For the first time in history, the Honorable John M. Facciola, Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, signed a judicial order, not with paper and pen, but with a digital signature! Press release here.
For more details, check out the posting on Adobe's Security Matters blog.
Today, as I catch up on the emails flooding my inbox, I came across an email that I wanted to share and which I thought was quite timely given my recent entry on court case management (Court Case Managment: Beyond the wasted paper).
Amidst the salutations that usually arrive in an email, the key statement that stood out was:
"Ontario Supreme Court Justice The Honorable Patrick J Lesage and University Professor Michael Code have released a report to the public on major case management in the province of Ontario. This report 'SPECIFICALLY' names Adobe on no less than 5 separate occasions as the standard for electronic disclosure across the province. The report also recommends the province adopt Acrobat for case management for policing, crown attorneys and the legal community at large."
Adobe PDF and Acrobat are already widely used in Ontario to address the real challenges of accurately and efficiently collecting and collaborating on documents and evidence for a given investigation.
The venue was larger than I had imagined or expected. The three speakers from the previous session had just finished and were exiting the stage. I clipped on my microphone which would project my voice to the far corners of the room and faced an audience of judges, lawyers and court managers.
I had spent the last couple of days reviewing my presentation, figuring out the best way to make the point that courtroom paper was not just an environmental issue, but it also impacts data accuracy and analysis, staff productivity, and time-to-decision.
I flashed up a slide.
Arkansas Appellate Judge Wendell Griffin (Louanne Parker v. John Matthew Parker)
- Appellant’s brief consists of 4 volumes, including a 277-page abstract and a 684-page addendum
- The appellate record in this case was 10 volumes, totaling 1959 pages. Appellant submitted a 980-page brief. Appellee’s brief, which included an unnecessary supplemental addendum, numbered 174 pages. Appellant filed an 18 -page reply brief.
- 20 copies of the briefs required (17 for filing with the clerk, 1 for opposing counsel, 1 for the circuit court, and 1 for that party)
- Then the briefs and record on appeal consisted of 25,399 pieces of paper.
- According to an environmental company based in San Francisco, California, one tree makes 16.67 reams (one ream = 500 sheets) of paper. Conservatree, How much paper can be made from a tree? (last assessed Jan. 18, 2007). Based on these calculations, the paper filed by the parties on this appeal alone has consumed almost 3 trees.
Continue reading "Court Case Management: Beyond the wasted paper" »
With the world-wide economic downturn, government is caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the issue of helping businesses and citizens with tax cuts.
No one disagrees that the public could benefit from tax cuts in these challenging times. Shrinking tax revenues from decreased property values, sales and incomes on one end, and rising demand on social services and benefits at the other end, make tax cuts difficult to conjure up. Some regions, such as California, are even talking about tax hikes in order to control deficits and debt.
However, there are other ways to help which would achieve the same impact as tax cuts; that of lessening the burden of government on citizens and businesses. Where government cannot lend a hand by extending a dollar, it can by lessening time burden of dealing with government.
Continue reading "Making government easier to deal with, a tax cut of a different sort" »