers, chairman of the Judicial Council’s CCMS Executive Committee noted:
“We have increased Judicial Council oversight of the project; expanded the participation of justices, judges, court administrators, attorneys, and justice partners; and created a project management office.”
Additional information regarding the system and reports are posted at the California AOC CCMS website: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtadmin/ccms/
Federal Court PACER
Prof. Stephen Schultze and graduate student, Tim Lee, of the Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy recently made a presentation at the New York University School of Law on the US Federal Court’s online systems and specifically PACER. The presentation was video recorded and is available for online viewing (requires Microsoft Silverlight)
The presentation made several interesting points regarding current systems:
1. Current PACER limitations
2. Document authentication
3. Lack of document and data structure (XML)
4. The proposal to allow the private (and non-profit) world access to have bulk access to the information
5. A number of problems regarding sensitive and private information made available in PACER and options for corrective action.
There were also several points made regarding automation fees and budgets require a more extensive discussion for a later CTB article.
California CCMS
The California Court Case Management System audit report was published by the California State Auditor in February, 2011. The Los Angeles Times newspaper noted in an article about the report :
“The state Judicial Council and court systems have spent $407 million so far on developing the system and have installed a limited version in seven counties, including Los Angeles and Sacramento. They plan to launch the full system in three counties — Ventura, San Diego and San Luis Obispo — as a next step.”
The California AOC responded to the report noting that they will adopt all of the audit report recommendations. Justice Terence L. Bruiniers, chairman of the Judicial Council’s CCMS Executive Committee noted:
“We have increased Judicial Council oversight of the project; expanded the participation of justices, judges, court administrators, attorneys, and justice partners; and created a project management office.”
Additional information regarding the system and reports are posted at the California AOC CCMS website: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtadmin/ccms/
Federal Court PACER
Prof. Stephen Schultze and graduate student, Tim Lee, of the Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy recently made a presentation at the New York University School of Law on the US Federal Court’s online systems and specifically PACER. The presentation was video recorded and is available for online viewing (requires Microsoft Silverlight)
The presentation made several interesting points regarding current systems:
1. Current PACER limitations
2. Document authentication
3. Lack of document and data structure (XML)
4. The proposal to allow the private (and non-profit) world access to have bulk access to the information
5. A number of problems regarding sensitive and private information made available in PACER and options for corrective action.
There were also several points made regarding automation fees and budgets require a more extensive discussion for a later CTB article.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Colorado bill would create judicial public access system advisory board
Colorado's Judiciary has had a Public Access System (PAS) and Electronic Filing System (EFS) for years. According to their website "Over the next two years, the Colorado Judicial Branch’s PAS/EFS team will build a new electronic filing system that will replace the Branch’s current e-filing vendor by January 2013."
Enter Colorado HB 1282 of 2011.
The bill specifically provides a statutory obligation for the judicial department to provide a public access system for certain court records that direct-paying users and nonpaying users can access remotely. The bill prohibits the judicial department from restricting a direct-paying user from replicating the information on its system.
The bill also creates a Judicial Public Access System Advisory Board to govern the aforementioned system. The board would set the price schedule for access by direct-paying users and approve any changes to the schedule, determine what information will be available through the system and in what form it will be available, and address any other matter relevant to the system.
The board itself would consist of 9 members, including 4 legislators, 1 office of information technology (executive branch) staff member, 2 judicial department employees, and 2 vendors. The 2 judicial department employees (one of whom would chair the board) and 2 vendors would be selected by the chief justice.
The bill is currently pending in the House State, Veterans, & Military Affairs committee.
Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.
Enter Colorado HB 1282 of 2011.
The bill specifically provides a statutory obligation for the judicial department to provide a public access system for certain court records that direct-paying users and nonpaying users can access remotely. The bill prohibits the judicial department from restricting a direct-paying user from replicating the information on its system.
The bill also creates a Judicial Public Access System Advisory Board to govern the aforementioned system. The board would set the price schedule for access by direct-paying users and approve any changes to the schedule, determine what information will be available through the system and in what form it will be available, and address any other matter relevant to the system.
The board itself would consist of 9 members, including 4 legislators, 1 office of information technology (executive branch) staff member, 2 judicial department employees, and 2 vendors. The 2 judicial department employees (one of whom would chair the board) and 2 vendors would be selected by the chief justice.
The bill is currently pending in the House State, Veterans, & Military Affairs committee.
Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Florida Judge Using SharePoint for E-Filing
On February 17, 2011 Law Technology News published an article: Fla. Judge's 'Outlook on Steroids' Blazes E-Filing Trail. The article describes how Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Israel Reyes has been using the collaboration capabilities of Microsoft SharePoint to facilitate electronic document communications with litigants in his court. The article also unfortunately also details the requirement for paper copies to be transmitted and filed.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Federal Courts Issue Pocket Guide for Sealed Records
The February, 2011 edition of The Third Branch newsletter from the US Federal Courts contains an interesting article titled: "Pocket Guide for Federal Judges Focuses on Sealed Records, Proceedings". "Published by the Federal Judicial Center, the 22-page pocket guide draws upon the voluminous case law the process courts use to keep some of their proceedings and records confidential."
The guide is available online for download in PDF (244 Kb) by clicking here.
The guide is available online for download in PDF (244 Kb) by clicking here.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Future is Not Paper - Part 4
Court calendaring is simply a nightmare. But as we all know, calendars are the grease in the court's wheels. And without the structure and schedules, the judicial process would be chaos. But while Case Management Systems have done a good job of being able to store preferences and automatically search for the next available time based upon a jurisdiction's complex rules, these capabilities and information sharing have not extended beyond the courthouse walls.
One brief example: In 2005, the Governor of the State of New Mexico, Bill Richardson asked the legislature for additional judges partly because of scheduling issues. The Police Sergeant in charge of DWI crime in Albuquerque, NM reported that:
"scheduling nightmares abound for officers. In a single afternoon, he's been scheduled to attend three trials and three pretrial interviews. That's problematic because arresting officers are often the only witnesses in DWI cases so many are dismissed when officers fail to appear in court.
"I have eight officers on this unit, and they make 2,200 to 2,500 DWI arrests a year," Brown said. "When I get a (failure to appear) notice on one of them, I research it, and a lot of times I find that one officer was scheduled in 12 different courtrooms in the morning alone."(see Endnote 1)Courts use primarily manual processes to calendar and schedule (I've even seen white boards). The current "technologies" are:
- The automated CMS for setup and recording the core calendar structure and scheduling events.
- Telephone and E-mail with voice and manual negotiation by staff (calendar clerks and judicial assistants) and requesting attorneys, paralegals, and litigants.
- Face-to-face meetings (in courtrooms, chambers, etc.) with everyone consulting their individual calendars is one of the most common ways that schedules are set.
- And even a few courts employing instant messaging
- All methods employ a lot of personal time and effort to communicate even the most basic information.
But there are some interesting ideas that have been developing in recent years that could be part of a future solution. John Udell is a "Technology Evangelist" with Microsoft Corporation and formerly a columnist with InfoWorld and the "classic" Byte magazines as well as a person who's writings I follow closely via his blog.
In recent years he became interested in problems surrounding calendars and their inefficiency and ineffectiveness. And this past December (2010) he gave a talk at Harvard University Law School's Berkman Center.(see Endnote 2). The video webcast for online or download viewing can be found at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/luncheon/2010/12/udell In the talk he explains his "elmcity project" that created a web enabled community calendar supporting "information syndication".
There are a lot of ideas in that last sentence and so let's break it down:
1. Web Enabled - meaning that it can easily send and receive information using internet standards.
2. Community - meaning shared and open.
3. Information syndication - meaning you can subscribe to personally receive the information being shared in the calendar.
Now doesn't something like that sound like there are some ideas in there that might make the tortured world of court calendaring and scheduling easier? I think so; and therefore let's continue.
Specifically as he writes in his blog post about elmcity and his Harvard talk:
- Realize that event data published in a structured format, unlike data published as HTML or PDF, can be routed through a publication/subscription syndication networks.
- Make public calendars available in the appropriate structured format: iCalendar (RFC 5545), the venerable Internet standard supported by all major calendar applications and services.
- Recognize that iCalendar is the RSS of calendars. It can enable a calendar-sphere in which, as in the blogosphere, everyone can publish their own feeds and also subscribe to feeds from other people or from network services.
- Help build the data web by owning the parts of it for which we ourselves are the authoritative sources.
Let's talk about this iCalendar standard. Nearly everyone uses the iCalendar standard if you have a smart phone (like a Blackberry) that automatically connects with your Microsoft Exchange Calendar; even if you don't realize it. This is the best kind of standard for users because you don't need to do anything, it just simply works.
But John Udell realized that it could and should do more. As originally developed iCalendar was limited in the usual scope of implementation. An analogy might be "texting" between cell phones before Twitter. Texting basically is one to one communications while Twitter allows the message to be sent to anyone who subscribes to the feed. And one other fact, many of the commercial Court Case Management Systems vendors already have provided connections/extensions from the court calendar to Microsoft Exchange and/or to the iPhone/Blackberry using the iCalendar standard.
So with the "elmcity project" Mr. Udell has created an ability for the shared calendar to be fed the information from many sources and in turn, send that calendar schedule to those who subscribe. The elmcity service is an example of what Rohit Khare memorably called syndication-oriented architecture. And while "elmcity" doesn't replace the court's CMS calendar, it provides a concept for a web service that extends and facilitates calendaring information sharing via the web. And in another article Mr. Udell explains how one can manage their private and public calendars together. Again, doesn't this sounds a lot like what courts do every day?
http://blog.jonudell.net/2010/05/19/how-to-manage-private-and-public-calendars-together/
He has published an extensive FAQ about the elmcity project at:
http://blog.jonudell.net/elmcity-project-faq/
And as mentioned above, to see some elmcity calendars that have already been created go to:
http://elmcity.cloudapp.net/
Therefore in summary, there is a standard, iCalendar that allows for scheduling information to be created and shared. The elmcity project provides for subscription and syndication of that information to those who choose to receive it.
Much more discussion to come?
----
Endnotes:
1) Retrieved from: http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/9346.html in 2009 from an Associated Press article published on January 17, 2005 titled: Richardson pledges more judgeships, more funding for prosecutors at DWI summit.
2) We here at the NCSC are long time admirers of the Berkman Center staff having hosted two keynote speakers at Court Technology Conferences, Prof. Jonathan Zittrain in 1999 and Prof. Charles Ogletree in 2001.
Maine: One sentence bill directs judicial branch to upgrade its computer system
Typically legislation related to a state judiciary's computer system(s) are parts of budget bills or sections of other non-appropriations bills related to the judiciary. Maine's HB 644 of 2011, however, may go on record as the single shortest and most direct piece of legislation on the matter ever.
Below is the sum total of the bill (formatting in original):
Resolve, To Streamline the Judicial Process in Maine's Courts
Sec. 1. Judicial Department to upgrade its computer system. Resolved: That the Judicial Department shall design and implement a plan to upgrade its computer system to ensure access by Maine citizens and attorneys to electronic filing and scheduling online.
The bill's summary is almost as long as the bill itself:
This resolve directs the Judicial Department to design and implement a plan to upgrade its computer system to ensure access by Maine citizens and attorneys to electronic filing and scheduling online.
The bill has yet to be assigned to a committee, but presumably it would be sent to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Interesting note: Maine is one of three states (Connecticut and Massachusetts are the others) that rely primarily on joint judiciary committees.
Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Colorado: Bill would require *private* companies that maintain criminal court records purge their data when court orders records sealed
It is somewhat of a truism that nothing is ever truly lost or forgotten on the internet. Colorado's HB 1203 of 2011, as passed by the state's House on February 23, looks to put the genie somewhat back in the bottle.
Under CRS 24-72-308, if a Colorado State court orders a criminal record sealed, "each custodian of the records" must seal the record. But "custodian" is limited to "the official custodian or any authorized person having personal custody and control of the criminal justice records in question." Private companies are therefore not included.
HB 1203 keeps the existing definition of "custodian" but defines a "private custodian" as "a private entity that has custody of the information and provides that information to others as a part of its business." These "private custodians" would also be subject to court orders requiring the sealing of criminal records. After being served with a copy of the order, the private custodian "shall remove the records that are subject to [the] order from its database."
Under CRS 24-72-308, if a Colorado State court orders a criminal record sealed, "each custodian of the records" must seal the record. But "custodian" is limited to "the official custodian or any authorized person having personal custody and control of the criminal justice records in question." Private companies are therefore not included.
HB 1203 keeps the existing definition of "custodian" but defines a "private custodian" as "a private entity that has custody of the information and provides that information to others as a part of its business." These "private custodians" would also be subject to court orders requiring the sealing of criminal records. After being served with a copy of the order, the private custodian "shall remove the records that are subject to [the] order from its database."
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Indiana: Floor amendment to unrelated bill would require courts provide bulk data
Courts have been contending with how to handle bulk data requests for years. Recently, however, efforts in Arizona and other states have sought to bypass the courts and mandate the disbursement by legislative act. The most recent example is in Indiana.
SB 561, as introduced, dealt with corrections and sentencing. A floor amendment, added on February 21 however, requires the division of state court administration to implement a standard program for disseminating bulk court case information for a reasonable fee. Moreover, the bill requires an executive branch agency (the Indiana Office of Technology) annually certify that case management systems operated or funded by the division of state court administration comply with this program.
Finally, while the amendment allows for the charging of "a reasonable fee" it defines "reasonable" as "not [to] exceed the direct cost of operating the export program and delivering data to the recipient plus a prorated fee to recoup the direct costs of developing the export program. In any one (1) year, the aggregate prorated fees charged under this subdivision may not exceed five percent (5%) of the direct costs of developing the export program."
The bill, as amended, was approved by the full Senate 2/22/11 and is currently in the House awaiting committee assignment.
Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.
SB 561, as introduced, dealt with corrections and sentencing. A floor amendment, added on February 21 however, requires the division of state court administration to implement a standard program for disseminating bulk court case information for a reasonable fee. Moreover, the bill requires an executive branch agency (the Indiana Office of Technology) annually certify that case management systems operated or funded by the division of state court administration comply with this program.
Finally, while the amendment allows for the charging of "a reasonable fee" it defines "reasonable" as "not [to] exceed the direct cost of operating the export program and delivering data to the recipient plus a prorated fee to recoup the direct costs of developing the export program. In any one (1) year, the aggregate prorated fees charged under this subdivision may not exceed five percent (5%) of the direct costs of developing the export program."
The bill, as amended, was approved by the full Senate 2/22/11 and is currently in the House awaiting committee assignment.
Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Florida: Frustration over inability to come up with privacy rules for online court records
In 2003, the Florida Supreme Court created a Committee on Privacy and Court Records with the laudable goal of set policies of the information available on court records in general, and electronically accessible records in particular (read the order creating the committee here).
Eight years later the debate continues, much to the chagrin of Justice Barbara Pariente who has asked committee members to "get on the stick and get the rest done." According to The Lakeland Ledger, the committee has only now "proposed rules for excluding personal information such as Social Security and credit card numbers from court files if not required to resolve or manage cases. Criminal and traffic cases, though, would be exempt as committees for those two segments of the judicial system have yet to submit recommendations for removing personal information from case filings." Questions about the use or entire (or partial) Social Security Numbers, names of minors, and the sheer volume of data involved continue to plague the committee.
Eight years later the debate continues, much to the chagrin of Justice Barbara Pariente who has asked committee members to "get on the stick and get the rest done." According to The Lakeland Ledger, the committee has only now "proposed rules for excluding personal information such as Social Security and credit card numbers from court files if not required to resolve or manage cases. Criminal and traffic cases, though, would be exempt as committees for those two segments of the judicial system have yet to submit recommendations for removing personal information from case filings." Questions about the use or entire (or partial) Social Security Numbers, names of minors, and the sheer volume of data involved continue to plague the committee.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Legal XML E-Filing Standard Revision Review for Comment Announced
Via e-mail from OASIS-Open.org on February 26, 2011: The OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing TC members have recently approved a Committee Specification Draft (CSD) and submitted this specification for 30-day public review.
This OASIS Technical Committee was chartered to will develop specifications for the use of XML to create legal documents and to transmit legal documents from an attorney, party or self-represented litigant to a court, from a court to an attorney, party or self-represented litigant or to another court, and from an attorney or other user to another attorney or other user of legal documents.
Overview: This document defines the LegalXML Electronic Court Filing 4.01 (ECF 4.0) specification, which consists of a set of non-proprietary XML and Web services specifications, along with clarifying explanations and amendments to those specifications, that have been added for the purpose of promoting interoperability among electronic court filing vendors and systems. ECF Version 4.01 is a maintenance release to address several minor schema and definition issues identified by implementers of the ECF 4.0 specification.
Public Review Period: The public review starts today, 26 February 2011 and ends 28 March 2011.
This is an open invitation to comment. OASIS solicits feedback from potential users, developers and others, whether OASIS members or not, for the sake of improving the interoperability and quality of its technical work.
URIs: The prose specification document and related files are available here:
Editable Source (Authoritative):
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/ecf-v4.01-spec-csprd01.doc
HTML:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/ecf-v4.01-spec-csprd01.html
PDF:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/ecf-v4.01-spec-csprd01.pdf
XML Schemas:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/xsd/
Other specification artifacts:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/
Additional information about the specification and the OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing TC may be found at the TC's public home page:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/legalxml-courtfiling/
Comments may be submitted to the TC by any person through the use of the OASIS TC Comment Facility which can be located via the button labeled "Send A Comment" at the top of the TC public home page, or directly at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=legalxml-courtfiling
Comments submitted by TC non-members for this work and for other work of this TC are publicly archived and can be viewed at:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalxml-courtfiling-comment/
This OASIS Technical Committee was chartered to will develop specifications for the use of XML to create legal documents and to transmit legal documents from an attorney, party or self-represented litigant to a court, from a court to an attorney, party or self-represented litigant or to another court, and from an attorney or other user to another attorney or other user of legal documents.
Overview: This document defines the LegalXML Electronic Court Filing 4.01 (ECF 4.0) specification, which consists of a set of non-proprietary XML and Web services specifications, along with clarifying explanations and amendments to those specifications, that have been added for the purpose of promoting interoperability among electronic court filing vendors and systems. ECF Version 4.01 is a maintenance release to address several minor schema and definition issues identified by implementers of the ECF 4.0 specification.Public Review Period: The public review starts today, 26 February 2011 and ends 28 March 2011.
This is an open invitation to comment. OASIS solicits feedback from potential users, developers and others, whether OASIS members or not, for the sake of improving the interoperability and quality of its technical work.
URIs: The prose specification document and related files are available here:
Editable Source (Authoritative):
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/ecf-v4.01-spec-csprd01.doc
HTML:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/ecf-v4.01-spec-csprd01.html
PDF:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/ecf-v4.01-spec-csprd01.pdf
XML Schemas:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/xsd/
Other specification artifacts:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/
Additional information about the specification and the OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing TC may be found at the TC's public home page:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/legalxml-courtfiling/
Comments may be submitted to the TC by any person through the use of the OASIS TC Comment Facility which can be located via the button labeled "Send A Comment" at the top of the TC public home page, or directly at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=legalxml-courtfiling
Comments submitted by TC non-members for this work and for other work of this TC are publicly archived and can be viewed at:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalxml-courtfiling-comment/
Friday, February 25, 2011
Predicting Technology
Earlier this week I was looking for an article in the old printed versions of the Court Technology Bulletin and ran across an article on the 1996 COMDEX computer exposition in the January/February 1997 edition. At that conference I had the privilege of seeing a presentation by Intel CEO, Andy Grove who would later be named 1997 Time Magazine's "Person of the Year".
During the address Mr. Grove made the following prediction about computer power in the year 2011 that we documented in the CTB.
"What Will 2011 Bring?" (1997 CTB article)
"Today's top PC microprocessors contain 5.5 million transistors (using .35 micron fabrication technology), run at 200 MHz, and process 400 million instructions per second.
In his COMDEX keynote address, Andy Grove, president and CEO of Intel Corporation, predicts that the computer of the year 2011 will have one billion transistors (based on .07 micron technology), run at 10 GHz, and process 100 billion instructions per second. Such a PC would be 250 times more powerful than today's top-of-the-line Pentium Pro machines, in a little over a decade."
So let's see how Andy did? Recently Intel announced yet another generation of processor chips, code named "Poulson" for 2011. The specifications say:
I couldn't find a direct comparison regarding computer instructions per second because the new chips are rated in Gigaflops.
So Andy was a little conservative on his predictions (although the currently released i7 chips are very close).
What does this mean? Computers are still getting faster. It is our challenge to figure out how to use all that power effectively to help with the work of the courts. For some possible examples of how this might be headed, Microsoft issued this video on their user interface work (3.5 minutes) that takes advantage of the increasing computing power.
During the address Mr. Grove made the following prediction about computer power in the year 2011 that we documented in the CTB.
"What Will 2011 Bring?" (1997 CTB article)
"Today's top PC microprocessors contain 5.5 million transistors (using .35 micron fabrication technology), run at 200 MHz, and process 400 million instructions per second.
In his COMDEX keynote address, Andy Grove, president and CEO of Intel Corporation, predicts that the computer of the year 2011 will have one billion transistors (based on .07 micron technology), run at 10 GHz, and process 100 billion instructions per second. Such a PC would be 250 times more powerful than today's top-of-the-line Pentium Pro machines, in a little over a decade."
So let's see how Andy did? Recently Intel announced yet another generation of processor chips, code named "Poulson" for 2011. The specifications say:
- 3.1 Billion Transistors (Andy predicted 1 billion)
- 32 nano-micron technology (Andy predicted 70 nano-microns)
- The new chip has 8-12 core processors. This parallel processing allows the overall chip to exceed Andy's prediction of 10 GHz by splitting work between the core processors.
I couldn't find a direct comparison regarding computer instructions per second because the new chips are rated in Gigaflops.
So Andy was a little conservative on his predictions (although the currently released i7 chips are very close).
What does this mean? Computers are still getting faster. It is our challenge to figure out how to use all that power effectively to help with the work of the courts. For some possible examples of how this might be headed, Microsoft issued this video on their user interface work (3.5 minutes) that takes advantage of the increasing computing power.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
City of Dallas, Texas Seeks CCMS
The City of Dallas, Texas has posted an RFP for a new Court Case Management System (Solicitation Number BUZ1107). The notice states: "The purpose of this solicitation is to seek interested and qualified parties to implement a turnkey replacement Court Case Management System that will serve the needs of the City of Dallas
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Future is Not Paper - Third in a Series
How to Verify a Court Document?
Before the technical troubles with the Court Technology Bulletin occurred in the summer of 2010, I had started a series of articles on that the future of court information is not based upon paper documents. Part 1 and Part 2 can be viewed by clicking on the respective links.
The present “myth" and reality is that a paper court document with a rubber stamp or embossed seal is magically accepted as authentic by all legal authorities. This is true despite the fact that any elementary school child with a computer and printer (or even white-out and a copier) can forge a paper document. And unfortunately in recent years there are multiple instances where a fraudulent court document was faxed to a jail and an inmate mistakenly released.
Certainly the banking and financial industry understand that their authentic records are electronic. And even when a paper financial documents such as "bearer bonds" are created, great effort is made (as with paper currency) using various printing techniques such as embedded fibers and micro-printing to authenticate the physical document (some are wonderful works of art such as this fraudulent one). However, the courts cannot afford to undertake such time consuming and expensive activities. Instead, it is the court’s online electronic document systems that must provide access to the authentic copy of the document that is not otherwise sealed or protected.
But there is a significant problem that must be addressed to make documents easier to retrieve and verify via the Internet. This is where the work of the URN:Lex or Universal Resource Name, Legal begins. The basic concept is that every legal document submitted to or produced by the court (and ideally the entire legal system) would be assigned a unique reference number.
Specifically, “(t)he purpose of the "lex" namespace is to assign an unequivocal identifier, in standard format, to documents that are sources of law. The identifier is conceived so that its construction depends only on the characteristics of the document itself and is, therefore, independent from the document's on-line availability, its physical location, and access mode.”
For the full technical details of the currently circulated draft standard see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-spinosa-urn-lex-02
A unique reference number greatly facilitates retrieval of the document from any system and any type of database or file system that would reside in the court or on an open or commercial system; and it would be consistent for all future retrieval systems that are developed. In addition to easy retrieval and reference, there is a great possibility for URN:Lex to address a vexing problem of electronic information - document recall. Courts continually wish to identify and update documents that are incorrect or expired. The URN:Lex approach allows notifications to be posted and/or distributed; and further allows for systems to be developed with persistent hyper-links such as the online legal publishers have created for statutory and case references.
And finally, this is not to say that visible verification (document file stamps) is not of benefit. Several courts are adding visible indications of electronic filing as a watermark using the widely available PDF capability. But a visible verification that includes the URN:Lex would serve multiple legal system needs. To see a crude example click here.
The present “myth" and reality is that a paper court document with a rubber stamp or embossed seal is magically accepted as authentic by all legal authorities. This is true despite the fact that any elementary school child with a computer and printer (or even white-out and a copier) can forge a paper document. And unfortunately in recent years there are multiple instances where a fraudulent court document was faxed to a jail and an inmate mistakenly released.
Certainly the banking and financial industry understand that their authentic records are electronic. And even when a paper financial documents such as "bearer bonds" are created, great effort is made (as with paper currency) using various printing techniques such as embedded fibers and micro-printing to authenticate the physical document (some are wonderful works of art such as this fraudulent one). However, the courts cannot afford to undertake such time consuming and expensive activities. Instead, it is the court’s online electronic document systems that must provide access to the authentic copy of the document that is not otherwise sealed or protected.
But there is a significant problem that must be addressed to make documents easier to retrieve and verify via the Internet. This is where the work of the URN:Lex or Universal Resource Name, Legal begins. The basic concept is that every legal document submitted to or produced by the court (and ideally the entire legal system) would be assigned a unique reference number.
Specifically, “(t)he purpose of the "lex" namespace is to assign an unequivocal identifier, in standard format, to documents that are sources of law. The identifier is conceived so that its construction depends only on the characteristics of the document itself and is, therefore, independent from the document's on-line availability, its physical location, and access mode.”
For the full technical details of the currently circulated draft standard see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-spinosa-urn-lex-02
A unique reference number greatly facilitates retrieval of the document from any system and any type of database or file system that would reside in the court or on an open or commercial system; and it would be consistent for all future retrieval systems that are developed. In addition to easy retrieval and reference, there is a great possibility for URN:Lex to address a vexing problem of electronic information - document recall. Courts continually wish to identify and update documents that are incorrect or expired. The URN:Lex approach allows notifications to be posted and/or distributed; and further allows for systems to be developed with persistent hyper-links such as the online legal publishers have created for statutory and case references.
And finally, this is not to say that visible verification (document file stamps) is not of benefit. Several courts are adding visible indications of electronic filing as a watermark using the widely available PDF capability. But a visible verification that includes the URN:Lex would serve multiple legal system needs. To see a crude example click here.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Parking Technology?
One of the court manager's more off-beat but stressful jobs is to manage the courthouse parking lot. Some recent technology introduced in France might be of interest... parking spot sensors. The sensors are buried in the pavement can report via cell phone where empty spaces are located. For more see the IT World article "Take us to your leader('s parking spot).
Friday, February 11, 2011
NM: Two pieces of legislation to restrict or end court e-filing
Numerous state legislatures have been exceptionally active in promoting or advancing bills to permit or require e-filing in state courts. New Mexico's Senate, however, may be the first state legislative chamber be to actively working against such efforts.
SB 328 repeals the judiciary's "electronic services fund" and transfers the balance to the state's general fund. According to the fiscal impact note prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee, "SB 328 would effectively end the ability of courts to implement efiling in New Mexico."
The same senator that authored SB 328 has also introduced this week SB 388 which declares the state's courts "shall not charge an electronic services fee to persons who choose not to use electronic services and shall allow persons to file and access documents without using electronic services."
SB 328 is in the Senate Judiciary Committee, while SB 388 is in the Senate Public Affairs Committee.
Cross-posted at the Gavel to Gavel blog
Projects in Progress - February, 2011
The CTB receives PR announcements from companies regarding court technology projects. Some recent ones are:
From Tyler Technologies:
January 27, 2011 – Tyler Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: TYL) announced today it has signed a contract with Pinellas County, Florida, for Tyler’s Odyssey® integrated justice suite. The agreement, valued at approximately $6.8 million, includes software licenses, professional services, maintenance and support.
February 3, 2011 – Tyler Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: TYL) has signed a contract valued at approximately $10 million to provide its Odyssey® integrated justice suite to Fulton County, Georgia. Fulton County, which has a population of more than one million and is home to Atlanta, has invested in a broad range of Tyler’s Odyssey applications including Case Manager, Prosecutor, Supervision, Law Enforcement, Jail Manager, Financial Manager and Public Access.
Orange County, California Expands E-Filing with OneLegal
Novato, CA, February 03, 2011 --(PR.com)-- Recently, the Superior Court of California, County of Orange posted an advisory on their website: “eFILING AVAILABLE FOR ALL CIVIL CASES.” The advisory speaks to the court’s desire to run more efficiently while faced with looming state budget cuts.
In a recent report by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), several Superior Courts in California were identified as overfunded, though long lines at many courts’ filing windows and reduced hours seem to tell an entirely different story. The LAO’s claim has already received a strong, public rebuttal from the San Francisco Superior Court.
While the LAO and courts continue their debate, Orange County Superior Court is taking action. In early 2010, the Court contracted with Novato based One Legal LLC to build and manage an electronic portal to the Court that allows legal professionals to electronically file and serve legal documents for Civil cases in a secure environment. The Court’s website states, “Because the Court expects there to be less money to operate the courts in the future, we must find less costly ways to process the existing volume of filings with fewer staff. The new eFiling system will reduce the cost to the Court by delivering both the document and information about the document directly into the Court’s data systems.”
A fifty percent increase in expected filings within the first six months is proof the new system is working. “This is another step in the Orange County Superior Court’s transition to an all electronic record that provides better, faster access to court records for everyone at a lower cost to the taxpayer,” said Orange County Court Executive Officer Alan Carlson in an eFiling case study done by One Legal.
CourtCall Saves Time and Money and CO2
In a press release date December 9, 2010, CourtCall noted:
"In 2010, alone, Judges helped lawyers to skip over 1,000,000 trips to and from courts in State, Federal and Bankruptcy Courts in both the largest and smallest Courts one can imagine and they are to be applauded,” said Bob Alvarado, CourtCall’s CEO. 'That conservatively converts to over $150,000,000.00 in attorney time savings and the elimination of tons of CO2,' observed Mark S. Wapnick, CourtCall’s President, who conceived of the turn-key telephonic appearance program."
From Tyler Technologies:
January 27, 2011 – Tyler Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: TYL) announced today it has signed a contract with Pinellas County, Florida, for Tyler’s Odyssey® integrated justice suite. The agreement, valued at approximately $6.8 million, includes software licenses, professional services, maintenance and support.
February 3, 2011 – Tyler Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: TYL) has signed a contract valued at approximately $10 million to provide its Odyssey® integrated justice suite to Fulton County, Georgia. Fulton County, which has a population of more than one million and is home to Atlanta, has invested in a broad range of Tyler’s Odyssey applications including Case Manager, Prosecutor, Supervision, Law Enforcement, Jail Manager, Financial Manager and Public Access.
Orange County, California Expands E-Filing with OneLegal
Novato, CA, February 03, 2011 --(PR.com)-- Recently, the Superior Court of California, County of Orange posted an advisory on their website: “eFILING AVAILABLE FOR ALL CIVIL CASES.” The advisory speaks to the court’s desire to run more efficiently while faced with looming state budget cuts.
In a recent report by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), several Superior Courts in California were identified as overfunded, though long lines at many courts’ filing windows and reduced hours seem to tell an entirely different story. The LAO’s claim has already received a strong, public rebuttal from the San Francisco Superior Court.
While the LAO and courts continue their debate, Orange County Superior Court is taking action. In early 2010, the Court contracted with Novato based One Legal LLC to build and manage an electronic portal to the Court that allows legal professionals to electronically file and serve legal documents for Civil cases in a secure environment. The Court’s website states, “Because the Court expects there to be less money to operate the courts in the future, we must find less costly ways to process the existing volume of filings with fewer staff. The new eFiling system will reduce the cost to the Court by delivering both the document and information about the document directly into the Court’s data systems.”
A fifty percent increase in expected filings within the first six months is proof the new system is working. “This is another step in the Orange County Superior Court’s transition to an all electronic record that provides better, faster access to court records for everyone at a lower cost to the taxpayer,” said Orange County Court Executive Officer Alan Carlson in an eFiling case study done by One Legal.
CourtCall Saves Time and Money and CO2
In a press release date December 9, 2010, CourtCall noted:
"In 2010, alone, Judges helped lawyers to skip over 1,000,000 trips to and from courts in State, Federal and Bankruptcy Courts in both the largest and smallest Courts one can imagine and they are to be applauded,” said Bob Alvarado, CourtCall’s CEO. 'That conservatively converts to over $150,000,000.00 in attorney time savings and the elimination of tons of CO2,' observed Mark S. Wapnick, CourtCall’s President, who conceived of the turn-key telephonic appearance program."
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
PDF/A, more than just archiving
Everyone knows what a PDF document is. But few understand the different versions of PDF and in particular, the national and international standards that have created that govern the format. A brief introduction to the subject is contained in the Future Trends 2010 article: Electronic Documents: Benefits and Potential Pitfalls.
The following article by Thomas Zellerman is reprinted with permission from the PDF/A Competence Center(1) January, 2011 Newsletter lists other aims for the PDF/A standards work that could potentially benefit the courts and legal process.
"The obvious reason anybody looks at adopting PDF/A is because they have a need to keep good archives for a certain time. Good may mean they want to be able to have exact visual reproduction of the documents in the archive, or it may go further and they might want to also guarantee semantic correctness of the documents. Likewise the range of meanings for a “certain time” may span from 7 to 10 years for tax papers, or to forever for libraries or national archives. But in most projects, people remain very focused on the archival side of the problem and the risk is that other opportunities are missed as a result.
That is a shame: taking a step back and looking at PDF/A as an ISO standard amongst many other similar PDF-based ISO standards can show additional opportunities and reasons to standardize on PDF/A.
So lets take a step back: PDF/A is an ISO standard based on another ISO standard, PDF (ISO 32000). This means that PDF/A documents are PDF files on which additional restrictions and demands are
placed. And following that same method, the ISO has developed and is still developing a number of
other standards that can be very interesting for companies looking at PDF/A. Some examples:
Does that mean that companies looking at PDF/A today should instead adopt all of these standards? Not necessarily, but it would be a good thing to at least look at those other standards and understand how they could play a role.
It is also important when evaluating tools for use in PDF/A workflows. While some tools focus exclusively on PDF/A, there are certainly also tools on the market that add value towards some or all of these additional standards. And if such standards now or in the future hold value for a company, the selection of which tools are used should follow that realization.
And lastly, knowing those other standards is important when building the business case around adoption of PDF/A in a company. Additional demands such as the necessity to print or publish archived documents or convert them into accessible documents may very well change the scope of the project and lend additional credibility to standardizing on PDF/A as a way to prepare for things to come."
--
(1) As stated on their website: "The aim of the PDF/A Competence Center is to promote the exchange of information and experience in the area of long-term archiving in accordance with ISO 19005: PDF/A."
The following article by Thomas Zellerman is reprinted with permission from the PDF/A Competence Center(1) January, 2011 Newsletter lists other aims for the PDF/A standards work that could potentially benefit the courts and legal process.
"The obvious reason anybody looks at adopting PDF/A is because they have a need to keep good archives for a certain time. Good may mean they want to be able to have exact visual reproduction of the documents in the archive, or it may go further and they might want to also guarantee semantic correctness of the documents. Likewise the range of meanings for a “certain time” may span from 7 to 10 years for tax papers, or to forever for libraries or national archives. But in most projects, people remain very focused on the archival side of the problem and the risk is that other opportunities are missed as a result.
That is a shame: taking a step back and looking at PDF/A as an ISO standard amongst many other similar PDF-based ISO standards can show additional opportunities and reasons to standardize on PDF/A.
So lets take a step back: PDF/A is an ISO standard based on another ISO standard, PDF (ISO 32000). This means that PDF/A documents are PDF files on which additional restrictions and demands are
placed. And following that same method, the ISO has developed and is still developing a number of
other standards that can be very interesting for companies looking at PDF/A. Some examples:
- PDF/X was the first PDF-based standard adopted and further developed by the ISO. As far back as 2001, ISO PDF/X was created to allow the use of PDF files in the print and publishing market.
- PDF/E is an ISO standard for use in engineering workflows, allowing for 3D drawings in PDF files.
- PDF/UA is becoming an ISO standard to create standardized accessible documents; allowing for example visually impaired people to use screen-reader applications with PDF files in a reliable way.
Does that mean that companies looking at PDF/A today should instead adopt all of these standards? Not necessarily, but it would be a good thing to at least look at those other standards and understand how they could play a role.
It is also important when evaluating tools for use in PDF/A workflows. While some tools focus exclusively on PDF/A, there are certainly also tools on the market that add value towards some or all of these additional standards. And if such standards now or in the future hold value for a company, the selection of which tools are used should follow that realization.
And lastly, knowing those other standards is important when building the business case around adoption of PDF/A in a company. Additional demands such as the necessity to print or publish archived documents or convert them into accessible documents may very well change the scope of the project and lend additional credibility to standardizing on PDF/A as a way to prepare for things to come."
--
(1) As stated on their website: "The aim of the PDF/A Competence Center is to promote the exchange of information and experience in the area of long-term archiving in accordance with ISO 19005: PDF/A."
Friday, February 4, 2011
2011 National Forum on Criminal Justice & Public Safety July 31-August 2
Sponsored by the National Criminal Justice Association, the IJIS Institute, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the 2011 National Forum on Criminal Justice and Public Safety showcases programs and technologies that help justice practitioners and decision makers in states, local communities and tribal nations address these pressing public safety issues today and in the future. Last year 91 percent of attendees reported that they learned useful strategies and ideas that they could take home and implement immediately. Eighty-seven percent of attendees said the Forum was important for their professional development.
For more information about the National Forum please visit www.ncja.org or www.national-forum.net.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Recently introduced e-filing bills
Much has been made, particularly in the recent spate of State of the Judiciary Speeches, about the boon and promise of e-filing in state courts. In just the last week legislators in five states introduced or advanced bills related to the subject.
Arizona SB 1185 Would change the state's existing laws that allow the Supreme Court and Superior Courts (pursuant to rules adopted by the Supreme Court) to have e-filing to require they do ("may" to "shall") Moreover, the bill would require the electronic access to court records and add bulk data to required material the courts shall provide. It is currently in the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee.
Oregon HB 2690 (link to legislature's website, no direct link to bill status page) takes a different tack. It allows the state;s Chief Justice to establish reasonable subscription fees, and other user and transaction fees, for remote access to case information and other Judicial Department forms, reports and services that are available in electronic form. Moreover, it modifies laws on filing of trial court transcripts on appeal to allow for the electronic filing of the transcript. It is in the House Judiciary Committee.
South Dakota HB 1038 requires the clerk of that state's Supreme Court collect certain fees for the electronic transmission of court records. That bill was approved by the House Committee on Judiciary on January 21 and by the full House on January 25.
Virginia SB 1369 would allow Circuit Court Clerks to charge a fee of $25 for civil or criminal proceedings filed electronically and an additional $10 fee for subsequent filings in such proceedings. The funds would be directed to the clerk's local fund to cover operational expenses of the electronic filing system. That bill is currently in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.
Finally, Wyoming HB 190 offers what amounts to an e-filing discount of sorts. The bill provides for the electronic submittal of fees, fines, bonds and penalties to circuit courts and authorizes the Supreme Court to reduce the aforementioned fines, bonds and penalties if submitted electronically. That bill is currently in the House Judiciary Committee.
Cross-posted at the Gavel to Gavel blog
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Administrative Office of the US Courts issues RFP
The Administrative Office of the US Courts issued an RFP for a case management system. The solicitation states that it "is for the acquisition, modification, and deployment of a new, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solution for the Office of Defender Services (ODS) of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to replace the existing Case Management System (CMS) for Federal Defender Organizations (FDOs). The CMS includes management of all case-related information and time keeping on representations handled by the FDOs."
Click here for the full solicitation.
Click here for the full solicitation.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Catching Up
In the time period between the old version of the CTB and this new one there was of course a lot of activity in the court technology world. A few items of note:
The NCSC held two E-Courts Conferences in Tampa, Florida in September, 2010 and in Las Vegas in December, 2010. More than 500 persons attended the two conferences. Details about the conferences can be found at the conference website with the presentation slides.
In September, 2010 via a grant from the State Justice Institute, the NCSC released the results on the use of video conferencing in state courts across the country. The report contains the results on various topics, including: Sources of funding for video conferencing systems; extent of video for various types of proceedings; and statutes governing the use of video conferencing. More than 700 statues and rules were found and compiled.
And in December, 2010, Derek Coursen and I published an article titled "A Framework for Logical Data Models in the Courts" at The Data Administration Newsletter website. This technical paper identifies "certain patterns regarding representation of data on actors in the judicial process, cases, component matters (charges and civil claims), and events and tasks are generically applicable to any court situation."
This is not all that happened...more to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)