legalxml-courtfiling — archive

[System]

John, i appreciate your efforts to distill the issues and your need to come to some conclusions at this juncture.. i along with several DOJ colleagues are reviewing the person object from the practitioner, federal attorney, case management system perspectives... i have not received input from these colleagues so the following comments reflect my current thinking given the TC messages exchanges to date.... 1. the law dictionary i use defines PERSON "in law, an individual or incroporated group having certain legal rights and responsibilities... this definition includes foreign and domestic corporations. see 134 US 594 delinations of the term has been necessary to ascertain the application of the 14th Amendment to the constitution. the context of use of Objects are based on the business context and use... the challenge in the justice domain i am finding is the need to continuously define and interpreting objects.. given the boundaries applied by type of case to be litigated or prosecuted... a fact you note below as you list the many descriptions of players in the justice system as they fit to a specific case process/context... the comparison to the law dictionary definition of PERSON is the definition for "natural person" within the context of the justice processes.... a human being as opposed to artificial or fictitious persons such as corporations. as stated in my law dictionary... the phrase natural person does not include corporate entities, but the phrase person without qualification may or may not include artificial persons, depending on context... thus the phrase no person in the 14th amendment's equal protection clause has been held to include natural and artificial persons... but the same phrase no person in the 5th amendments privilege against self-discrimination clause has been held to include only natural persons and not corporations since the privilege is personal and may not be asserted by an artificial person. 2. through the lifecycle of a case type the identity of the person may change.. (as you know) thus the object structure should accommodate this ... i believe the draft object does... given the subclass mapping can accommodate multiple sets... my concern is making sure that the differences are clearly defined.. as the GTRI project has asked us to do in the issue paper.. an example of my concern: plaintiff and defendant should be called out under the subject subclass.. given that subject subclass will be the type of person that the RDD defines... within the context of the justice proceeding note that an attorney or judge or officer can become a subject... a "political" official can become a subject ... therefore i suggest the following delination between citizen and official.. Citizen subclass definition: individuals or corporations who claim protection from the U.S. justice system and are subject to the jurisdiction. Individuals who consequently participate in or otherwise contribute to the execution of justice. Official subclass definition: individuals or entity who is a person invested with the authority of a particular position or office through which an act that is recognized in the justice community in terms of existing laws, regulations, and/or procedures is performed. Subject is a person or entity directly interested in the case.. i was not involved in the formulation of the existing dictionary entries. however i think that all the possibilities you note below and others have identified can be accommodated/addressed within the draft frame GTRI has developed... we just need to provide them with the level of detail you have already been thinking about.... diane