[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: On the Entity Seal in Court Filings
|
I thank John Messing for his proposal, because the function of the "entity seal" has now been clarified for me. I believe that an "entity seal" (or similar tool) should not be made mandatory in Court Filing Blue. Here's why:
The tools that can provide technical security, ensure authenticity of what is filed, etc., are useful in the process of getting the filing into the Clerk's (Court's) hands (system). Once there, the filing is "authentic" or "valid" or "unchanged" because it is in the custody of the Clerk, not because a technical feature was included or procedure performed.
When a document is sent to "the Court" for inclusion in the record, it is actually sent to "the Clerk of the Court," who has a ministerial function and duty to receive and preserve the record, such as it is, for the duration of its retention. In a court of general jurisdiction, retention can be "indefinite," or "forever." Once the record is in the Clerk's hands (or system), it is the Clerk's duty to maintain it. It is not a duty that can be handed over to an "entity seal" to authenticate the document at some future date -- it is the Clerk of the Court who authenticates it based on having had custody of it.
In the event of a controversy over the authenticity of a filed document that is in the Clerk's custody, an "entity seal" would not settle the matter. It might be one item of evidence, but such a dispute will be resolved in the Court, based on evidence, laws, and testimony.
If one is suspicious that something on file with the Clerk has been tampered with, changed in some way, there is also a "SneakerNet" verification/validation method -- open the file and read the document!
I see a parallel between the "entity seal" of today and the "WORM drive" arguments some of us had a few years ago. It was said that a non-rewritable drive was essential to protect against any change in documents maintained electronically by "the Court" (meaning, of course, the Clerk).
It is usually good to look for an analogy in the handling of paper court filings -- we do not routinely add anything like an "entity seal" in a paper filing.
It is the duty of the Clerk to obey lawful orders to make changes in the court record, including changes in filed documents. Sometimes they must be modified, for example, by elimination of a certain name or reference wherever it appears in a document that, otherwise, is to remain part of the record. (Clerk's staff here, in the paper days, would scissor out such information carefully, leaving documents literally full of holes.) Some implementations (including King County's) modify every single electronic filing by affixing the Clerk's "FILED" stamp and related information onto the document, changing the bitmap or the PDF file when doing so.
Certifying that a copy was made from a document that is part of a Court case record is how the Clerk attests to having had custody and control over that record. The Clerk doesn't and can't certify the document contains any truths or that signatures were made by the right people. It is not a system where the possibility of error or fraud has to be eliminated on the way in - errors and acts of fraud are things that are discovered and brought to the attention of law enforcement and the Court for resolution.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the value of a tool like the "entity seal" for winning over the hearts and minds of technology-suspicious stakeholders should not be underestimated.
It may be advantageous for an implementer to use the "entity seal." Some Clerks may choose not to make any changes to filed documents, for example, linking the "FILED" stamp information to it or overlaying, but not embedding it. A Clerk might decide that any changes ordered by the Court will be made on an exact copy of the original filing, to be re-filed "on behalf of the Court" (in its own "new" entity seal) while eliminating or hiding the "original."
I do not believe that an "entity seal" (as I have come to understand it) should be a mandatory feature in Court Filing Blue. As an optional feature, it may offer several benefits when designed to support, not inhibit the Clerk's performance of his duties.
Roger
Roger Winters King County Department of Judicial Administration Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Coordinator and Programs and Projects Manager 516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609 Seattle, Washington 98104 V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906 roger.winters@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message-----
John,
One approach might be to include the XML Signature structure in the syntax, identifying the data objects to be protected and the form of protection required. The mechanistic specifics of how to achieve the protection could be left open.
At this stage a key question is whether there is a requirement for protecting evidential value / authenticity of court filing submissions, and whether the authenticity of submissions is verifiable by all interested parties. If so I suggest some form integrity seal is required.
Nick
> -----Original Message----- > From: jmessing@law-on-line.com [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] > Sent: 24 May 2005 15:02 > To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Groups - Entity Seal Requirements Update > Docume t (DSS-EntitySeal-inCourtFilingUpdate.doc) uploaded > > > The document named Entity Seal Requirements Update Docume t > (DSS-EntitySeal-inCourtFilingUpdate.doc) has been submitted by > John Messing > to the OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing TC document repository. > > Document Description: > This document describes a possible additional requirement section to Blue > for an Entity Seal, which could be a generic entity seal or one based upon > the DSS TC Entity Seal profile. However, DSS has a different IPR policy > than LegalXML TC's and so a generic type of entity seal may be preferable. > The issue of whether an entity seal should be mandatory or recommended for > Blue is left to the TC without a selection. > > Best regards. > > View Document Details: > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-courtfiling/ document.php?document_id=12823
Download Document: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-courtfiling/download.php/12823/DSS-EntitySeal-inCourtFilingUpdate.doc
PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
-OASIS Open Administration
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]