Protip: Wikipedia articles tend to fall short in the "admissible evidence" department.
If you want to introduce bogus data to support your case, pay somebody with a goodly chunk of the alphabet after their name like everybody else, okay?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Did this person's legal adviser ever put down his Gameboy long enough to look that article up, or did she look it up herself? More importantly, was the Gameboy in use during the court sessions?
Wikipedia is more accurate, and more successfully peer reviewed than University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit
Divemedic said "Wikipedia is more accurate, and more successfully peer reviewed than the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit".
Or the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the combined News Departments of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and NBC.
I think the real problem, as perceived by the judge, is that anyone can add an article, or edit one. I don't even bother going there for anything remotely current events related, since I already know George W. Bush is an evil poopyhead who hates women and children and minorities and LIED!!!!11!!eleventy!!!
So the entry claiming the dog breed, or mix, was inherently dangerous could very well have been written by the attorney an hour prior to the cite.
Driving under the influence of alcohol consumption is regarded to be one on the severe crimes across the world. Most of the nations around the world have serious punishment for this kind of crime, as while drunk and driving it may well end up in incidents that hurts other people too. In the event that when one is booked for drunken drive, the top, the individual can do is always to employ DUI Lawyers to protect him.
*sigh*.
At the bottom of any Wiki article worth a damn is a long list of sources and attributions.
Any lawyer too damn lazy to scroll down and click one or two more times needs to be serving time with his/her clients after the case, presuming it was lost *because* of wiki abuse.
Post a Comment