Making a privilege? Point of views?

Also with subject-verb agreement problems and my beloved, a blown possessive. Opposition to Anti-SLAPP Motion, served August 11, 2008:

This Court must look at both parties point of views in order to determine whether the privilege Defendants are making bar Plaintiffs lawsuit from going forward.

Maybe I should come up with a scoring system for these things. Perhaps 1 point for a blown possessive, 2 points for improper subject-verb agreement, 5 points for general unintelligibility, etc.

Rhetorical Madness!!!

Also fun with commas! Reply to Opposition to Motion to Compel, served August 8, 2008:

I would guess that they think that they will escape liability, if Plaintiff is left without the central piece of evidence in this case. I ask this Court are they right? Are they going to escape righteous liability? Can Defendants assure Plaintiff that she can inspect and then hide the Things(s)?

Just Petulant Really

Special Interrogatory Response served July 30, 2008:

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18
State the date of birth of each child of the decedent.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18
No.

Friday Run-On!

With bonus improper use of capitals! Request for Admission response served August 5, 2008:

This request For Admission requires Plaintiff, a minor child and not a Medical Doctor, to give a Medical Opinion and to know what a Laceration is and to know what sutures are and what suturing is and the Emergency Operations and Procedures which Plaintiff does not have actual first hand exact knowledge of.

I am broadening the scope of this blog to include discovery responses. Also, I am happy to report that this one is from a different attorney than the first three posts.