March 7, 2006
And now, an order in which the judge strikes the Defendant's motion on the grounds that it is "incomprehensible."
(Thanks to the Academic Support Blog for this item!)
March 7, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference incomprehensibility:
It's unfortunate that the court wasted "valuable chamber staff time" when that time could have been better spent proofreading the order.
Why is "Defendent" capitalized throughout the order, but "plaintiff" is not capitalized in the second sentence?
Is there a word missing after "adversary" in the second sentence? It seems as if "proceeding" might be inserted there.
The inconsistent references to document numbers--one in parentheses, three not in parentheses--is sloppy. And after going to the trouble to provide more simple document references, the court refers the reader to "the above entitled motion," which might be better described as "Doc. #7."
Finally, it may be more a matter of comma style, but the court might have considered offsetting "like the one presented here" with commas. Then, it might have deleted the comma after "time" because that comma seems to be improperly dividing a compound predicate ("wastes [blah blah] and invites [blah blah]").
Posted by: SAM | Mar 8, 2006 2:37:26 AM