@mspratt This feels harsh. To me it reads simply that ONCA didn’t like that there were no reasons given for using the prior statement as corroboration (and they obviously cant just infer that because it’s generally not allowed as you know). Small omission in reasons = didn’t know the law?
@adamweisberg@queensulaw Did you read the article? A law class using modern-day examples to elucidate some rather complex areas of entertainment, IP, privacy, and contract law is .. a bad thing?
@nationalpost Surprised this is still up. An obvious inability of understanding the decision by posting this. The trial judge used the term “a woman” in his decision rather than the specific victim’s mindset/understanding. That was what was at issue… not the definition of woman.
@RashidaTlaib@POTUS This has reached 31.3 million and counting. Every minute this misinformation is still up is an absolute disgrace on your character and credibility.