Hat tip to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Radio (via the Google Play app) where I first read / heard about this 2019 documentary.
“How a missing Wikipedia entry for Who Let the Dogs Out led to a nine-year hunt for answers,” CBC Radio, Posted: Apr 25, 2019:
‘I found myself really thinking about who actually let the dogs out,’ says director Brent Hodge …” [Link to CBC story.]
Golden Rule of Legal Writing: Never, ever cite to anything you haven’t read carefully.
There is a reason law librarians try to drill that rule into the heads of lawyers and law students (and journalists):
“Is it a “Good” Case? Can You Rely on BCite, KeyCite, and Shepard’s to Tell You?,” by Kristina Niedringhaus, JOTWELL (April 22, 2019) (reviewing Paul Hellyer, Evaluating Shepard’s, KeyCite, and BCite for Case Validation Accuracy, 110 Law Libr. J. 449 (2018)).
Hilarious April 2019 story out of England, via the BBC:
But it gets worse! The Jury Central Summoning Bureau first told him, no, you’ll have to serve. Ha ha ha. Read the story:
Is there a journalist reporting on the (not yet released except to Barr, selected Rs and pundits, selected West Wingers, and others?) Mueller Report who has read the Special Counsel regulations (28 CFR 600 et seq)? Did you read the authority (5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519) for and the source of those regulations (64 FR 37042, July 9, 1999 ….)?
Do you know the difference between evidence and proof, levels of proof needed for indictment versus conviction versus impeachment, standards (or levels or burdens) of proof, collusion and conspiracy, etc., etc., etc.?
It’s OK if you don’t know – if you’re willing to learn. If you want a 51 tweet long education in the above (except, you’ll have to read the special counsel regulations yourself), read Seth Abramson’s 51 tweet thread from 3/26/19 (and previous and subsequent threads, for that matter).
The Oregonian’s 4-part series (starting 2/22/19) on money in Oregon politics:
Part One of Four was published on Feb. 22, 2019.