3 ms·

This problem will be solved with LawGPT which will be a generative pre-trained transformer trained on a vast array of legal cases, rulings, and briefings and de

This problem will be solved with LawGPT which will be a generative pre-trained transformer trained on a vast array of legal cases, rulings, and briefings and designed with accuracy in mind and free from hallucinations. It will cost $3,400/month for a legal firm the size of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, P.C.

ChuckNorris89 3y ago
Still waiting for SaulGoodmanGPT
- nostrademons 3y ago
  Same thing, but paid in Monero.
- seanhunter 3y ago
  You don't want a criminal law AI... you want a criminal law AI.
- fhd2 3y ago
  Would probably lead to an uptick in tourism for Belize.
- hammock 3y ago
  Write an amicus brief for a Supreme Court case in the style of Saul Goodman UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Saul Goodman's Legal Advocacy Clinic 123 Shady Lane Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (555) 123-4567 Email: saulgoodman@lawyerextraordinaire.com May 27, 2023 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT Re: Amicus Curiae Brief - Case No. 12345 Dear Honorable Justices, I, Saul Goodman, attorney-at-law and mastermind of legal brilliance, on behalf of the humble but feisty David Rosencrantz, submit this amicus curiae brief to the esteemed Supreme Court. This Court, known for its unflinching pursuit of justice, now has the opportunity to rectify a grave miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the lower courts. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The case before this honorable Court presents a classic tale of a downtrodden individual, David Rosencrantz, pitted against the formidable Goliath that is the United States government. Rosencrantz, a simple taxi driver trying to earn an honest buck in this dog-eat-dog world, has been unjustly accused of tax evasion. However, this Amicus respectfully submits that the government's case is nothing but smoke and mirrors, an elaborate scheme to crush the dreams of an honest, hardworking citizen. ARGUMENT I. Violation of Due Process The lower courts, in their zealous pursuit of victory, trampled upon the sacred principles of due process. Mr. Rosencrantz was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial when the government's star witness, a notorious jailbird with a penchant for singing, was allowed to testify without any corroborating evidence. The government's reliance on the word of a jailhouse informant, who likely had ulterior motives, is an affront to the Constitution. II. Reasonable Doubt Ladies and gentlemen of the Court, this case is riddled with reasonable doubt like a cheap suit in a thrift store. The government's case rests on flimsy evidence and a convoluted web of speculation. The alleged tax discrepancies are based on questionable calculations and fuzzy math, all while conveniently ignoring legitimate deductions and expenses rightfully claimed by Mr. Rosencrantz. Reasonable doubt casts its long shadow on this entire proceeding, and it is the duty of this Court to bring it into the light. III. Selective Prosecution This Court has never turned a blind eye to injustice, and I implore you to scrutinize the government's motives. Mr. Rosencrantz, an unassuming member of society, has become the target of selective prosecution. Why, might you ask? It's because he dared to stand up against the establishment, questioning the powers that be. This case is not about taxes; it is about silencing dissent and punishing those who refuse to play by their rigged rules. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the government's case against David Rosencrantz reeks of a witch hunt, an attempt to crush the spirit of an ordinary citizen who dares to question authority. The violation of due process, the presence of reasonable doubt, and the specter of selective prosecution are grave injustices that cannot be ignored. This Court, armed with the sword of justice, must rise above the fog of deceit and deliver a resounding verdict in favor of Mr. Rosencrantz. For these reasons, I, Saul Goodman, implore this Court to right the wrongs committed by the lower courts and restore faith in the sanctity of our legal system. Respectfully submitted, Saul Goodman, Esq. Attorney for Amicus Curiae Saul Goodman's Legal Advocacy Clinic
jesusofnazarath 3y ago
[dead]
karaterobot 3y ago
It's not always clear to me why people downvote things on HN, but a lot of the time I find it's because they misunderstood them.
blibble 3y ago
and it'll still generate bullshit the technology is not capable of knowing when it is wrong

ChuckNorris89 3y ago

Still waiting for SaulGoodmanGPT

nostrademons 3y ago
Same thing, but paid in Monero.
seanhunter 3y ago
You don't want a criminal law AI... you want a criminal law AI.
fhd2 3y ago
Would probably lead to an uptick in tourism for Belize.
hammock 3y ago
Write an amicus brief for a Supreme Court case in the style of Saul Goodman UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Saul Goodman's Legal Advocacy Clinic 123 Shady Lane Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (555) 123-4567 Email: saulgoodman@lawyerextraordinaire.com May 27, 2023 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT Re: Amicus Curiae Brief - Case No. 12345 Dear Honorable Justices, I, Saul Goodman, attorney-at-law and mastermind of legal brilliance, on behalf of the humble but feisty David Rosencrantz, submit this amicus curiae brief to the esteemed Supreme Court. This Court, known for its unflinching pursuit of justice, now has the opportunity to rectify a grave miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the lower courts. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The case before this honorable Court presents a classic tale of a downtrodden individual, David Rosencrantz, pitted against the formidable Goliath that is the United States government. Rosencrantz, a simple taxi driver trying to earn an honest buck in this dog-eat-dog world, has been unjustly accused of tax evasion. However, this Amicus respectfully submits that the government's case is nothing but smoke and mirrors, an elaborate scheme to crush the dreams of an honest, hardworking citizen. ARGUMENT I. Violation of Due Process The lower courts, in their zealous pursuit of victory, trampled upon the sacred principles of due process. Mr. Rosencrantz was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial when the government's star witness, a notorious jailbird with a penchant for singing, was allowed to testify without any corroborating evidence. The government's reliance on the word of a jailhouse informant, who likely had ulterior motives, is an affront to the Constitution. II. Reasonable Doubt Ladies and gentlemen of the Court, this case is riddled with reasonable doubt like a cheap suit in a thrift store. The government's case rests on flimsy evidence and a convoluted web of speculation. The alleged tax discrepancies are based on questionable calculations and fuzzy math, all while conveniently ignoring legitimate deductions and expenses rightfully claimed by Mr. Rosencrantz. Reasonable doubt casts its long shadow on this entire proceeding, and it is the duty of this Court to bring it into the light. III. Selective Prosecution This Court has never turned a blind eye to injustice, and I implore you to scrutinize the government's motives. Mr. Rosencrantz, an unassuming member of society, has become the target of selective prosecution. Why, might you ask? It's because he dared to stand up against the establishment, questioning the powers that be. This case is not about taxes; it is about silencing dissent and punishing those who refuse to play by their rigged rules. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the government's case against David Rosencrantz reeks of a witch hunt, an attempt to crush the spirit of an ordinary citizen who dares to question authority. The violation of due process, the presence of reasonable doubt, and the specter of selective prosecution are grave injustices that cannot be ignored. This Court, armed with the sword of justice, must rise above the fog of deceit and deliver a resounding verdict in favor of Mr. Rosencrantz. For these reasons, I, Saul Goodman, implore this Court to right the wrongs committed by the lower courts and restore faith in the sanctity of our legal system. Respectfully submitted, Saul Goodman, Esq. Attorney for Amicus Curiae Saul Goodman's Legal Advocacy Clinic

jesusofnazarath 3y ago

[dead]

karaterobot 3y ago

It's not always clear to me why people downvote things on HN, but a lot of the time I find it's because they misunderstood them.

blibble 3y ago

and it'll still generate bullshit the technology is not capable of knowing when it is wrong