You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


TO: Mark E. Haedicke
RE: Take TheLaw.net Challenge!
FROM: Mark Whitney, CEO/President, TheLaw.net Corporation
HOMEPAGE: http://www.thelaw.net  REMOVE: http://www.thelaw.net/remove.htm

If you are a savvy legal compusearcher you will not want to miss this 
opportunity to take the TheLaw.net Challenge, below. On the other hand, if 
you ever feel challenged when it comes to computer research, stay with us. We 
can help.

Before you begin, forget that TheLaw.net's searchable cases overlap West and 
Lexis' to the tune of more than four million entries across more than 175 
Federal and state appellate jurisdictions. Just put it out of your mind.

Forget that it is very easy, using our software, to quickly learn for 
yourself how courts have treated the particular cite, statute, rule or 
regulation you are interested in learning more about. Forget that it is easy 
for you to quickly pop up cases when all you have is a cite, party name, 
author, counsel, court, and so forth.

Forget that one of the major differences between TheLaw.net and The Two 
Headed Monster, is that everyone gets all of our highly usable, authoritative 
data with a national scope, all for a low flat rate. Finally, forget (if you 
can) that TheLaw.net delivers all of this and much, much more, on an 
unlimited use basis, directly to your desktop under the following terms and 
conditions:

--$345 annually for you; regularly $395 (Save $50 until April 30)
--$575 for you and a partner, annual unlimited use rate (Small Office Special)
--$1195 for you and four others, annual unlimited use rate (Workgroup Edition)
--April Enterprise Specials:
----$1895 for 10 annual, unlimited use rate (April Special)
----$3995 for 25 annual, unlimited use rate (April Special)
----$7995 for 50 annual unlimited use rate (April Special)
--pay only for active users
--paralegals, librarians and backoffice staff are on us
--conduct real legal research with a seamless national scope
--all subscribers install at work, at home and on their laptops
--no passwords or user names
--unlimited tech and reference attorney aftercare
--no CDs to chase around the office
--all you can eat - no surprises - no gamesmanship
--30 day unconditional money back guarantee
--to subscribe, go to our homepage and click "SIGN ME UP":
http://www.thelaw.net

We recognize that West and Lexis are King when it comes to enhancing public 
records and churning them in their searchable databases. But, for all of 
these highfalutin enhancements, one rarely hears the word value uttered in 
the same sentence with the names of either of these two companies.

Which leads to some questions that you ought to be asking:

Q: How much are all of these enhancements worth to you?
Q: Are these enhancements timesaving or frustrating?
Q: Does it make sense to continue with onerous annual contracts?
Q: Can the list of expensive items be shortened with low, flat-rate options?
Q: Rather than switching, should you simply redefine relationships with 
existing vendors in light of less expensive, authoritative options?
Q: How can you ever expect to fully leverage publicly available web based 
documents and databases on behalf of the enterprise in the absence of a set 
of standards, processes and best practices for doing so?

The answer to the last question is to have a one-stop front-end to that 
subset of the more than two billion pages online that belong a click or two 
away on your desktop. That's where we come in. Proprietary searchable case 
law aside, TheLaw.net, not West or Lexis, is King when it comes to getting 
you around online.

--WEB BASED PRIMARY AUTHORITY JUST KEEPS GETTING BETTER

There is no longer a debate about whether publicly available web based 
documents and databases will continue to loom large in the practice of law. 
That debate was completely foreclosed when West recently bought FindLaw for a 
reported $37M and Lexis poured a bunch of money into a portal called 
lexisONE. Both companies are now attempting to brand these free sites as the 
best place to begin when you want to find authoritative information on the 
public web.

Are these web sites the best place for seasoned professionals to begin? As an 
attorney, you are, per se, a sophisticated consumer of information. 
Accordingly, we invite you to take TheLaw.net Challenge and decide for 
yourself.

--HERE IS YOUR ASSIGNMENT SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT

Using lexisONE, find Chapter 60 (Tax) of the Consolidated Laws of New York. 
Do you have a stopwatch or timer ready? Good. By the way, lexisONE is located 
at: http://www.lexisone.com. Before starting, read on for a heads up on a 
couple of key factors relevant to your assignment.

Starting at lexisONE should give you a big advantage. Why? Well, to begin 
with, this is Lexis we're talking about; the same company that just took out 
a full page ad in the current edition of Law Office Computing which claims, 
in relevant part, that if "you're a solo or small-firm attorney, the LexisONE 
service has everything you need to practice more effectively, run your office 
more efficiently, and keep up with the latest legal tools and trends."

So are you ready? Are you excited? You should be, because you are about to 
discover just how effective and efficient you can be using lexisONE since, 
after all, they have "everything you need".

Oh yes. One more datapoint before you begin. If you are lucky enough to 
eventually locate the link to the Consolidated Laws of New York that lexisONE 
provides, be forewarned that this link has been DYSFUNCTIONAL for at least 
the past two weeks.

Why? Well, for one thing, the State of New York upgraded its massive web site 
on, or about, March 23, 2001. Since then, this portion of lexisONE's site has 
suffered from a nasty case of LINKROT. Translation: lexisONE is not current 
or complete as to some critical primary authority.

At some point the people at lexisONE obviously determined that the 
Consolidated Laws of New York were indeed among the items needed to "practice 
more effectively". Today it is hard to know what they think.

--WE PROMISED YOU A CHALLENGE

Are you skilled enough to PRETEND that the link is working while trying to 
find it anyway? This way you can still get a feel for the effectiveness and 
efficiency you would have experienced using lexisONE had the link been 
working. Incidentally, if using lexisONE, you can find this link in less than 
two minutes, you are a God to us! Really.

Now snap back to reality and consider that when you have a subscription to 
TheLaw.net you can view the specific page containing Chapter 60 of the 
Consolidated Laws in six or seven seconds by simply sliding through our 
smooth hierarchy of pre-configured Federal and State Statutes Menu. Once you 
locate the law you want to know more about, you can enter the statutory cite 
into our case law search engine, check New York from among the 175+ Federal 
and state appellate jurisdictions at your fingertips and quickly pop up a 
list of relevant cases that have construed the item you need to know more 
about.

--THELAW.NET IS A BETTER MOUSETRAP. PERIOD.

Free web site portals are fine for law students or an occasional reference 
when you are not under the gun. But, unless you have complete disregard for 
your time and your clients' best interests, if you are browsing the public 
web for purposes of serious research, you should have the right tool for the 
job. Only then will you be as "efficient" and "effective" as possible. The 
last thing you need is another ill-considered free web site.

--REMEMBER THAT CASE LAW WE TOLD YOU TO FORGET?

You can stop forgetting now and consider that subscribers to TheLaw.net 
Professional Legal Browser not only get all of that great case law with a 
national scope, but they receive slick, pre-configured menu-driven access to 
more than 50,000 web based documents and databases including Federal and 
state statutes, rules, forms, regulations, executive agency databases, 
legislative tracking tools, every major metropolitan newspaper, local rules 
and forms, pattern jury instructions, court calendars and contact 
information, expedited pathfinders to most Federal dockets, executive agency 
databases, columnists, real-time national news and wire services, corporate 
backgrounders, polls, searchable dictionaries, encyclopedias, calculators, 
selected law journals and law reviews, nearly 10,000 helpers arranged across 
dozens of practice areas, and much, much more.

If lexisONE "has everything you need" how can it be that we have 30,000 more 
deep-links to web based documents and databases and 35,000 more than FindLaw? 
Hmmm.

--THELAW.NET: THE SUM OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Within one business day of New York upgrading their web site, subscribers to 
TheLaw.net were informed via a free special email alert that we had updated 
their software and that the new homepage for the Consolidated Laws is right 
here:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=0

As of this writing (Sunday, April 8, 2001) LexisONE is still linked to the 
old outmoded location: http://assembly.state.ny.us/cgi-bin/claws

Once this message gets passed around the Net someone at Lexis will see it and 
fix the broken link. We are happy to help out, because even when the New York 
Consolidated and Unconsolidated Law links are finally functional, LexisONE 
still merely provides the following:

--one link to New York Consolidated Laws Homepage
--one link to New York Unconsolidated Laws Homepage
--one link to the New York Constitution Homepage

--Cf. THELAW.NET PROFESSIONAL BROWSER:

--Linking by Constitutional Article, we provide 22 hand-titled links to the 
New York Constitution.
--Linking by Statutory Subject Matter we provide 96 hand-titled links to the 
New York Consolidated Laws, plus one link to the Consolidated Laws Homepage 
and one link to the Consolidated Laws Index for a total of 98 links.
--Linking by Statutory Subject Matter we provide 25 hand-titled links to the 
New York Unconsolidated Laws, plus one link to the Unconsolidated Laws 
Homepage for a total of 26 links.
--We provide an additional separate link to the search interface for these 
laws.
--In total, TheLaw.net provides 147 hand-titled, deep-links just to this 
discrete subset of New York primary authority.
--LexisONE provides three links and two of them are broken.

TheLaw.net literally removes more than 90% of the time wasted online. If you 
begin with lexisONE or FindLaw, you need to add an additional layer of effort 
to get to specific statutory subject areas of the Consolidated Laws that we 
completely eliminate with our detailed deep-links.

--ON THE OTHER HAND, LEXISONE MAY BE "GOOD ENOUGH"

Surely, lexisONE must have some replicable process in place for maintaining 
their links. But if statutes from a major metropolitan state can disappear 
from the radar, what happens when you have a really important issue to 
research, such as: "Do Trendy Clothes Catch Trendy Clients?" We are not 
lying. See for yourself. (This link works.)
http://www.lexisone.com/lifestyle/style/040101b.html

It could be that our standards are unreasonably high. Maybe we should take 
our lead from Lexis-Nexis Chief Technology Officer Allan McLaughlin who made 
the following lexisONE observation in the recent article "Lexis-Nexis and 
West Battle Online", published by The American Lawyer and law.com: "It's not 
our best product," confides McLaughlin, "but for a lot of lawyers, it's good 
enough.'"

Good enough? Hopefully you are not one of the THOSE lawyers.

Given the inclusion, in our tool, of searchable proprietary case law, we have 
tried to clarify some of the differences between a marginally maintained free 
directory and a true best practices software solution. We thank you for 
taking TheLaw.net Challenge.

--YOU ARE NOW CORDIALLY INVITED TO VISIT OUR WEB SITE

Homepage: http://www.thelaw.net
Check our TOP 25 FAQs: http://www.thelaw.net/faqs.htm
Check our References: http://www.thelaw.net/references.htm
View Sample Tutorials: http://www.thelaw.net/searchdemo/home.htm
Our prices are always at: http://www.thelaw.net/subscribe.htm
Sign up online at: http://www.thelaw.net/fulfillment.htm
Call toll free with any questions and we'll book a subscription for you:
1.877.4.LAWNET [877.452.9638]

--CONSIDER OUR VISION: A FIRM FOUNDATION AT A LOW FLAT-RATE

TheLaw.net, privately held and successful from Day One, represents the next 
logical step; a big improvement over slogging through two billion web pages 
and otherwise watching legal research costs spiral out of control at a time 
when with normal free market principles at work, such costs would be 
plummeting.

Imagine. No surprises. No meters. No printing, downloading, pay-per-view or 
on-demand fees. In short, none of the gamesmanship you have come to expect 
and never appreciated.

At your option, we can build your packages and deliver them today via our web 
site or we can ship CDs via U.S. Priority Mail or FedEx. We thank you for 
your time and we hope to hear from you soon while the April savings last!

Regards,

<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON>
CEO/President, TheLaw.net Corporation
Chicago - San Diego, USA
Toll Free: 1.877.4.LAWNET (1.877.452.9638)

******************************************

CASES INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE AND YEAR OF ORIGIN
-----Sorted in Order of Federal Circuit
---------See also, http://www.thelaw.net/compare.htm

--United States Supreme Court 1900
--Federal Circuit 1982
--U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit 1950

FIRST FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit 1930
--Maine Supreme Judicial Court 1996
--Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1930
--Massachusetts Appeals Court 1930
--New Hampshire Supreme Court 1930
--Rhode Island Supreme Court 1950

SECOND FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 1930
--Connecticut Supreme Court 1950
--Connecticut Appellate Court 1950
--New York Court of Appeals 1955
--New York Supreme Court, Appellate Div. 1st Dept. 1955
--New York Supreme Court, Appellate Div. 2nd Dept. 1955
--New York Supreme Court, Appellate Div. 3rd Dept. 1955
--New York Supreme Court, Appellate Div. 4th Dept. 1955
--New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term 1st Dept. 1955
--New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term 2nd Dept. 1955
--Vermont Supreme Court 1930

THIRD FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit 1930
--U.S. District Court, New Jersey 1999
--New Jersey Supreme Court 1930
--New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division 1930
--U.S. District Court, Eastern, Pennsylvania 1997
--Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1950
--Pennsylvania Superior Court 1950
--Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court 1950

FOURTH FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit 1930
--U.S. District Court, Maryland 1999
--Maryland Court of Appeals 1950
--Maryland Special Court of Appeals 1950
--North Carolina Supreme Court 1945
--North Carolina Court of Appeals 1968
--U.S. District Court, South Carolina 1999
--South Carolina Supreme Court 1996
--South Carolina Court of Appeals 1996
--Virginia Supreme Court 1930
--Virginia Court of Appeals 1930
--West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals 1991

FIFTH FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 1930
--Louisiana Supreme Court 1980
--Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit 1980
--Louisiana Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1980
--Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1980
--Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1980
--Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1980
--U.S. District Court, Northern, Mississippi 1997
--Mississippi Supreme Court 1994
--Mississippi Court of Appeals 1994
--Texas Supreme Court 1950
--Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 1950
--Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District 1950
--Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District 1950
--Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District 1950
--Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District 1950
--Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District 1950
--Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District 1950
--Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District 1950
--Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District 1950
--Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District 1950
--Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District 1950

SIXTH FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit 1930
--Kentucky Supreme Court 1945
--Kentucky Court of Appeals 1945
--Michigan Supreme Court 1930
--Michigan Court of Appeals 1965
--Ohio Supreme Court 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 1st District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 2nd District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 3rd District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 4th District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 5th District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 6th District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 7th District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 9th District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 10th District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 11th District 1950
--Ohio Court of Appeals, 12th District 1950
--Tennessee Supreme Court 1950
--Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Grand Division 1950
--Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Grand Division 1950
--Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Grand Division 1950
--Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Middle Grand Division 1950
--Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Eastern Grand Division 1950
--Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Western Grand Division 1950

SEVENTH FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit 1930
--Illinois Supreme Court 1985
--Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District 1985
--Illinois Appellate Court, 2nd District 1985
--Illinois Appellate Court, 3rd District 1985
--Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District 1985
--Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District 1985
--Indiana Supreme Court 1940
--Indiana Court of Appeals, 1st District 1940
--Indiana Court of Appeals, 2nd District 1940
--Indiana Court of Appeals, 3rd District 1940
--Indiana Court of Appeals, 4th District 1940
--Indiana Court of Appeals, 5th District 1940
--Indiana Tax Court 1986
--Wisconsin Supreme Court 1945
--Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District I 1945
--Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II 1945
--Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District III 1945
--Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV 1945

EIGHTH FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit 1930
--Arkansas Supreme Court 1957
--Arkansas Court of Appeals 1957
--Iowa Supreme Court 1995
--Iowa Court of Appeals 1995
--Minnesota Supreme Court 1930
--Minnesota Court of Appeals 1983
--Missouri Supreme Court 1960
--Missouri Court of Appeals 1960
--Nebraska Supreme Court 1965
--Nebraska Court of Appeals 1965
--U.S. District Court, North Dakota 1999
--North Dakota Supreme Court 1930
--North Dakota Court of Appeals 1930
--South Dakota Supreme Court 1965

NINTH FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 1941
--Alaska Supreme Court 1960
--Alaska Court of Appeals 1960
--Arizona Supreme Court 1930
--Arizona Court of Appeals, 1st Division 1930
--Arizona Court of Appeals, 2nd Division 1930
--U.S. District Court, Central, California 1998
--California Supreme Court 1930
--California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District 1930
--California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District 1930
--California Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District 1930
--California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District 1930
--California Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate District 1930
--California Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District 1930
--Hawaii Supreme Court 1930
--Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 1930
--Idaho Supreme Court 1965
--Idaho Court of Appeals 1965
--Montana Supreme Court 1993
--Nevada Supreme Court 1950
--Oregon Supreme Court 1950
--Oregon Court of Appeals 1950
--Washington Supreme Court 1935
--Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division 1969
--Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division 1969
--Washington Court of Appeals, 3rd Division 1969

TENTH FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit 1930
--Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
--Colorado Supreme Court 1930
--Colorado Court of Appeals 1930
--Kansas Supreme Court 1982
--Kansas Court of Appeals 1982
--New Mexico Supreme Court 1930
--New Mexico Court of Appeals 1930
--Oklahoma Supreme Court 1994
--Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 1994
--Oklahoma Court of Appeals 1994
--Utah Supreme Court 1950
--Utah Court of Appeals 1950
--Wyoming Supreme Court 1993

ELEVENTH FEDERAL CIRCUIT
--U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit 1981
--Alabama Supreme Court 1955
--Alabama Court of Civil Appeals 1955
--Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals 1955
--Florida Supreme Court 1950
--Florida District Court of Appeal, 1st District 1950
--Florida District Court of Appeal, 2nd District 1950
--Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District 1950
--Florida District Court of Appeal, 4th District 1950
--Florida District Court of Appeal, 5th District 1950
--Georgia Supreme Court 1940
--Georgia Court of Appeals 1940

****************************************************************
PRIVACY STATEMENT: TheLaw.net respects your time and we believe this is the 
fastest, least intrusive method of originating contact with busy 
professionals. But we also provide several mechanisms allowing recipients to 
remove themselves easily and at no cost. Simply go to: 
http://www.thelaw.net/remove.htm OR reply to: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS> and enter the 
email address that you would like removed in the subject line OR call toll 
free 1.877.452.9638. See also: http://www.thelaw.net and click "Privacy 
Statement".
*****************************************************************

FindLaw is a registered trademark of West Group. Lexis, Lexis-Nexis and 
lexisONE are registered trademarks of LEXIS-NEXIS, a division of Reed 
Elsevier Inc.