Expert Systems Chapter 4
-By James F. Polk
Section 2: The Law and History of Expert Law Systems.
Chapter 4: The main Juridical History of Expert Systems & several world class Law Review Journal Articles on the main subjects.
These are the Main Law Cases and Law Review Journals where I began my study of Expert Law Systems after finishing my Paralegal Training with the University of San Diego in 2014. I am going to write about the Amendments and Law Cases in general below. The Law Review Journals you can read for yourself: https://www.naoldp.org/articles-training/
First Amendment: The First Amendment is the Constitutional Amendment that recognizes the Natural and/or Divine Right of Expression of Self. A part of that is writing books. Software is considered to be the same as a book by the Federal Trade Commission.
Sixth Amendment: The Sixth Amendment is the Constitutional Amendment that recognizes the Natural and/or Divine Right to Counsel and/or Self-Representation. A part of that is seeking out books pertaining to the Law to read. Since Software is the same as books, then a part of that is seeking out Software that will help the Self-Represented Litigant.
Sperry: Howard Sperry was a man without a Law License who was found to be practicing patent law. His argument was that there is no Federal Law License and so therefore he did not need a Law License. The Supreme Court ruled that it was a Federal Issue and did not rule on what the Florida State Bar was asserting with respect to UPL.
Dacey: Norman Dacey wrote the book, “How to Avoid Probate” and came under fire for popularizing the “Living Trust”. Many Probate Attorneys felt he was interfering with their prospective economic advantage. Though he ultimately won the day with respect to a book being a First Amendment Protected Work of Literature, he was forced to Ex Patriate because of the situation he found himself in after defending himself against 24 different State Bar Associations. He ended up still owing the IRS something like $600,000 and died in Scotland.
Texas UPL v. Parson’s Technology: Quicken Family Lawyer was the program that brought about this case. Quicken Family Lawyer was an Expert Law System that came already encoded and the Court ended up ruling that Expert Law Systems really should disclaim what they are, and that they are not legal advice, nor are they a substitute for an Attorney and that they were however legal.
In Re Reynoso: This was a case where one Mr. Jason Reynoso did not like the cheater tips this expert law system about Bankruptcy gave him about how to get around paying IRS taxes and so he brought it to the attention of the Government. The program was not ruled to have violated UPL Statutes, but to have violated 11 USC 110’s prohibition against a non-lawyer Bankruptcy Petition Preparer’s use of anything but Federal Bankruptcy Paperwork to do client intake for Bankruptcy Petition Preparation. You can use an Expert Law System to intake BK Clients as a non-lawyer as long as you then properly take the case to an Attorney who the Client then hires and who then uses you as the Outsourced Paralegal. The initial Client also needs to know you are doing this. This is the only way for a non-lawyer to use an Expert Law System to do BK Client Intake.