Re: [Openefm-development] Re: OpenEFM question

[Jeremiah J. <jer...@go...>]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 13:29 -0800, Jason Van Cleve wrote:
> Quoth Jeremiah Jahn, on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:49:02 -0600:
>=20
> > > This is also our criterion for a new vs.  existing case.  Normally,
> > > party information need only be sent with the initial filing, and we
> > > have no plans for the EFM to add or update party data to existing
> > > cases. That would seem out of scope.
> > In other words you leave that up to the CMS(adapter)?
>=20
> Not necessarily.  Internally, if we see no case number, we assume an
> initial filing.  When it is accepted and sent on to the CMS, we may need
> to construct a different XML document depending on this.  The 2GEFS
> interface is not defined in terms of filings, but cases; so we have to
> send an explicit new-case message, for initial filings only.
>=20
> Now, previous version of OpenEFM, I've said, send a single filing
> package for both initial and "subsequent" filings, so in that case, the
> CMSAdapter gets an LxmlFiling object at the CMS, and it was free to do
> whatever it had to with that, add a case, parties, documents, in
> whatever order.  Because 2GEFS is breaking this one "filing" operation
> into several CMS-level operations, we may have to expand our CMSAdapter
> interface, specify it more.
>=20
> > Being in the Legal industry, The quote from our clients is that you
> > can't add a party to a case unless you submit with it a "motion to
> > amend complaint." This can also be done in court on the fly, but that
> > is obviously not an e-filing problem. I guess that would remove the
> > idea of dynamically adding litigants to a case. FYI
>=20
> Good info', stuff to which I have little access, unfortunately.=20
> Hopefully this is moot, though, and adding litigants after the fact will
> never become a requirement.  (Never say never, right?)  To me it just
> seems like a function of the CMS, altogether out of the scope of an EFM.
>  But it ain't up to me.  ;)
In our neck of the woods, Small Claims cases are the most likely for
this to happen to, but it's still rare. I believe that in Tort cases the
litigants are specified as an attachment to the case and not as a true
litigant on the case. This allows them to continually add litigants
without amending the complaint over and over.=20


>=20
> > I'm just trying to boil down for our competitors/detractors what kind
> > of API they will be able to use with us. Since y'all seem to be the
> > biggest open source player in the field, I'd like to be able to say
> > "If we don't use OpenEFM, then we will at least adhere to their API."
> > Which brings me to another question. Who else is out their in the open
> > source EFM world worth exploring. You all make the most noise, So I've
> > been hoping to ride on your coattails a little, when dealing with the
> > BIG BOYS.
>=20
> Mr. Beard, can you address this?
>=20
> > > What is meant by "if someone used the addParty method", exactly?=20
> > > The only "addParty method" in our system currently is the 2GEFS CMS
> > > API call I've begun implementing.  The XML format for that is
> > > already defined sans binary data.
> > Is that actually the way things have to be done. I would think that
> > since you can't add a party without a matching document the two should
> > travel together.
>=20
> See, this is good discussion, because I'm not even aware of any such
> requirement.  As far as OpenEFM is concerned, party definitions that
> come in with a filing are not strongly coupled with any of its
> documents.  I didn't even know there was a corresponding document for a
> party.  So we just add all the parties and all the documents, and if the
> CMS doesn't complain, we call it good.  Otherwise stated, all
> data-validity (not including XML validation) checks are performed
> visually by the clerk responsible for accepting or rejecting the filing
> at the EFM.
We would like to be in the situation, where ALL validation is done
programmatically (that should be a real word). All the court staff has
to due is look at their work queue and say okay. If they are trying to
add a party not already on a case and do not include a document of type
amend complaint, then the filer will receive an error response. The
court user would still need make sure that the litigants being added are
included in the attached document. I do believe however, that adding
litigants will be a special and rare case.=20

We are kind of Straddling the fence since we are trying to fit in
criminal e-filing^H^H^H^H^Himporting from our State's Attorney
application as well. Keeping the two straight can sometimes be a little
rough. You though in workflow to the mix and the architecture of our
whole system becomes downright insane (and that would be my job
description in a nutshell (pun intended)).=20

-jj-

>=20
> --Jason Van Cleve
> counterclaim
>=20
> --
> I knit little sweaters for my pet peeves.
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D6595&alloc_id=3D14396&op=3Dclick
> _______________________________________________
> Openefm-development mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openefm-development
If you don't care where you are, then you ain't lost.