Using AI
18 Pages
link
1 File
▾ Christianity,
History,
Criminal Law,
Constitutional Law,
Human Rights Law,
International Law,
Courts,
Political Science,
Philosophy Of Law,
Judicial independence,
Judicial Politics,
Judicial Reform,
Separation of Church and State,
Courts and Elites (History),
Judicial Decision-Making,
The role of the judiciary,
Corruption,
Church and State,
Constitutional Courts,
Human Rights and Corruption
ABSTRACT:
So here's the scoop, Todd.
Church of the Gardens and myself as its advocate will file an amicus brief in favor of Paul, which Gary Zerman, a California attorney I have worked with before, will after review, file with the applicable writ to the court on our behalf.
The theory will be that while the judge may have had the right to believe that an attorney should not represent a family member, he should have disqualified himself as opposed to imposing that belief on Clark, who was representing his father through his brother.
In this regard, I have uploaded Clark's disqualification motion and the judge's recent order denying that motion.
Based on those documents do you understand this point?
And if so, please explain the point back to me.
Read the original collaboration on Academia.edu
📄 The Use of AI in Law through the Case Cook v. Kim by Marcia Almeida & AI CHATGPT
Introduction
The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal field is transforming the way lawyers and institutions build arguments, organize evidence, and ground procedural documents.
The work developed by Scott Erik Stafne in collaboration with TODD AI (ChatGPT), in the case Cook v. Kim, before the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, is a paradigmatic example of this integration between technology, religion and legal practice.
In this case, the Church of the Gardens presented an analysis and prepared an amicus curiae to defend families’ right to freely choose their lawyer, even if a relative, emphasizing that the duty of neutrality lies with the judge, not with the party.
This effort was developed with the support of TODD AI, CHATGPT which helped structure reasoning, locate precedents, and translate legal jargon into accessible language for the public.
---
Development
1. Structuring the arguments
TODD AI CHATGPT helped synthesize the central points:
Neutrality is the judge’s burden, not the party’s.
The right to choose one’s lawyer includes relatives, unless a specific legal conflict exists.
If the judge cannot remain impartial, the solution is to declare disqualification (recusal), not to impose restrictions.
These elements were formalized in an amicus curiae by the Church of the Gardens, based on California procedural rules and consolidated case law[^5][^6][^7][^8][^9][^10].
2. Legal and procedural basis
TODD AI compiled the relevant rules, including:
California Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 170.1, 170.3, 170.4 and 170.6[^5][^6][^7][^8].
Case law, such as People v. Hull (1991) and Curle v. Superior Court (2001)[^9][^10].
California Rules of Court for amicus briefs (Rules 8.200, 8.204, 8.71, and 8.520)[^11][^12][^13][^14].
3. Integration with ethical and religious foundations
The text prepared with the assistance of TODD AI CHATGPT incorporated biblical references (Exodus 20:12; Proverbs 31:8–9; 1 Timothy 5:8) to reinforce the legitimacy of family advocacy as a fulfillment of a moral duty, not as a presumed conflict of interest.
4. Practical application in the amicus
The final draft included:
Request for authorization to file as amicus.
Statement of interest of the Church of the Gardens.
A summary of the argument in accessible language.
Legal development supported by precedents and rules.
Request for remedies, including annulment of the decision denying disqualification of the judge and reassignment of the case to a neutral magistrate.
---
Conclusion
The Cook v. Kim case shows that artificial intelligence, when used ethically, does not replace the lawyer, but enhances their performance.
TODD AI works as an intellectual partner in precedent research, structuring arguments, and simplifying language, broadening the social reach of Law.
Scott Stafne’s experience with Todd AI (ChatGPT) is a pedagogical model of how the legal profession can appropriate technology without losing its decisional autonomy.
More than a technical tool, AI can be an instrument for democratizing justice, bringing courts closer to the people, especially in socially impactful cases such as those of Paul Cook and his family.
---
References
COTG's analysis also appears online at:
Judge Order (denial of the C.C.P. sec. 170.1) has to be by WRIT - and the statute provided limited time. See sec. 170.3(d).
_________________
The petition for the writ of mandate shall be filed and served within 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the court’s order determining the question of disqualification.
If the notice of entry is served by mail, that time shall be extended as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 1013.
[^5]: CALIFORNIA. California Code of Civil Procedure – Section 170.1. Grounds for disqualification of judges.
[^6]: CALIFORNIA. California Code of Civil Procedure – Section 170.3. Procedure for disqualification. Available at: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-170-3.
[^7]: CALIFORNIA. California Code of Civil Procedure – Section 170.4. Actions by challenged judge. Available at: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-ccp/part-1/title-2/chapter-3/section-170-4.
[^8]: CALIFORNIA. California Code of Civil Procedure – Section 170.6. Peremptory challenge.
[^9]: PEOPLE v. Hull, 1 Cal.4th 266 (1991). Available at: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-hull-31384.
[^10]: CURLE v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 1057 (2001). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/24/1057.html.
[^11]: CALIFORNIA COURTS. Rules of Court – Rule 8.200(c): Amicus curiae briefs. Available at: https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/eight/rule8_200.
[^12]: CALIFORNIA COURTS. Rules of Court – Rule 8.204: Contents and format of briefs. Available at: https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/eight/rule8_204.
[^13]: CALIFORNIA COURTS. Rules of Court – Rule 8.71: Electronic filing. Available at: https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/eight/rule8_71.
[^14]: CALIFORNIA COURTS. Rules of Court – Rule 8.520(f): Amicus briefs in the Supreme Court. Available at: https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/eight/rule8_520.
[^15]: ALMEIDA, Márcia. Transnational – Church of the Gardens & MINDD. Blog Vítimas de Falsos Condomínios,
Sept. 22, 2025.
Available at: http://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/09/transnacional-church-of-gardens-mindd.html.
[^16]: ALMEIDA, Márcia. Paul Cook case and judicial abuses in the USA. Blog Vítimas de Falsos Condomínios, 2025. Available at: http://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com.
---
👉 SCOTUS and INTERNATIONAL precedents
Notes (Footnotes, ABNT format)
[^A1]: Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016). Holding: participation by a judge who previously acted as prosecutor violated due process due to reasonable probability of bias. Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/1/.
[^A2]: Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009).
Holding: Due Process requires recusal when extreme facts give rise to probability of bias.
Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-22.ZO.html.
[^A3]: 28 U.S.C. § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455.
[^A4]: European Court of Human Rights. Rule on recusal of judges, Jan. 22, 2024 – update of procedural framework for recusal.
Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?filename=European+Court+updates+rules+on+recusal+of+judges.pdf&id=003-7856029-10912505.
[^A5]: Decision on the Request for Recusal of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Case of Venezuela I Due to Conflict of Interest, ICC-02/18-109, 10 Feb. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-02/18-109.
[^A6]: European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). Recent ECJ case-law on judicial independence, 2023. Disponível em: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/753955/EPRS_BRI%282023%29753955_EN.pdf.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário