Nice Words about Spindle Law and the Evidence Module

Simon Fodden of Slaw has some nice words to say about Spindle Law and its evidence module. He refers to Spindle Law as a "treatise by crowd."

Fodden gets it exactly right: the modus operandi of Spindle Law and its parts is legally knowledgeable swarm intelligence.

So, folks, get to it and contribute! I would love to have a discussion with you.

Should I say provocative and outrageous things just to arouse your ire and get you to pass on your insights?

No, I won't do that -- wittingly. There are enough real outrages in litigation to last several lifetimes of talk. For example, I think repressed and recovered memory is pure hokum that has contributed to many miscarriages of civil and criminal justice. Do you agree? Challenge me by making a comment or two in Spindle Law or by citing cases or literature that shows or suggests otherwise. (If you do that, I won't even argue with you -- at least not in a contentious or aggressive way. I promise! We will instead have -- or, better yet, start -- a discussion with bunches of interesting & engaged people.)

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.

Encouraging Words for Spindle Law -- and, by Implication, for Its Evidence Module

In a blog post Spindle Law's David Gold observes that David Curle, "a leading analyst of the legal, tax, & regulatory information industry," made some encouraging remarks in the Huffington Post about Spindle Law

A tiny little startup named Spindle Law has an interesting idea. They are building, in a kind of collaborative, Wiki-like way, a database of the legal rules that lawyers find in court decisions and in legislation. Their idea is that it’s pretty inefficient to get to those rules by searching and reading long court opinions. They are extracting and organizing the rules with links to the legal sources. They have a long way to go to prove that the concept works, but I like the way they are trying to turn the research process on its head.

I call David Curle's remarks "encouraging" because I am the editor of Spindle Law's evidence module.

I take this occasion to remind lawyers, law teachers, law students, etc., that I would welcome their comments (in the evidence module) about rules and principles of evidence, their notes and thoughts on interesting new (or old) cases, and the like. Evidence is a large part -- very probably the largest part -- of the work of most litigators and trial judges. The handling of evidence in litigation is also a fundamental pillar of the rule of law. (Without reasonably accurate factual proof, the rule of law means little and is inefficient.) So let's have a national and worldwide conversation about the U.S. system of factual proof. Moreover, don't you have a yen to broadcast your personal views about legal issues and the law of evidence to the legal world and beyond? '

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.