Slashdot Mirror
Judge Seeks Ban on Legal Software
Quack writes "A federal
Judge in Dallas say he plans to ban the sale of self-help legal
software in Texas, claiming it amounts to the unauthorized practice
of law! This is just a case of lawyers helping lawyers because too
many people are writing wills for $20 instead of 150$/hr. "
Bestseller
isn't this against the freedom of speech (esp. when the will is to express your wishes)??
I guess he shouldn't forget to forbid books about law... At least one should hire a lawyer to read loudly such books, or have a legal-book-reading license that would granted only in special cases (such as law student).
will always deny suffrage to the peasantry.
Seems to me computers and the internet are goring lot's of oxen.
Whenever I see an accident, I think of the people
who get hurt...too often we're not (err, I mean)
they're not properly compensated for their hardship.
We at Dewey, Cheatham and Howe can help.
We will tell you our fees up front, after the
case is settled, win or lose - you have our word on it...
Gee, I can't wait to see legal software being trafficked in the underground by warez d00dz just because it's been marked illegal by a judge.
The first time I had a will drawn up I went to a lawyer. He prepared the will OK, although he really didn't answer too many of my questions and he was really arrogant. After 10 minutes he had to leave and said he would mail me my will and if I had any questions to call him.
A few months ago I needed to have my will changed (new baby) and I decided to buy Will Maker 7. The software made me feel more comfortable then the lawyer ever did. It did a really good job of explaining what I was signing and why a will is worded the way it was. It was by far an excellent piece of software.
If I remember the software was $45. and the lawyer was quite a bit more expensive. Both produced extremely similar documents. The software also comes with a newsletter where you can write and ask questions.
Before purchasing the software I did some research. One column actually compared Quicken Family Lawyer, Will Maker, & another. That column gave the results to a lawer for legal review. Both Quicken Family Lawyer & Will Maker passed his review.
A newsletter I got from Will Maker mentioned the fight in Texas. It's been a while but, if I remember, they were having a hard time fighting it because they couldn't even get a proper response on what the official problem was. It really sounded like the "good ol boys" network trying to shut out the competition.
Looks like the consumer is going to be shafted. Again.
Since when does a person need authorization to practice law in the United States? Last I checked it was one of those things laid out in the constitution as being every citizen's right, not just the ones who wear $5,000 suits and own a dozen BMW's.
To keep the slashdot effect to a minimum I've replicated the text of the article here:
Tuesday February 2 5:46 AM ET
Judge Seeks Ban on Legal Software
HOUSTON (AP) - A federal judge in Dallas says he plans to ban the sale of
self-help legal software in Texas, claiming it amounts to the unauthorized
practice of law.
U.S. District Judge Barefoot Sanders issued a summary judgment on Jan. 22
to prevent Parsons Technology Inc. from distributing future copies of Quicken
Family Lawyer and Quicken Family Lawyer '99 in Texas, the Houston Chronicle reported today.
Products already in stores apparently are unaffected by the ruling. An injunction to enforce the ruling
could be issued within the next two weeks, lawyers involved in the case said.
Attorneys representing Parsons said they are planning to challenge the ruling and will ask the judge to
place the ban on hold, pending a decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Consumer groups and industry experts blasted the ruling.
``You can quote me: This is sick. This reeks of greed,'' said Ann Stephens, president of PC Data, a
company that tracks the sale of software for personal computers. ``Boy, these lawyers are sticking
up for their own, aren't they? I don't think they're representing you or me.''
David Schenck, an appellate lawyer representing Parsons Technology, said that eight states have
considered cases against self-help legal publishers, but Texas is the first to opt for a ban.
``Texas is apparently alone in banning books and software according to the judge's ruling,'' Schenck
said. ``Our opinion is the Texas statute doesn't reach that far and if it did it would violate the First
Amendment.''
The do-it-yourself products sell for under $30, and the latest versions offers more than 100 legal
forms and instructions on how to file a will, prenuptial agreement, employment contract, real estate
lease or similar document.
--------------------------------------------
HOPE IT HELPS!
--------------------------------------------
"If you buy a software medical package, and instead of going to the doctor (v expensive), you fill
out some details with signs and symptoms, and it mis-diagnoses you and you get seriously ill,
how happy are you going to be? "
Yeah, and if you buy a fishing knife, trip and cut your eyes out - how happy are you going to be? Come on! They could make them put a disclaimer on the software, but certainly not ban it.
Everyone should have the freedom to make their own choice, and if they choose to ignore every warning and get hurt in the process they have themselves to blame.
I've met Judge Sanders. He seemed like a nice enough guy.
longer than a few minutes, but from what I've
heard he's pretty liberal.
I'm curious what his reasons were. Any chance he
has a legitimate reason? Perhaps people who use
software like this are more likely to be screwed
because of bad wording. (I have no idea... I've
never used any of this stuff... although it's
seemed hokey to me since the first time I saw the
stuff.)
p.s. I'm not a lawyer, as if you couldn't guess
because I'm reading Slashdot.
Does something like this exist? You never know..
If you ban legal software, you must also ban the sale or lending of any BOOK that discusses the law to anyone who doesn't have a license to practice law.
Hell, I guess you'll have to ban any word processing software that can format to legal sized paper too!
Since the Progressive Era around the turn of the century. At that time the law was getting more complex and partly to protect against anyone calling himself a lawyer and partly to ensure higher rates the American Bar Association was created. An US citizen is still able to be their own lawyer in criminal and civil proceedings but not able to practice law for others.
Q. What happens when you give a lawyer Viagra?
A. He gets taller.
...cuz they help start us off on an open minded debate. Gee, it's just a simple case of lawyers helping lawyers, CmdrTaco said so!
Although it would be absolutely wrong to ban the distribution of will-making software or DIY will kits I would point out that my mother, a lawyer (in England rather than the US), says that in her experience over 80% of DIY wills are invalid, including ones done with will-making software. Now is it really worth saving a few bucks only to have your beneficiaries spend a fortune contesting the will in probate court or even worse, see you declared intestate and your estate disappear into state coffers?
Nick (nstrug@bu.edu - must remember to re-register...)
Another problem I see is: why is a FEDERAL judge in FEDERAL court saying what can and cannot be sold in TEXAS? Wouldn't his ban have to apply to his entire Federal District, or is this software OK for people in Oklahoma? Any lawyers want to comment on this?
Disgruntled Anonymous Coward from Texas
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't such a ban
have to go through the Texas legislature?
U.S. Citizens are expected to KNOW the law. So here's a software that could be used for fun/entertainment/educational purposes to get people more familiar with the law.. and a judge of this country wants to ban it? The message I get from this is: "do what you think is right, don't worry about the law. if you get arrested, call a lawyer" .. I, personally, like to know what's illegal BEFORE i get arrested. I dont want a lawyer telling me from jail what I could have learned by using this software. This is a prime example that this government does not work and should be abolished.
Folks, the fight of legal self-help against Texas is *OLD* news. Nolo Press has been under attack since April 1998! See Texas vs. Nolo Press for details.
Henry@Schmitt.org
Bahh. Any legal document is open to challange regardless if a lawyer or a piece of software wrote it. A relative of mine had a contract written up by a lawyer. Later he switched to another lawyer. A few years later he was sued and the lawyer WHO WROTE THE CONTRACT was representing the other party. The first lawyer was contesting that it wasn't a legally binding contract under those circumstances. Thankfully the second lawer was better and the case was thrown out.
The legal software I've seen won't do anything complicated. They're designed for people with simple needs who would rather not pay legal fees. The software I used for my will was very explicit about what it wouldn't do. If I wanted to go beyond the bounds of the software it was very clear that I would need to see a lawyer.
Wills, Power Of Attorney's and the like seem to be rather standard for most people and Living Wills are up to debait regardless of who wrote them. I don't have a lot of experience with getting other legal documents drawn up, but I'd imagine that the majority of legal documents are also pretty standard depending on your state.
I remember going into some stores and being able to purchase wills where all you needed to do was fill in the blanks and have them witnessed. At least the software seems better than that.
In my opinion a lawyer is really needed if:
(1.) You have any special circumstances or unusual requests.
or
(2.) You feel more comfortable with a person than a piece of software.
If you run into legal trouble after using the software I'd bet you could find pleanty of lawyers who would take your case. We're also not talking about "shareware" legal software either. If you purchase a reputable piece of software the company who produces it has lawyers retained to make sure the document is as valid as possible.
...before our eyes....nuf said..
....dhq
I always knew that it would come down to lining the pockets of the layers and politicians. I wonder who paid of that Judge, eh?
Welcome to the new world order.
Any profession that simply relies on the regurgitation of formatting rules is doomed to have that aspect of its function replicated by computer software. Obviously, lawyers will still be needed to give harrowing speeches in defense of a child molester, and accountants to testify on behalf of the mafia, but the simple, protocol driven aspects of their job aren't sacred to them. Why should they maintain a monopoly on procedure? Maybe they should have went into programming...
You have to draw the limit at protecting people from themselves somewhere. If this sort of thing is done in Law, then what's to stop it from being done in other professions? (If it is done in Law, we'll have a lot less power to stop it from spreading to other professions).
For example, cleaning products are dangerous. People using them incorrectly can kill themselves. Why, someone might mix bleach with their ammonia based window cleaner and die from the poison gas! The obvious solution is to pass laws that ensure that no-one may clean their own home. No, cleaning homes must be done by properly licensed cleaning persons.
OK, that's silly, isn't it? But it's not any more silly than the law software thing. After all, there would be tangible benefits from the house cleaning plan. Millions of deaths could be avoided if people weren't allowed near cleaning supplies. Hmmm, maybe I should stop before I give any Texas judges ideas.
This seems to be a sticky area balancing the rights of software manufacturers to sell products and the rights of consumers to get what they think they're getting. As long as these products are used with some common sense, and people don't assume that it is the same as actually hiring a lawyer, I think these products could be useful.
However, it really opens up a can of worms to have people using DIY programs rather than talking with someone who really knows what they're doing. There is no way that a software manufacturer (or for that matter, a book publisher) can be held to the same level of accountability as a practicing lawyer or doctor. In other words, if the program is flawed, the consumer is basically screwed.
I am not a lawyer, but I am a practicing physician, and it is amazing how our laws are very strict about physicians not "deviating from the standard of care", but any non-professional can make ridiculous medical statements with impunity. In other words, if I tell a patient that granola cures cancer, it is malpractice, but if a non-physician says the same thing, it is "freedom of speech".
I am sure that the legal software products in question are honest, well-researched, and generally accurate. Nevertheless, these products clearly set up a "slippery slope" that can be exploited by less scrupulous parties. Software can be tremendously more powerful than books, so maybe it should be held to a somewhat higher standard (amazing, considering that software generally doesn't even have a basic warranty).
After rambling on a bit, I guess I would conclude that free expression is a higher value than protecting us from ourselves. Let the buyer beware!
"Sound mind" can and is often challenged after the fact.
Many wills drafted *with* the assistance of a lawyer later get thrown out on the grounds that they make no sense. (Lawyers have been known to help draw up, and then argue in court, wills that do such things as leave millions to a cat.)
Anna Nicole Smith got very little of her elderly husband's billions, even though his lawyer-drafted will left it all to her.
I am reminded in the mid 80's how the contract between Fantasy records and Creedence Clearwater Revival was finally thrown out on the grounds that it was "too one sided".
Fantasy's high powered *lawyer*, drafted a contract that basically gave the record company 100% of CCR's profits and the band got zip.
The members of CCR, who in the 60's were 4 Berkley hippies thrilled to get a recording contract, and had no legal background, blindly signed the contract.
This lawyer-drafted contract was thrown out as being unfair and too one sided. Not a ruling dissimilar to finding a document, such as a will, having been written with a lack of "sound mind."
You know, funnily enough, decent medical diagnosis software usually scores better than human doctors at identifying illnesses. Both have fairly high error rates. It may bequired by law for doctors to use such packages in the future. Either way, you're still going to need to see a doctor if you need a prescription. If you need surgery, I _hope_ you're not going to try to do it yourself. On the other hand, if you've got a little case of the flu, isn't it better for you to be told by your software that there's really nothing you can do but take comfort medicines and wait it out than to go to the doctor, be charged money, be told the same thing, then demand useless (against a virus) anti-biotics because you feel you deserve more for having come to the doctor? You might die if it turns out that you have a more serious illness you couldn't spot yourself (the software does require you to report your symptoms accurately). On the other hand, you might die if you go to the doctor and he misdiagnoses your menengitis, which the software would have spotted. Who knows. Doctors certainly aren't gods, there are just certain things that they're much better trained to do than most people.
Anyway, it may be stupid of me to splint my own broken leg, but should it be criminal? After all, it's still my body that does the actual healing. If I have the expertise to do it, why shouldn't I? In most cases, of course, only doctors have the needed expertise, but not always.
And people wonder why our country (USA) is going to hell
we have a self ritious communist, marxist, natzi, bastard that thinks he is the law, and that the people are simple pheasents that need to be ruled.
I think this asshole needs a recall done on him pronto and charged with being a criminal against the people, tarred and feathered and blackballed as an enemy of the state. But then the Govt likes these buttheads, pas a law that further takes away rights of the people. hell let's pass a law that all court proceedings shall be in latin so the jury cant mis-interpet what the judge says... I.E. : "this man is guilty, if you think otherwise you will be sentenced to death"
and the fun part... the texans will sit by and let this dweeb do this... tells you alot about texans.
Wait, sorry, I'm trying to work this out. It sounded like he was saying that rich districts were paying less taxes than poor districts, but getting more money for their schools. I didn't see you disputing this, so I'm assuming it's correct.
So then... doesn't this mean that the wealthy are being given other peoples money because they're wealthy? Well, whatever, I couldn't really completely understand what either of you were talking about (which you will no doubt attribute to lack of intelligence on my part rather than lack of communication skills on yours).
Either way, I don't quite see how you came to the conclusion that government funded education is illegitimate. How anyone can expect society to survive if children aren't well educated, I'll never know.
In any case, this judge doesn't seem like much of a hero to me either at this point. It's another example of taking away peoples freedoms and selling it to corporations, trade guilds, and powerful individuals. It's especially insidious since, the entire of the judiciary being lawyers, there's a massive conflict of interests here. The rules and philosophies of lawyers organisations are being foisted upon the public as if they were law. Blah.
Why should I pay any taxes at all?
Such taxes fund the police. I don't commit any crimes, and I have a gun, so I can take care of myself. Let those who need the police pay for them.
Such taxes pay for schools. I'm rich. I went to private schools. I'm educated. If people can't pay for schools, let them stay uneducated.
Such taxes pay for Medicare. I don't get sick. Let everyone pay for their own health care. If they can't, f**k 'em. Call it survival of the fittest/richest.
Such taxes pay for Social Security. I have investments. I don't need SS. If people can't make smart enough investments, or, don't have the money to do so, f**k 'em. Call it survival of the richest.
Such taxes help hold society together. I'm a fascist, ignorant, anti-social ("individual") redneck. I don't believe in society. Those who do are communists. Let's shoot 'em all, so the rest of us can remain moronic barbarians.
Yeah, you're right.
... software also. You never know when a bug in the software could lose a company millions of dollars or even cost somebody's life.
And while we're at it let's get rid of CAD, FEM, EDA
I guess the variety of the legal terminology between wills is just to difficult to keep track of.
Perhaps even the majority of law work done requires a lawyer but software has it's place also. (even though this isn't the real issue for me - choice is).
The practice of law is an activity wherein you take on someone else's legal issues. Anyone in US jurisdiction is perfectly free to write whatever paper he wants. The issue that's being taken on in Texas is that the software (really, the writers thereof) can be seen as taking on someone else's legal issues. In this narrow view the writers can be considered to be practicing law.
quack
The problem is not with folks doing a will for $20 over an $150/hr attorney.
The problem is people thinking they're doing it right and then they die and family members (who once liked, even loved, each other) suddenly are at each other's throat argueing over who gets what chunk of Dad's estate.
Then what happens is they call a COUPLE of $250/hr attorneys to fight it out and because they can't agree on shit, most of the estate goes to pay the attorneys.
All because the moron did a crappy, do-it-yourself will.
I am the founder of the only open-source legal
software package. It is called VirtuaLaw.
Currently, we only have a Windows version written
in MS Access. I am hoping to somehow port this
to Linux. If you would like to assist or if
you would like this to use this software try
the web page below.
http://www.dunsinane.net/bryan/
The software is currently in use by some law firms.
It has allowed one firm to more than triple its
case load.
Or if you have a legal software project of your
own and need some web space give me a holler.
Thanks.
The whole idea that you can only have someone who is a member of the bar as legal counsel seems rather unconstitutional and anti-democratic to me. If I want to have a friend who knows a bit about law advise me on legal matters, even defend me in court, whose business is it but my own? If I can defend myself in court and I'm not a licensed lawyer, why can't someone else?
Is that a situation where you turn round and say 'bad luck, should have gone to a real financial adviser' - or do you have a class action against the software manufacturer.
Check the license. Ten to one, they disclaim the "implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose". Buyer beware indeed...
After all, this amounts to the unlicensed practice of medicine, yes? Everyone must be required to see a doctor no matter what the medical reason. Even minor scratches can sometimes be FATAL.
I like the idea of "buyer beware."
If you do something stupid, it's your own damn fault. The idea that people need to be protected from themselves is ridiculous. And it's even more ridiculous that a company can be held liable for something stupid that someone did with their product. We have warning labels on ladders because some imbecile decides to dance an Irish jig on the top rung and sued the ladder company over the results. Enough is enough!
All lawyers are not evil. True. But there's enough bad ones such that given a random lawyer. I will distrust him from the start.
If even 10% of all doorknobs zapped you with a mild shock, you will become wary and distrustful of all doorknobs, yes? Is that incorrect behaviour? I do not think so.
Just ask any libertarian!
Why? Because if everyone were educated, nobody would be sufficiently ignorant to fall for childish reductionist mythology like libertarianism. Libertarians are opposed to education for the same reasons that states who run lotteries are opposed to teaching statistics.
It's a crime that people like you can't understand that.
Thoughtcrime, eh? Thanks for clarifying your position.
It's a crime that people like you can't understand that.
Thoughtcrime, eh? Thanks for clarifying your position.
The constitution *does*, incidentally, provide for the Federal income tax. It's in an amendment, just like the right to bear arms.
It's a crime that people like you can't understand that.
Thoughtcrime, eh? Thanks for clarifying your position.
The constitution *does*, incidentally, provide for the Federal income tax. It's in an amendment, just like the right to bear arms and the right to free speech.
I certainly agree that doctors should be held to higher standards than lay people. The point I was trying to make is that DIY software packages are held to lay-person standards, even though they seem to give "professional" advice. This opens up tremendous potential for abuse.
To go back to my example, it doesn't bother me so much to hear a layperson say "Granola cures cancer" if it is clear to the listener that the statement is simply a lay opinion. It bothers me greatly when the listener is falsely led to believe that the speaker is a physician or other health-care professional.
There is a great deal of money being made off of "alternative medicine". I can go into any drug store and find many "herbal remedies" for arthritis, prostate disease, etc. The labels contain small disclaimers that "This product has not been evaluated by the FDA and is not intended to treat any disease". Nonetheless, many people assume that there would have to be supporting data for these products to be sold in their nice, respectable-looking commercial packages. Wrong!
The companies that make these products are making millions. However, any physician that recommends these remedies or other untested therapy can be held legally liable for "deviating from the standard of care".
Don't get me wrong. Lots of doctors make mistakes, some of which harm people, but at least the patient has legal recourse. I just hate to see unscrupulous people give out harmful advice and be able to claim immunity due to freedom of speech.
Again, Let The Buyer Beware!
The more we can do to alert Americans to the dangers of education, the better.
Let's take a look at the record:
What state has the highest per-capita level of education? Massachussetts. What state is most liberal? Massachussetts. Likewise New York, California, and on down the list. Working back from the other end, which states are most conservative? Those least educated, with the deep South proudly leading the parade. Education correlates *very* well with liberalism. Since it's obvious that liberalism is anti-democratic, it is in our vital national interests to stamp out education wherever it may appear.
It may be necessary to permit a certain amount of technical training, but the so-called "liberal arts", the core of an actual *education* (as opposed to mere training) are useless at best, and destructive to democracy at worst. A nation of sullen, sluggish farmers and auto mechanics (not to mention exterminators) can be trusted with the vote; a nation of intellectuals cannot. This has been established and implemented in many places around the world in the past century; in fact, it would be safe to call the 20th century the "century of purging intellectuals". Our unprecedented level of world prosperity (for those who count, I mean) and technological achievement stand in eloquent testimony to the value of such purges. Would the stalwart principles of a great statesman such as Tom DeLay have survived an eductation? I doubt it. Cursed with an education, DeLay could hope for no more than the meager merits of a Thomas Jefferson, or a John Adams. Look at Newt Gingrich's background; his undeniable genius was formed by trailer park inbreeding and illegitimacy. Had he been raised in a civilized environment, the world would have lost a great treasure.
You don't have to be a lawyer *anywhere* to become a judge. The president can appoint whoever he wants to a Federal bench. In most states, judges are elected, in which case anyone can run for the office, lawyer or not.
Incidentally, as federal judges are appointed for life, with salary protection and rather draconian restrictions on
outside income, it is unlikely that, as some have suggested here, the judge had his own financial interests in mind in
making this ruling. (Which doesn't mean it's right, of course; it's certainly possible to be both sincere and wrong.)
But all of his best buddies are lawyers who would, no doubt, like to see this type of software cease to exist.
If you buy a software medical package, and instead of going to the doctor (v expensive), you fill out some details with signs and symptoms, and it mis-diagnoses you and you get seriously ill, how happy are you going to be?
Well, now you go to your clinic, you see a doctor, but a non-doctor gets to approve what you really need medically or not in the HMO. Sue the HMO? They're legally protected from liability lawsuits in this country. Or, in the old days, you see one doctor, get one story...er, diagnosis. See another, get a different one. You still get to choose. It's this American fascination with being able to have someone to blame that is helping bring ourselves down...
Can you not imagine such software being illegal, because no matter how good it is, the chance of it going dangerously wrong are pretty good.
Hmm... In the abstract, you have a software that is at least one person's interpretation of things, or you have this human being that gives you his interpretation of things. It's all the same, really.
With law, the end result will not be serious illness - it might be simply life-long debt, reposession of your house etc.
And those things aren't serious? Get serious...
Why should the public not be protected from misleading advice - be it from bad lawyer or a bad law package?
Well, if this were the case, then 99% of the advertising we're surrounded with should be banned, because it is either misleading, has nothing to do directly with the qualities of the product, etc. If one holds that people should ultimately be able to make choices for themselves, NO MATTER HOW STUPID OR DANGEROUS THEY MIGHT BE, then at the very least creating an information monopoly (oldly, the Medical Cabal, and again, the Legal Guild) should be made illegal.
I have no problem with DIY will software, or DIY first aid software. I have a big problem with DIY GP software, or DIY Solicitor software.
So, would that also mean making illegal the sale of legal textbooks and references, because then any ol' fool could (can) get them and educate themselves to the workings of the law.
I've never understood the American obsession with hating lawyers and then giving them loads of money at every turn. Very strange...
Nah, it's really a cultural fascination with wanting to find someone to blame for shit that has happened to them, usually self-inflicted (or at least not prevented) to one extent or another.
It all comes down to basic things. As much as I loathe things Biblical, the 10 Commandments are a pretty basic, simple code. Yet, if you are caught stealing something, say, and you think you have a good, justifiable reason for stealing it, well, you want your lawyer there to argue the differences between what you did and what stealing "really" is. That, and another Americanism is, "There ought to be a law against that!" We are weak, and can't control ourselves, and need external agents to try and do it for us.
Warning: Don't read if you get easily shocked.
In Finland we can:
Sign contracts
Write wills
Rent/buy/sell apartments
Write agreements
Read the law books
Represent ourselves in court
...without paying a lawyer! Isn't that scary?
Since law governs the conduct of all the residents of a country are required to obey the law, the law should be obeyable without a trade based on knowing the law.
This isn't just lawyers helping lawyers make some money - this is a judge trying to control the amount of contested wills and estates. Lawyers write enough ambiguous wills, we don't need mom and pop writing even worse ones. The judge is simply sparing numerous courts from the clutter of homemade wills and testaments...
The fact that Texas has counties where oil was discovered well after settlement has allowed a large number of studies that took adjacent counties with identical populations in every way -- but one county could count on oil tax money to fund schools at a rate 5-10x (seriously -- indoor pools, massages, covered football stadiums, the whole deal) that of a county right next door. The upshot is that academic acheivement has been identical in these cases (East Texas, West Texas, Far West Texas, South Texas ...). And when the oil crash happened, did the scores drop? No. They stayed exactly the same. Edgewood is the product of thirty years of left wing wackos trying to do stuff that made them feel good, like redistribute income. It is part and parcel of plans (frequently brought to court by the same people) that deinstitutionalized crazy people in the '70s and gave them a welfare stipend (so that they could have the dignity of being out of an institution), which has essentially turned into a work program for drug dealers and scam artists and put lunatics out on every major city street in the US. THEY DIDN'T USED TO BE THERE, PEOPLE -- THIS IS A RECENT ADDITION TO THE URBAN LANDSCAPE AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE LULAC AND THE ACLU. It is part of the same thinking that made vagracy laws illegal, so you can't arrest some nut taking a crap on your lobby floor for vagracy -- only property damage, if you can prove it. And not public lewdness -- similarly, public lewdnes no longer exists in most of the US because is is "discriminatory." Lewdness was categorized extensively in terms of the cops picking up gays cruising places frequented, essentially, only by other gays and cops, so it was a gay liberation issue. It wasn't. Now we can't arrest people hanging around schoolyards looking for victims or vagrants waving their peckers at passing cars. And yes, we should arrest them. Trunancy laws also were declared unconstitutional in many states by the same people, and a whole block of "nuisance laws" (loitering, no-stopping-or-standing zones, excessive noise, and so on) ceased to exist. So it is deeper than just BS acting like BS -- and he is not well respected locally. And you shouldn't dismiss what a real screw-up Edgewood was unless you actually understand how much money doesn't affect academic achievement when added as an independant variable. Do you know what most of the money give to poor schools is used for? Football. And yes, I have a problem with that. I attended Austin public schools and they sucked. My wife attended Brownsville public schools and they were worse. 40% of Texans overall are functionally illiterate (less than a 4th grade grasp of English or any other written language). This is a big fucking problem and assholes who think that the solution is throwing other people's money at it should spend some time looking at where the money is being used.
Sorry about ranting, but there are schools in the Valley with rat problems who immediately build new football stadiums. And the parents were overjoyed. Money is not the main problem.
The problem is not with folks doing a will for $20 over an $150/hr attorney. The problem is people thinking they're doing it right and then they die and family members (who once liked, even loved, each other) suddenly are at each other's throat argueing over who gets what chunk of Dad's estate. Or, Dad went to LawyerX right out of Law School. So say he got his will done for $75/hr. Then he dies. Then the family sides bring in the $250/hr or more lawyers to contest the will, because the lawyer was too inexperienced and a "better" attorney wouldn't have made some of the mistakes that this lawyer did. Or Dad had his good ol' lawyer pal do it for $200/hr anyways, but his lawyer friend happened to like too much alcohol, or even better, was boning his client's wife. The kids find out, and contest the will. The software side of the will is a red herring. Then what happens is they call a COUPLE of $250/hr attorneys to fight it out and because they can't agree on shit, most of the estate goes to pay the attorneys. All because the moron did a crappy, do-it-yourself will.
hear, hear! You do not realize how right you are. After all, Germany had one of the best-educated electorates the world had ever seen in 1933. Liberal education policies are more dangerous than you think!
Thank you for demonstrating that education is a synonym for what you, in the depths of your ignorance, call "socialism". (By the way, it's actually called liberalism, and it has very little to do with socialism at all). Anyhow, you for damn sure don't have any trace of an education, nor any trace of liberalism.
Virtually every college in the U.S. (dare I say the world?) is controlled by socialists.
You're on crack. Name one. Unless you're still using the term "socialist" to refer to the "moderate liberal" who actually exists in the real United States; in that case, you may have a point, but you might want to think about that for a bit (if you were capable of thinking
It makes for a lovely equivocation:
Yet again, you're kind enough to demonstrate your abysmal ignorance. Try looking up "equivocation" in a dictionary some time. While you're at it, look up "false etymology".
"the more educated you are, the more you will see that socialism is right."
I'm getting very bored with your hysterical yelping about "socialists". Blind recitations of dogma are boring, my friend. Only a very small and empty mind would be entertained by them, much less persuaded.
Having drunk deeply from the well of self-importance, they presume the "right" to tell me how to live, to tell you how your money should be spent, and to force us to do things that we would not choose to do.
On planet Earth, there are indeed people who want to use the law to ram their childish religion down our throats; they are called "conservatives", and when they're not howling about Jesus, they're usually howling about an imaginary monster called "socialism" that hides under their beds. The ones who admit to enjoying "sin" (porn or whatever) (this is not a great virtue, but it's a virtue nonetheless) are called "libertarians", and they howl about "socialism" all day long without taking any refreshing Jesus-breaks. You're not a bad example of the latter, as far as I can tell.
Take a hike. I can run my own life just fine.
Heh. I love it. My little friend, you are a parasite. Whatever prosperity we have in this country in the 1990's is almost entirely a product of government-funded basic research over the last fifty years. That research was initially funded by the wealth created by Northeastern liberals over the preceding century. Without that investment in basic research, the high-tech industry would not exist (without which no other modern industry would exist in its present form), and the Internet would not exist (to be fair, the web came from CERN in Switzerland, which is funded by various European governments
You are parasitizing a prosperity created by liberals like me. That's okay; we don't mind. Liberals that we are, we don't count our change with every bum who comes along for a handout. It's saddening that you seem to have a weird, fanatical desire to destroy this prosperity and return us to a feudal economy like the old South had, but you're basically harmless in practice. People like you are a notably rabid, but also notably irrelevant, fixture on the lunatic fringe. We've heard it before, and we'll hear it again. So what? We survived William Jennings Bryan, and we'll survive you too. So keep on shrieking; it's entertaining, if nothing else.
I don't need your help, or the help of your socialist friends.
I have only one socialist friend. He's a doctrinaire Trotskyite, and he's just as mindlessly dogmatic, boring, ill-informed, and self-important as you are. He's also equally averse to liberals and democracy. I avoid him as much as I can.
Ta-ta.
:)
Typical socialist, leftist drivel. You people can never seem to get past your utterly unfounded conceit that being educated means you'll be socialist. What arrogance! I'm sure the folks in Alabama will deeply appreciate your profound sense of self-importance -- err, interest in what's "best" for them.
On the other hand, given the fact that socialists control the colleges and use them for the propagation of their immoral, unworkable, defective and bankrupt political philosophy, we shouldn't be surprised to find that so many people who graduate from these institutions become socialists.
The universities are seminaries of socialism first, and committed to education second. Or third. Or whatever.
DFL
Do you actually believe this gibberish, or are you a troll with a long attention span, messing with my mind? There's something suspciously too obvious about you. Even the worst libertarian can usually come up with an argument composed of more than one word.
Out with it!
I think you were too subtle with that one. They probably took it seriously. Hell, they'll probably be quoting you next week
With law, the end result will not be serious illness - it might be simply life-long debt, reposession of your house etc.
If that is the case, the American legistlation should be fixed so that a John Doe can understand the legistlation. We need doctors to cure disease, but the laws shouldn't so complicated that a trade of understanding the scriptures is needed. People should be protected by making the laws understandable and not by adding a layer of interpreters.
Smokers already pay $5 / pack in Canada. It works pretty well with the exception of Quebec (the French smoke like chimneys). An interesting side effect is the black market of cigarette smuggling from the States.
Brock Arnason
M.Eng. Physics
United Bank of Switzerland
Do you have any idea how arrogant you are?
I guess not. Mac Davis wrote a song about you, didn't he?
If this wasn't a troll, I pity the people who are your subordinates. Please tell me your name so that I can flee the country if you ever get elected to any office above butthead.
"You are parasitizing a prosperity created by liberals like me..."
Wow. I can't even begin to address the twisted chain of reasoning behind this statement.
First of all, I'm not the same AC who posted earlier. I am, however, someone who holds ideas that may be deemed "conservative", and others that would be better categorized as "liberal".
I hate to generalize my personal beliefs by grouping them under the moniker of "conservative", "liberal", or "libertarian". Each has negative connotations ("conservative" = Christian greedy cold-hearted corporate bastard, "liberal" = bleeding heart sententious pseudo-intellectual, "libertarian" = unabomber cum militia-forming criminal).
For example, I believe that women should be free to have abortions. I also detest censorship of all kinds. I also believe in judging people (academically or in the business world) based PURELY on merit, with no extenuating circumstances.
Are these contradictory beliefs? Not at all. Do they fit under a traditional label? No.
What pushes me toward a "libertarian" standpoint is my belief that government should intervene in the lives of private citizens only to protect those citizens from others - not from THEMSELVES.
Finally, I'm irritated when someone relies on the "my education is better than yours, so your opinions don't matter" argument. One should argue one's points on merit alone. We can't even verify the "superiority" of your education when you post as an AC.
Brock Arnason
M.Eng. Engineering Physics, Cornell University
United Bank of Switzerland
Still wailing and screaming about "socialism", I see. I'll say it again: Look it up. You have no idea what you're talking about.
The "prosperity" we presently enjoy is based upon theft: inflation. It is immoral and cannot last.
"Immoral"? Thanks for backing me up in calling you a religious dogmatist. Heh. Anyway, our present prosperity is based to a large degree on the creation of wealth. To a lesser (but still quite dangerous) degree, it's based on nonsensical paper-shuffling pseudo-capitalism in the stock market. Mostly, though, people are producing goods and services and other people are buying them.
I could point to the abject failure of statist economic planning as evidenced in the Soviet Union's collapse, but what's the point?
You're an imbecile. The Soviet economy was centrally planned; ours is mixed. After the abject failure of pure laissez faire economics in 1929, we wised up and put some controls on the market so it doesn't spin out of control. Those controls have worked. The Soviet system, like the wretched positive feedback loop that you dream of, was based on blind dogma without recourse to objective reality. It failed, as all systems based on fantasies will always fail.
It will always fail in the long run because it is immoral and illegitimate.
I'm not at all interested in the rantings of unwashed, self-appointed messiahs. They come and go, and they've all got reductionistic, paint-by-numbers "solutions". We've seen this with Hitler, with Stalin, with Pol Pot, with Mao, with Mussolini, with Franco . . . The list goes on. Take your fantasies about "morality" and "legitimacy" and keep them to yourself. They have nothing to do with reality. If you want to talk about economics, learn about economics and spare me the New Age twaddle. If you can name an intelligently managed mixed economy that has ever failed for reasons other than massive changes in the world market, I'd love to hear about it. If an economic system works, and if under that system most people tend to be able to do well for themselves, then it's a good system. A "moral" system of no practical worth is just that -- worthless. You and Stalin can go and hang out together and swap stories. You're selling the same snake-oil, but nobody's buying it any more.
Oh, yeah, as for your hysterical barking about alleged violations of "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of association" -- give me a break. You're pathetic. You're the one who wants to purge the intellectuals, not me. You're the one who has an ideological litmus test, not me.
There's a similar case already going on in Texas, where they've tried to prevent Nolo (which publishes legal self-help books) from selling their books and software in Texas.
You can see the whole sordid story on their website at Texas vs. Nolo
this isn't gibberish.
Good heavens. It is precisely gibberish. You've got a borderline-paranoid, all-embracing Theory of Everything, where everything fits into a little niche somewhere in the body of a vast, cosmic duality. This is childishness. It's a fairy-tale. It's pure, unalloyed gibberish.
That colleges are effectively seminaries of socialism is likewise indisputable.
You're insane. Visit a college. Please. The fact that they don't teach your dogma doesn't mean that they do teach anybody else's. Maybe they just educate people, ever think of that? Maybe some faculty members interpret the facts one way, while other faculty members disagree. Maybe it's not all one big conspiracy. Ever heard of William of Ockham? Probably not.
Check your average survey results
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
"liberal" (a weasel word for "socialist")
I could just as easily, and with equal justice, describe "conservative" as "a weasel word for child molester". It would prove nothing, just as you have proven nothing. First find out what a socialist is, then talk to me about it.
This does not prove that socialism is an "enlightened" philosophy; it proves that the faculties of colleges are using their position to propagate socialism (consciously or unconsciously).
This is called circular reasoning. You're using your conclusion to justify the assumptions that support the conclusion. This particular case of circular reasoning also presupposes an almost supernatural ability on the part of colleges to control the thoughts of students who arrive at age 18, with their identities already largely formed. Endowing one's "enemies" with supernatural powers is a classically paranoiac trait, did you know that?
The fact that you and others here continually resort to calling me ignorant more than adequately proves my point.
The fact that you continually get your terms mixed up demonstrates that you are either ignorant, or an idiot. I choose to credit it to ignorance, because that is the more charitable assumption. Okay? I call you ignorant because you've got all your facts wrong. Deal with it.
Wills are for losers. If you trust your heir, do joint ownership. If you don't, disinherit the bastard.
maybe if he thought his degree was relevant to the quality of his argument he'd list it his sig like you did yours.
I've met him, too. I live in Dallas and I live
with various aspects of his lunacy every day. He
may occasionally make a reasonable decision, but
I have never seen one.
Nolo's gonna kick texas butt too and save our asses.
The complete and hilarious saga can be found at:
http://www.nolo.com/Texas/index.html
Uhm ... lawbooks are already effectively out of reach of the general public.
...thus the need for all the ... "professionals"
The laws (in the United States at least) are so compilcated that the typical person has no idea when and or if the are breaking the law
If, however, you're saying that a Finn not qualified in any jurisdiction can represent _him/herself_ in any of the above-captioned matters - well heck, folks here in the US can do that.
This was what I meant.
In every state but Arizona it is illegal for a non-lawyer to engage in the "unauthorized practice of law". To be a lawyer, you have to pass the bar exam. To even sit for the bar exam, you must have graduated from an accredited law school. These rules are widely perceived to be to protect high priced lawyers from competition from non-lawyers. Since all the people involved in enforcement of these statutes are lawyers, you can imagine the results.
With all the various certifications required to practice dozens if not hundreds of professions, we are rapidly returning to a medieval guild system. The lawyers and such of course claim that they are just trying to protect the public. It sure it curious that is lines their pockets with money at the same time.
What if Quicken hired some laywers to write its software? Would it then be authorized practice of law?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Very bad analogy. To make this anything like tobacco companies, the makers of the software would have to know that their product was faulty, conduct a decades-long disinformation campaign alledging that any warnings placed on their product were the product of a paternalistic government with no relation to reality, and manipulate the harmful effects of their product to ensure addiction.
In short, they'd have to be Microsoft ...
Not that I want to sounds too nationalstic but our system of law(which is different from England and the rest of the UK) is designed to be easy to use and understandable to the man in the street. For example we can draw up perfectly legally binding and enforcable contracts without requiring legal eagles(or should that be vultures) to pour over the documents...the same goes for things like wills.
The system is, mostly, fair...
Candence seem to like it...that's one of the reasons they setup an System On a Chip design centre here so that their IP could be protected in a rational fashion(unlike the US).
Lawyers still stink though.
Nothing!
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is this: A will means nothing legally, except that the courts need to consider it. In general, a judge will not throw out a will, and because it exist the judge will spend less time considering the estage ("look, a will, tell whoever is appointed executer to take care of it, court fee of almost nothing. Next" vs "no will. well, who are heirs, give them so long to come forward ... big court fees.") However anyone with a lawyer can contest any will. In most cases a judge will laugh at you for trying, but it you approach it just right, you can break a will.
Wills are generally only broken when a direct decendant isn't mentioned at all. So if you have illigitiment children who you don't contact, and don't otherwise owe support you should leave them one dollar. A lawyer should know details like this, in addition to other details that you may not have considered.
A major advantage of having a lawyer draw up a will, is you have someone who knows what your wishes were when you made it. This lawyer not only will defend the will (for a fee, we are talking about pond skum, but at least you are paying them - they might help you) but they can testify in court about what you likely ment if something new comes up.
I personally woudln't recomend anyone with significant assets get a will without a lawyer. One of my uncles did, died last year with no decendants. There is considerable hasstle because the will he left was done without a lawyer. (or software) As family we decided not to break it, but I would have had a chance at more money if I really cared to try. (the family would forget about my existance though.)
I'm not a lawyer, but the above should be considered the worst case, and if not true, close enough.
I also wonder -- how does one develop such a void between the ears? Normal people couldn't cultivate such a lack of common sense without dedication and hard work.
TedC
Aye. Second the motion!!!!
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Lawyers are like hit-men. Pay them money, they kill w/o thinking: men, women, children, various domestic animals, etc. Lawyers are the same. Pay them money and they litigate any side of any question. No morals comes to mind.
Granted, in any free society, one needs a fair and impartial justice system. It'll be nice when/if the US gets one.
Whats' the differnece between a dead dog lying in the road and a dead lawyer lying in the road? The dog doesn't have tire marks all over its body. Heh.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
I'm also from Texas and I would certainly hope that this could not become a law simply because a lawyer wants it to be so. I wonder if this judge has friends/relatives that are lawyers? Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No, citizens are expected to know the law. Period. If they have to hire a lawyer to inform them of the law, then that's their right. Sure, you won't get arrested for not knowing civil law. At least not right away. You could simply lose your house, car, money, credit, family, etc. You get the point. If it happens, you can't say "Wait! I didn't know that's how the laws worked!" The court will have no sympathy. You should have informed yourself. Once you have lost all that, then you're likely to do something to get arrested.
Legal software is used for more than just drawing up wills. It is used for all sorts of contracts. I have the right to go to a lawyer. If I could afford to do so, I probably would. However, if I can't afford to have a lawyer advise me on matters such as a will or some sort of contract, then shouldn't I have the right to obtain at least some legal advice/information from whatever source is available to me?
It would certainly be better than if I attempted to write a will or contract on my own. This software would probably not be as good as a good lawyer, but how many people can afford to have a good lawyer really look at their case or problem and take an interest in it? Most are lucky if they can get a 15-30 minute consultation. Some advice and information is better than none at all. I think the software should be labeled with a disclaimer that is displayed prominently on the box. Then people will be warned. If they choose to use the software anyway, then that should be their right.
Nobody says I can't buy a book that gives legal advice. Nobody says I can't give someone else legal advice as long as I don't misrepresent myself as an attorney. Why shouldn't I be able to get advice from software? In the end, it's me that pays the price. Whether I get bad advice from a computer or bad advice from a lawyer, I will be the one to suffer for it, so I should be the one to choose.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I've always assumed that "practicing law" meant defending someone in court or representing yourself as a lawyer when giving legal advice. Does it also mean giving legal advice whether you represent yourself as a lawyer or not? Does that mean I'm breaking the law if I advise someone not to agree to a certain EULA? Would I be breaking the law if I helped someone draw up a contract using legal books as a reference? Exactly where is the line?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Of course there could be other reasons that he should disqualify himself from making a decision on this issue. Does he have friends/relatives/children who are or intend to become lawyers? That could constitute a conflict of interest I would think.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
And when you go to a doctor, he asks for the symptoms and mis-diagnoses you and you get seriously ill, how happy are you? Don't say it doesn't happen; the doctors very nearly killed my father that way.
And statistically-significant sampling shows that most doctors don't even know the right way to bandage-up a sprained ankle!
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
It is laws and mindset like these that have contributed to the degeneration of the human gene pool.
In the "animal kingdom," if you will, no one is protecting you from your own stupidity. You're dumb enough to go play with the wolf, you die. Too bad, your dumbness genes don't get a chance to propagate. Sorry if that sounds cruel, but that's the way it is.
However, we have too many damn laws and regulations whose basic purpose is to protect people from their own stupidity *and* give them a legal recourse to blame someone else and extract legal damages. If you're dumb enough to put an opened cup of hot coffee next to your crotch in a moving vehicle, you get your privates burned. Don't go suing the people who sold you the coffee (and make them put stupid warning labels, like 'coffee is served hot'). Certainly, we should protect people from someone *else's* idiocy, but please, don't limit me just because someone else is stupid. Things like drinking age and speed limit also fall into this category (and ultimately do not achieve their original purpose anyway, which is to prevent those not mature enough from drinking or driving at a safe speed). You cannot legislate common sense. Of course the coffee is served hot. Of course you shouldn't put the plastic bag over your head. Of course you should take the plastic wrapper off your frozen pizza before putting it in the oven.
What would be a lot more effective and beneficial to the human species as a whole is education. Teach your kids how to drink responsibly, how fast to drive without killing themselves, not to put hot beverages between their legs in a moving vehicle. Use thngs for what they are meant for. Legal software is obviously no substitute for a real lawyer. Certain simple things, like wills and powers-of-attorney, which are pretty much boiler-plate documents, can be taken care of by software. Class action suit against a large corporation would obviously require a lawyer (more than one, even).
Education, not legislation, is the way to a better world.
'Consultation Software' should be either held to the same standards as the real consultants or prohibited. If these companies would like to make money by giving cheap professional advice through software then they should be subject to all of the liabilities that implies.
The problem with software is that software vendors, especially at the consumer levels, have traditionally attempted to avoid any responsibility for the quality of their product or the consequences of it's use.
If software vendors want to be free to perpetrate torts upon their customers, they should be subject to all the conditions of that liberty: full professional liability.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Is this "Authorized Law" thing a texas state deal, or a whole federal thing? It doesn't occur to me that someone writing out a will is trying to pass himself off as legal counsel for other people...
What happens when people defend themselves in small claims, or for traffic violations? Are they now guilty of being 'unauthorized law practicioners'? Hrmmm... this could get sticky.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
If you buy a software medical package, and instead of going to the doctor (v expensive), you fill out some details with signs and symptoms, and it mis-diagnoses you and you get seriously ill, how happy are you going to be?
Can you not imagine such software being illegal, because no matter how good it is, the chance of it going dangerously wrong are pretty good.
With law, the end result will not be serious illness - it might be simply life-long debt, reposession of your house etc.
Why should the public not be protected from misleading advice - be it from bad lawyer or a bad law package?
I have no problem with DIY will software, or DIY first aid software.
I have a big problem with DIY GP software, or DIY Solicitor software.
I've never understood the American obsession with hating lawyers and then giving them loads of money at every turn. Very strange...
-----
Yes, but as a doctor, after prolonging your cancer patient's life and agony, letting him die slowly of a wasting disease, you can go make a down payment on a new Mercedes.
The other guy might be able to keep up with the payments on his Escort like the rest of us.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yes, but as a doctor, after prolonging your cancer patient's life and agony, letting him die slowly of a wasting disease, you can go make a down payment on a new Mercedes.
The other guy might be able to keep up with the payments on his Escort like the rest of us.
You "sold" your freedom of speech.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Great idea!
/.?
How would you like additional taxes on tobacco?
Smokers are complete idiots, so make them pay $5/pack.
How about people who drive too slow in the left-hand lane? Pull 'em over, write 'em a ticket!
How about people who post to
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You just mirrored one of the few servers that will probably never need this kind of help. The folks at Yahoo are competent and really don't need your help.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
>It sounded like he was saying that rich districts were paying less taxes than poor districts, but getting more money
>for their schools. I didn't see you disputing this, so I'm assuming it's correct. So then... doesn't this mean that
>the wealthy are being given other peoples money because they're wealthy?
Liberals are fond of mixing terminology to suit their whims. Tax rates vs revenue collected is a prime time favorite. For example, my school district has 100 homes with average value of US$100K. We tax ourselves to fund the local schools at a rate of 1% so we generate $100K/year. There is an average of 1 kid per home so we end up spending $1K/kid/year.
A "poorer" district has 200 homes with average value of $50K and taxes itself at 1% and they have an average of 2 kids per home....do you see where I'm headed here?
Judge BS has "decided" that the right thing for us to do is send some of our money to that other school district. So, if we want to maintain ourselves, we raise our own taxes to compensate. Thus, by federal judicial edict he has directly influenced the local representation and taxation, fiscal procedures ad nauseum. All of which are constitutionally the responsibility of local, state, and federal legislative branches of the gov.
>Either way, I don't quite see how you came to the conclusion that government funded education is illegitimate.
>How anyone can expect society to survive if children aren't well educated, I'll never know.
First of all, societies have survived for millenia when the majority of the populace was illiterate. That's not my idea of an ideal society, but it can happen.
Second, what makes you think that the "graduates" that are being turned out of the public school systems these days are educated?
Finally, how about the parents taking responsibility for their kids? Duh? That's why there are such things as parents, right? You tell me. Is your kid going to get a better education if some bureaucrat in another is in charge, or if you are in charge. I'll give you a clue, if you tell me that the state employee is better suited to be responsible for your kids' education, you shouldn't have any.
Check any tests, ratings or whatever, you'll find that private schools do better(except at athletics). So why do we insist on spending money on public schools? The the solution is obvious, yet those in charge will not make the decision and take action. Spend the money that is currently spent on public schools on private ones and education will improve, duh!
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Nice troll but not enough.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
...you didn't bother to include any facts supporting your position in your post, nor any logical arguments to defeat his position. Instead you filled it with the emotional nonsense that you claim to despise.
Waste of human potential indeed, so much noise, so little signal.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
...what you preach.
Ditch the dogma.
Learn some history, hell learn about the present.
Find out what my sacred principles are before you decide what would be in violation of them.
Find out what my pseudo-political/economic religion is predicated upon before you tell me what it is.
As far as what has been invented where, check California(too much to list), Alabama(aerospace), Texas(oil, semiconductors, aerospace), Florida(more semiconductors, space), Oklahoma(more oil), Michigan(mucho heavy industry), Illinois(physics), the Carolinas(ever hear of aircraft?) and see where you get. Somehow the high and mighty NE reduces itself to the well known pain in the ass that it has been for so long. It hasn't produced much worthwhile in a 100 years.
So much for strawmen.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Sure I've heard of the NYSE. That's just a popular marketplace. It has no influence on where the captital resides. Do you know how long it has been in existance? Are you really this messed up on such realities? It's no different from any market. It is a place where people meet to trade.
MIT, yah that's a good school. Not much else of value up there except maybe John Hopkins and it's in Maryland. I chose Rice instead.
I guess you've only been to Alabama. Perhaps never even been there. I notice you didn't bother to refute the rest of the inventions and industry that have come out of your so called "uneducated conservative" South. You didn't bother to list much in the way of inventions that have been produced by the NE either.
For some reason you also fail to mention why all that cheap, uneducated labor from the NE moved down here when the heavy industries of the NE collapsed and moved to Asia. The reasons are really pretty simple. It's a better place to live. The NE has had a net population outflow for decades and it is certainly not due to their evangelistic or altruistic ideals.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
>It's history
Yes, those are the key words. Welcome to the present.
>>I chose Rice instead.
>I'm not familiar with it, sorry
Displaying ignorance again. Remember the start of the thread?
>What, the Wright Brothers? Okay, that's one. Name another invention. I said invention, okay?
Can you say integrated circuit, microprocessor?
>Remember to exclude all research labs run by Northern companies and staffed by Northern graduates of Northern universities.
Hmm, that's interesting. Northern companies have chosen to place research labs in the South. Why?
>Remember also to exclude anything with government funding, cause libertarian are required to stick their heads in the sand when anybody mentions basic research.
Well, this is a bit off since what any offical party line states and what I think are not the same thing. I guess that's a Libertarian attitude so I'll accept the label for now.
>MIT, yah that's a good school. Not much else of value up there except maybe John Hopkins and it's in Maryland.
> Hopkin's isn't much of an engineering school. You're forgetting Princeton and Yale, where a lot of work has been done in many fields.
Fail to mention I did, but then I was not the one that was tasked with upholding the value of the NE. That was your position. As far as engineering and schooling go, the way that I've been educated, the field of "education" is not limited to science and engineering. Perhaps the vernacular is different in the NE. Perhaps educations are more limited in the NE.
>>Perhaps never even been there.
>Couldn't be bothered. Never went to Cambodia, either. There are more interesting places to visit, and I don't feel like being purged as an intellectual.
Ah, back to the subject again. Remember, you must strive to free yourself of the liberal dogma. Closed minds and limited educations support the liberal position.
>Look at farms in the rural South, and look at farms in New England.
Indeed, the beauty of the rural NE is magnificent. The farmlands of the South and the praries and the moutnains of the West have their beauty as well. I've been there. I've seen them. The sad part is that you seem to have never ventured out from your box to experience the beauty of the rest of the world. You choose to remain comfortable within the wrap of your dogma(there's that word again) and refuse to explore the world for yourself lest that blanket be torn from you.
Yah, there have been non-socialists produced by northern universities and they are exemplary in quality and scarcity. I wouldn't include BG in with that crowd. I'm not at all sure that they'd be happy that you associate him with them.
>You've been had, my son. And how!
Well, I guess your demeanor is appropriate for one so rigid in his ways. Who's been had is another story. I've travelled to four, attended schools in two, and worked on three contintents and I choose to live, work, and raise my children in Texas. The USNE, except for the cities anyway, is a nice place to visit, but I sure wouldn't want to live there.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
I've never understood the American obsession with hating lawyers and then giving them loads of money at every turn. Very strange...
What's not to understand? The system is rigged so the "loads of money" is screwed out of you at every turn, hence the hatred. On top of that, the laws are written by lawyers who work hard to maintain the status quo.
In South Carolina the bar exam is written so that you pretty much have to have attended the only law school in the state in order to pass. You must attend that school full-time. You cannot have a job while attending.
This largely limits potential students to those whose parents are rich enough to support them while they go to school.
The situation is controlled by the state legislators (USC law school is a state school), the majority of whom are SC lawyers with an interest in maintaining the set up for the benefit of their children.
Developers would also make a lot of money if it were required that they attend post-undergrad schools with artificial enrollment limits before taking their state-required license exam.
The US Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to regulate Interstate commerce.
I suspect that these computer generated wills have been contested at various times. Although many parts of the will are essentially standardized, and attorneys probably use similar software, software cannot deal with everything. If a user pushes the software to its limits, the reslting will may be contested. This basically boils down to a "Who do you sue?" type FUD argument, but as probate is a legal procedure, "Who do you sue?" is a most valid question.
Attorneys do have their uses. Disbausing persons of "common law" fallacies is one of them.
Not authorization. A license. You get that by studying law and passing tests. What's the matter with that? Same as a license to practice medicine.
However, software is meant to be an assistant. If it can pass the same type of tests which lawyers undergo, why should that be banned? That is, I believe, similar to how such software is already tested; questions like those on a bar exam are fed tothe software and the advice given by the software is evaluated.
I might add that non-software-based "do-it-yourself last will and testament kits" are available. These are perfectly legal, so why not software-based kits?
And it's going to get thrown out...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"Judge Seeks Ban on Legal Software?" Does this mean that illegal software will be okay de jure? heh.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I guess subtlety is lost on a lot of people and you have to whack them over the head with it.
Frankly, people take the advice of the neighborhood quake or "old maid" over real medical advice all the time, so if you can get a program that gives real medical advice that's at least a step up for many people.
In defense of the Doctors out there, alot of the time it's the parents that ask for antibiotics, that's one of the reasons that they're losing effectiveness.
-Relkin
Relkin@RPEX.com
PS: I have no connection to the medical field, I'm in Marketing.
While I also share basic libertarian philosophy, I can never understand those who seethe and foam at the mouth because not everyone in the world kneels down at the ikon of liberty.
I've usually noticed among Ayn Randroids that they like to make comment about non-libertatians such that they should not be allowed to vote, or should be struck down by the forces of Darwin.
I guess their brand of liberty doesn't brook diversity, which makes me wonder how they deign to call it liberty.
--Uche
"What thou lovest well remains, the rest is dross" -- E.P.
I live in Texas and has had dealings with Mr sanders. As most judges here he is incompetent and proud of it. Further he thinks he is gods gift to humankind, as does most other judges here.
Help fight continental drift.
Actually, a great deal of doctors already use such programs based on simple AI algorithms (probability matrixes, etc). It really wouldn't be that different. You'd still need the doctor to prescribe drugs though, so I'm not sure what good it would do.
Coming from a judge in a state where county judges aren't even required to have a law degree, not even legal training.
Get real.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
RE:we don't need mom and pop writing even worse ones.
We need to preserve inividual freedom as the
primary national ideal! Just because one specific
case of a person enjoying their freedom can be
perverted by the legal system does NOT MAKE IT WRONG!!!
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Let me rephrase your words a little:
"In every state but xxx it is illegal for a non-phisician to engage in the "unauthorized practice of medicine". To be a phisician, you have to make a lenghty residence. To even apply for the residence, you must have graduated from an accredited medicine school. These rules are widely perceived to be to protect high priced medical doctors from competition from non-medical doctors. Since all the people involved in enforcement of these statutes are medical doctors, you can imagine the results."
Now where did I left my copy of GNUBrainSurgery...
It happens everywhere. Corporative self-protection is a strong force in any well-established profession.
Nevertheless, one should first come up with a better system before throwing away the old one. It would be near impossible for a non-doctor to spot most cases of malpractice. The same goes for lawyers, engineers, programmers.
And, to further clear the point I was trying to make, it takes 10 years to be a good lawyer in a VERY NARROW field of law (the same for doctors, etc). Except in very trivial matters, the non-lawyer can not be expected to match the expertise of an experienced professional. So the common citizen trying to pose as a lawyer will almost always be at loss when push comes to shove.
well there's a good legal solution for this: pass the responsibility of mistakes on the software editors, for any product sold to the public at large (as opposed to specialists only). and while we're at it, make it illegal to disclaim implicit warranties for off-the-shelf software too. when a program doesn't perform as specified (e.g crashes), you should be able to take it back for a refund, just as if you bought a car and it didn't run.
What if you buy a medical book and misdiagnose yourself? Should all medical knowledge be outlawed by unlicensed professionals? And what if someone reads "The Rules," follows the advice, and ends up with an abusive spouse? Shouldn't all advice only be given by licensed professionals who have paid their registration fees?
Why does the regulation state take no responsibility for improper certification. What if I go to a lawyer who passed the bar and he gives me bad advice because of his poor legal education? Why can't I sue to bar for letting him pass? Why doesn't the AMA get sued for letting doctors practice malpractice?
Why are all my sentences questions?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
> It sounded like he was saying that rich districts were paying less taxes than poor districts, but getting more money for their schools.
Rich folks have fewer kids so each dollar goes further. They have lower property tax RATES, but they also have more expensive property.
> So then... doesn't this mean that the wealthy are being given other peoples money [...]
No. School funding was derived from property taxes within the county. If there are fewer kids and more expensive property, you can lower your tax rate and give your students a great education. The New Idea is to collect all the property taxes and distribute it "equally" among all students. This way, everyone can have a bad education and hopefully no one will ever be rich again.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
> when you actually look at the facts
I reread my post. I thought I stated the facts clearly. Education was funded by property taxes on local districts and the new plan is to pool the taxes and split it equally. Those who once had some of the best schools in the country will lose money. All in the name of equality.
The only way to achieve equality, in my view and experience, is to go to the lowest common denominator.
> triumph of emotion over logic
Pot, kettle, black. I mean, all your ranting about slogans and lynching the strawmen. Please. Take a chill pill and think about it. You think it will improve education to lower funding where it is doing the best and eliminate one of the motivations to become rich in the first case (namely that you don't have to send your kids to crappy schools).
> Liberals want to deal with reality as they find it
You mean they see money that they don't have and spend it where they please.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
> over 80% of DIY wills are invalid
Interesting. What percentage of wills created by lawyers are "invalid"?
> including ones done with will-making software.
Could it be that the ones done with the software are the 20% that are valid? Since the judge is only trying to ban software, shouldn't your "statistic" include ONLY wills made with software?
By "invalid" do you mean that they were succesfully contested? Or just that your mother thought they wouldn't stand up *if* they were contested? I can't imagine 80% of wills are contested to begin with. Seems high to me.
Can you give us some more blatant assertions to shore up your case a little better?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
...hmmm.
he better ban Gimp/Photoshop/Illustrator... I mean aren't I robbing "professional" graphic designers of work?
signal, noise, to me it's all the same.
And what if a payed lawyer does a crappy will?
Wouldn't that be the same, anyway?
Please, don't try to make me believe that $150/hr attorneys CANNOT do wrong.
I don't believe ( and think I'm not the only slashdotter that thinks that way ) that expensive and well-done are the same thing...
This is an outrage. It violates our right to represent ourselves in a somewhat meaningfull manner. I seem to remember the part when the judge said that every american should know the "Law of the Land" which means we are supposed to know every Law that we are subject to. This kind of software just puts the "Layman" in a position to actually combat the powers that be.
You're absolutely right? What's next? Banning access to public record, because people might find a legal precedent?
Someone has piped up about banning medical software because people can hurt themselves.. Are these the same people that still practice leeching and blood letting? If someone lacks the common sense to realize that something is out of their scope, let them get taken for a ride. Arrgh!
Another creepy thing is that if this goes through, and is not abolished by someone sane, the medical boards will want the med s'ware banned, the accountants will want the self-tax software gone, the Post Office will seek a moratorium on email...
After all, all those things are stiffling innovation by creating the illusion of competition and individual empowerment. Right Bill?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
IMHO, and I am not a lawyer, if a Will states my will, and has a public notary stamp on it, then it is a valid Will. Also, a Do Not Resussitate (sp?) order is good enough as word of mouth, if my next of kin is aware of it. I don't need an expensive piece of paper to die in peace, or to distribute my estate. At least I shouldn't - If it's necessary, where's freedom?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I'm glad someone hit the nail on the head. (though I'm not volunteering for the job) What legal software does is fill in the blanks on a few forms. It really is a simple matter of javascript, or even an HTML form.
For a vast majority of what they do, lawyers can be replaced by a machine!
That is what this is all about. Fear of obsolescence. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that real lawyers are better because they're Y2K compliant..
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
And just what does having the Will drafted by a lawyer, have to do with this? How many blue collar shmoes set up trust funds? Don't spouses compare notes on their Wills, to see such 'critical section' conditions?
You're posing logic problems. These are considerations that a lawyer is more likely to make, then any intelligent person, due to experience. This is something that any self-respecting piece of software would include. Contingency clauses are not obscure legal inventions, a private lease has plenty of them.
Having a lawyer's signature on the document will not make these problems go away. Lawyer prepared Wills are contested every day. In fact, many lawyers make a lucrative living on exploiting loopholes in other lawyers work. The point of the discussion is the general case, typical public scenario, not singular obscurity.
Frankly, your arguments have as much to do with the point of the discussion, as the dining philosophers problem has to do with the culinary arts.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Actually, the educated socialist mantra goes more like this: " I've got an education, and if you had one, you could challenge my ideas and choose your own path, to socialism, capitalism, or whatever otherism you please. We would both walk away from the debate, agreeing to disagree, but respectful of one another's educated views. However, if you are an uneducated dolt, I know what's good for you and society in general, so get back to some useful work!"
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Absolutely!
Here's to a small intellectual elite ruling class overseeing a large, highly-skilled, productive and hard working middle class, taxed into surrendering their aspirations; kept hard at work with the fear of becoming a member of the poor lower class.
Sound like any country you know?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Look up the beginning of this thread, and while you're at it, pick up a dictionary and read up on SARCASM -- it's right there between SAP and SATIABLE. d00d! ;)
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Look up the beginning of this thread and then follow it back down again. While you're at it, pick up a dictionary and read up on SARCASM -- it's right there between SAP and SATIABLE. d00d! ;)
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Where can I get Law-help software for Linux? It seems like one could write something like this in a simple HTML or javascript, making it platform independent.
I went to Quicken/Intuit on the off chance that they might have some such software for Linux. Silly me. But I did find their Web Turbo Tax site, which sounded cool. One could do one's taxes over the web, if you had a java enabled browser. I thought, "This is the future, right?
Java platform independent, thin client, etc., etc." So I went to the site and tried it and got the following:
WebTurboTax requires the Macintosh, Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows NT 4.0 operating system and one of the following browsers:
For Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT 4.0:
Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.01
Netscape Navigator/Communicator 4.x
For Macintosh:
Netscape Navigator/Communicator 4.x
Please install one of these browsers and try again.
Your current browser is:
Browser: Netscape
Version: 4.08 [en] (X11; I; OSF1 V4.0 alpha)
OS : OSF1V3
Assholes.
http://www.nolo.com/Texas/
... but that just tells us that computers aren't the issue. The issue is individual rights to basic legal procedures.
....
The State Supreme Court is seeking to ban Nolo Press for "unauthorized practice of law". They've been down this road before, of course
One group has proposed that Congress pass a national law that would "deregulate" the 50 most common legal procedures, from wills to name changes to property documents. It hasn't gone far
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
> Examples include the socialist "Robin Hood" school funding fiasco.
I assume you are talking about money moving from rich school districts to poorer school districts.
Same thing is happening in New Hampshire, where there is no sales tax AND no income tax. In wealthy towns with few children, property taxrate is much lower than in poor towns where folks tend to have more kids. If Texas' system is anything like this monstrocity, then Judge Sanders is a hero, so says I.
There's nothing in the constitution that says that wealthy people can pay much lower taxes and get much better public schools than poor folks.
...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
How? Will the probate court order a seance to contact your dead ass to notify you of this fact?
-- Blame any errors on your own stupidity. All wrongs reserved.
Following this judge's logic, all books of law should be banned (or at least restricted to use by licensed professionals), since any idiot could read case history and represent himself in traffic court. In fact, we shouldn't even be allowed to know the acual laws because that knowlege just might affect our actions.
How moronic.
He better outlaw accounting and tax software, Time-Life home improvement books and the Bible as well; we certainly wouldn't want amateurs handling money, repairing a faucet or praying.
That happens even with wills drawn up by attorneys. All it takes is for the contesting party to have a better ( more expensive ) lawyer than you did. If you have any sense you have your will pre-probated and deal with any problems found before you kick off. That deals with all problems, regardless of who wrote the will.
It invites to the unauthorized practice of Accounting!!! Ooooohhoooooo, Big deal! These people have too much time on their hands... they should, probably, take on some hobbies.
...and the time will have come. And the name shall be known... The Kylrathi Viper Clan.
1) Get contact info for judge, especially email
:|
2) Attempt contact, try to obtain a statement. Maybe he has good reasons (hope springs eternal).
Maybe he could be influenced by reason...
3) Find out if he's elected or appointed.
4) If he's elected, find some way to make sure
this event stands out in public memory come
the next election.
I'll work on it. Anyone else is welcome to
do the same. Are there any good ideas that
I missed?
Tweet, tweet.
The bloodsuckers are at it again. Whatever happened to the law that said you have the right to represent yourself. This software is simply an aid for people who wish to pursue this direction. Being an average Joe having no political clout I would still hire a lawyer to do most of my work depending on the seriousness of a particular legal matter. However, I don't see anything wrong with writing your own will....it's a step up from doing your own taxes. In response to the medical postings...if you buy software to give you consulting on medical advise then use your judgement. The software will not tell you how to do brain surgery. If people can't use good judgement on whether to visit a professional or listen to a computer then that is their own fault.
I can't imagine what Judge Sanders is thinking. This kind of action is clearly unconstitutional. Maybe I should ask him how much money he is being paid for this kind of thing...I could use someone in higher power to change a few laws for me.
The issue with a will is that the party is stating to be of "sound mind" when the document is drafted. OTOH, taking the lawyer out of the loop removes a check that this is the case.
Let's say, for example, that your addict uncle has drawn up a will leaving you his 1000 shares of RedHat. Yesterday, in desperate need of a fix, he fires up GnuLaw and whips out a will (which postdates the above will) which leaves the RedHat stock to the person selling him the "stuff".
When he dies, you will have to contest the later will (wills? he did this more than once?) if you ever want to see the RedHat stock. Conversely, if your uncle really did wants his dealer to have the stock (you never did anything for him except scratch his Gimp 1.0 CD), then having a lawyer might have caused the drafting of a second will which less contestable.
(BTW, those who think this silly have never lived in a family where their "fortune" rose and fell based on whether they were in or out of favor with a parent.)
The real problem I have with this ban attempt is that lawyers benefit from the ban and 'they' (knowing that it's the judges who rose through the ranks) are deciding if it's 'good' or not. Regardless of their motives, it has the perception of impropriety which goes along way in the public eye (or it used to...).
If this were a case about physicians wanting to ban DIY medical software, then the physicians would have to convince lawyers to take the case and they'd argue before (I hope) a jury. Regardless, it's not a panel of doctor's deciding the fate of that case. So while stained with greed, the case still has to pass through a court system that doesn't benefit (additionally) from which way the case goes.
Let's say I buy DIY medical software, read the disclaimers and use it. Then I should deal with whatever the consequences are. But I am an idiot if i think i can practice medicine on others using that software. Is the argument for the ban (in the case of wills) that my will becomes a legal document for my heirs? And therefore without a law license, cannot write my own will. I hope not.
All other professions rely on the legal system to litigate disagreements. When one of the parties _is_ the legal system, we should turn to the public for resolution.
"Why should the public not be protected from misleading advice - be it from bad lawyer or a bad law package?"
The day I let the government make laws concerning what I should or should not read because of "protection" is the day I move.