Judge Seeks Ban on Legal Software 147
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. "
Standard Operating Procedure (Score:1)
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.
Unauthorized practice of law (Score:1)
So why did Tobacco Cos. get sued? Gun makers next- (Score:1)
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 ...
This shouldn't happen in Scotland... (Score:1)
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.
And just what makes a Will valid? (Score:1)
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.
Judge Barefoot Sanders? (Score:1)
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
Killing Lawyers for Dummies (Score:1)
lawyers...sheesh (Score:1)
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.
Judicial Activism (Score:1)
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?
Hypocrisy?! I think so. (Score:1)
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.
Define "Practicing law." (Score:1)
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?
Possible Course of Action (Score:1)
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.
Not so bad really (Score:1)
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!
Gene pool (Score:1)
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.
"Unauthorized"? (Score:1)
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.
"Unauthorized"? (Score:1)
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)
Not so bad really (Score:1)
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...
Another gray zone (Score:1)
The other guy might be able to keep up with the payments on his Escort like the rest of us.
Another gray zone (Score:1)
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.
Stupidity tax? (Score:1)
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
Nice but... (Score:1)
tax rates and more... (Score:1)
>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!
Ha ha ha (Score:1)
Too bad... (Score:1)
Waste of human potential indeed, so much noise, so little signal.
I guess you need to practice... (Score:1)
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.
What a misperception! (Score:1)
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.
Been had? Hardly (Score:1)
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.
Not so bad really (Score:1)
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.
Interstate commerce clause (Score:1)
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.
"Unauthorized"? (Score:1)
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?
It's a Texas thing... (Score:1)
Well that's a good headline (Score:1)
The wealthy deserve more because they HAVE more (Score:1)
Not so bad really (Score:1)
Another gray zone (Score:1)
-Relkin
Relkin@RPEX.com
PS: I have no connection to the medical field, I'm in Marketing.
Lay off the Ayn Rand (Score:1)
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
Judge Sanders is the worst example... (Score:1)
Not so bad really (Score:1)
Since when did a law degree matter? (Score:1)
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.
YES WE DO! (Score:1)
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!!!
Aint you a bit off? (Score:1)
"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...
Aint you a bit off? (Score:1)
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.
Not so bad really (Score:1)
Not so bad really (Score:1)
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?
Ummmm..... (Score:1)
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.
Mindless reductionism! Screw the facts! (Score:1)
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.
No Subject Given (Score:1)
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?
Graphic Design (Score:1)
he better ban Gimp/Photoshop/Illustrator... I mean aren't I robbing "professional" graphic designers of work?
Really? (Score:1)
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...
TWO words "COMMON LANGUAGE" (Score:1)
constitutionally... (Score:1)
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?
And just what makes a Will valid? (Score:1)
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?
Ha ha ha!! (Score:1)
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..
And just what makes a Will valid? (Score:1)
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.
Education is not an evil... (Score:1)
Kudos (Score:1)
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?
As the thread unravels... (Score:1)
As the thread unravels... (Score:1)
For Linux (Score:1)
For Linux (Score:1)
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.
Don't Laugh! Books are being banned, too! (Score:1)
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
Judge Sanders is the worst example... (Score:1)
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.
And just what makes a Will valid? (Score:1)
How? Will the probate court order a seance to contact your dead ass to notify you of this fact?
Close the libraries (Score:1)
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.
You've got it all wrong (Score:1)
What's Next...Financial Software (Score:1)
Possible Course of Action (Score:1)
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?
This is unbelievable (Score:1)
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.
constitutionally... (Score:1)
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.)
Only in America (Score:1)
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.
Scary Post (Score:1)
The day I let the government make laws concerning what I should or should not read because of "protection" is the day I move.