I got completely lost somewhere in here among all the various negatings:
The miniscule mention of abuse in the affidavits is insufficient to find the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision was unreasonable in finding there was no deficient performance and that there is no prejudice. Nor is the decision of the district court wrong in finding that the state court decision was not unreasonable.
Ouch! That’s some sort of record, don’t you think?

What appellate “genius” from a big-city firm is responsible for that one?
I think there’s a bit too much inadvertent alliteration in that passage. God knows what the rest of the brief is like.
I love briefs like this. They make my lesson plans so much easier!
[...] Professional paralegals should be pros at concise, clear writing. Today’s exercise is to fix this excerpt from a brief spotted by Tom Freeland at NMissCommentor: [...]
The superfluous slight of sarcasm is sufficient to satisfy this reader’s woeful wanderlust for the nuance of negates and overwrought relay of self righteous rambling.
I thought Spiro Agnew died in 1996.
agnew’s speeechwriters are not dead nor have they become non-responsive to the unreasonable toll of not avoiding double or triple negations.
It is not that it is it is that it is not is that it it is
Charley
the movie.
A flowchart and decoder should have been provided with that brief.