The exuberant language used is totally normal and common for this kind of legal filing.
This is a (fairly common) example of where HN and legal matters don't mix - HN is awesome because lots of really smart people can exchange ideas based on logic and reason.
But legal matters (like this) come down to custom & practice and precedent -- all of which are facts that have to be learned not derived from logic.
Logically you are totally right that a judge isnt going to be swayed by such verbiage but that's how injunctive relief/etc is played out in court papers.
> The exuberant language used is totally normal and common for this kind of legal filing. ... a judge isnt going to be swayed by such verbiage but that's how injunctive relief/etc is played out in court papers.
Lawyer here (former litigator and current arbitrator). It's actually just the opposite: People who work in the judicial system have heard it all before, and so inflammatory adjectives and adverbs usually impress approximately no one, except in a negative way.
A good brief writer will lay out the facts so as to tell the story in a sober, NPV way that leads the reader to the desired conclusion, without histrionics. As Prof. James McElhaney, one of the all-time great teachers of persuasive legal writing, put it: [1]
<quote>
Facts, not opinions, are what convince the reader. When you start interpreting the facts—characterizing what people said and did—you’ve stopped guiding your reader through the thicket of the lawsuit. Instead, you’ve popped out the legs on your traveling sales case, hung up the sign on the front of the case and wound up a dozen or so of your little walking dolls, hoping sales will be brisk.
But you don’t want to be the street corner huckster; you want to be the guide your reader can trust. So be careful about every sentence you write.
Understate rather than overstate. Better yet, don’t evaluate at all. Let your reader do it for you.
Avoiding characterization is one of the keys to good editing. When you go back over what you’ve written, cross out every modifier—every adjective and adverb—you can. It’s surprising how words that were meant to lend strength to your message actually get in the way.
Nouns and verbs are the gut-stuff of a good story. Adjectives and adverbs are often discounted as the paid-for feelings of a professional advocate.
IANAL, but I read a lot of litigation documents, and I think you're right. The quoted part reads more like a tabloid piece than a proper, professional laying out of facts.
This is a (fairly common) example of where HN and legal matters don't mix - HN is awesome because lots of really smart people can exchange ideas based on logic and reason.
But legal matters (like this) come down to custom & practice and precedent -- all of which are facts that have to be learned not derived from logic.
Logically you are totally right that a judge isnt going to be swayed by such verbiage but that's how injunctive relief/etc is played out in court papers.