User:Admin
This is my user account. Contact me at [email protected]. I am also on twitter @pjdostal.
https://jsfiddle.net/mL2c2xb6/
Random Category:
Create:
Export:
MEDIA POLICY
Crown policy Manual
Some writing tools:
- compress pdfs (good for books of authority)
- Regular Expressions
- [1]
- nearby: (?:quotation2\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,240}?\.\.\.)
New Decisions
- Last week on CanLII
- Last week on CanLII (Appellate)
- NS (all)
- ONCA
- ONSC
- ONCJ
- MBCA
- MBQB
- BCPC
- BCSC
- BCCA
Templates
- 1
{{SummaryPending}}
- 2
{{LinkNeeded}}
- 3
{{DraftCharge}}
- 4
; On Finding of Guilt
{{VictimHeader}} <!-- Sections / Notice of Agree / Notice of Restitution / Notice of VIS -->
|s. 151 {{DescrSec|151}} || || ||
|-
{{VictimEnd}}
- 5
{{DesignationHeader}}
|-
|s. 266 {{DescrSec|266}}|| {{XMark}} <!--wire--> || {{OKMark}} <!--DO-->||{{OKMark}} <!--SPIO--> || {{XMark}} <!--consent-->
{{DesignationEnd}}
- 7
{{ProbationM| }}
{{ProbationY| }}
{{SDNA}} Template:SDNA</nowiki>
{{DRAFT}}
| THIS TEXT IS IN ROUGH DRAFT STATE. NOTHING HERE WILL BE OF USE TO READERS. |
</nowiki>
- Quote box
- the location and personal circumstances of the witness
- the costs that would be incurred if the witness had to be physically present; and
- the nature of the witness’ anticipated evidence.
Tasks
- checklist of wiretap applications
- update participating in terrorist activities, there are many errors
Reference
Maintenance
- Grammar
- "the the"
- "hte"
Terminology
- supra
- infra
- cf
- contra
- esp
- aff'd
- rev'd
Lawyering
“First, all prospective lawyers should make themselves intimately familiar with the fundamentals of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning... is based on the act of proving a conclusion by means of two other propositions. Perhaps 90 percent of legal issues can be resolved by deduction, so the importance of understanding this type of reasoning cannot be overstated. Second, students should acquaint themselves with the principles of inductive generalization.” [2]
“Third, reasoning by analogy—another form of inductive reasoning—is a powerful tool in a lawyer’s arsenal. Analogies help lawyers and judges solve legal problems not controlled by precedent and help law students deflect the nasty hypotheticals that are the darlings of professors.”
Defined broadly, deduction is reasoning in which a conclusion is compelled by known facts.
The basic principle of the syllogism is surprisingly straightforward: What is true of the universal is true of the particular.
We start with the basics. To shape a legal issue in the form of a syllogism, begin by stating the general rule of law or widely-known legal rule that governs your case as your major premise. Then, in your next statement, the minor premise, describe the key facts of the legal problem at hand.
If you find yourself having trouble organizing a brief or memo, try shoehorning your argument into this generic model, which is based on the argument made by prosecutors in nearly every criminal case:
Major premise: [Doing something] [violates the law.]
Minor premise: [The defendant] [did something.]
Conclusion: [The defendant] [violated the law.]
Notice that the three parts of a syllogism—the two premises and the conclusion—are themselves built from three units. Logicians call these units “terms.” Two terms appear in each statement: the “major term” in the major premise and conclusion, the “minor term” in the minor premise and conclusion, and the “middle term” in the major and minor premises but not in the conclusion. Notice that the middle term covers a broad range of facts, and that if the conclusion is to be valid, the minor term must be a fact that is included within the middle term. Although the jargon can get confusing, the basic idea isn’t hard to grasp: Each statement in a syllogism must relate to the other two.