outside evidence
if you include outside evidence while explaining the historical situation of a document does is count as both the outside evidence and sourcing point?
you can’t double dip any points, so you’ll need to make sure you have separate ways to get each point.

for outside evidence, i recommend choosing a person or event that is related to one of the documents, but not mentioned at all. for example, if there is a document written by one founding father, …
depends on what evidence of voting fraud is presented and how that is addressed by the courts. the presumption of continuance of life is contained in section \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ of the evidence act. Hi Vini,  
  
You can provide copies and certificates to the customs. It's also legally efficient. your question is useful for the link and for other purposes. *any examples are for illustrative purposes only.*  
  
the standards do not require a log sheet to be maintained for waived tests. the organization is required to be able to correlate the quality control results with the individual test results. examples of typical correlated information would include the following:
* client identifier
* date of testing
* test kit lot number
* test result, qc lot numbers
* qc results
* testing personnel identifier


logs are useful for compiling this information in one comprehensive document. alternatively, the organization may choose to document this information in the client chart or utilize a combination of document sources to correlate the information. for example, an organization performing occult blood testing elects to document the date of testing, client result, qc result and testing personnel initials in the client chart. a separate inventory log is maintained to track the lot of reagents and test cards in use at the time of testing. performance of initial qc for the lot, when required by the organization's policy, could also be documented on the inventory log prior to releasing the kit for general use. long before wikipdia, there were encyclopedias! you actually had to look up information - it was not at your fingertips on the www. you practically answered your own question: it's a sarcastic remark to a know-it-all: someone with a lot of knowledge like in an encyclopedia. wy do they use the saying? it's a relatively creative remark - especially this day and age of technology. No, it would be forced to switch.


Source-Experience Testify against your co-defendant, I assume you mean - yes, that is very possible. **it establishes the authors' in-depth understanding and knowledge of their field subject**. it gives the background of the research. portrays the scientific manuscript plan of examining the research result. illuminates on how the knowledge has changed within the field. It means for some reason the case could not proceed at the time it was set. You need to speak to the prosecutor or investigator as a witness