An accepted practice regarding adverbs in legal briefs and opinions – Edit them out.
If the sentence is accurate without the adverb, then the adverb is unnecessary.
If the sentence is not accurate, then the sentence should be re-written, NOT sanitized with a misleading adverb.

Misleading Adverbs and adjectives often are unnecessary. They are included to influence the reader. They can be very negative, disrespectful, imprecise, incorrect, insulting, offensive, arrogant… even used in an attempt to substantiate pure speculation.

Three columns. The Litigant, The Prosecution, The Court. The adverbs appear beneath the party they reference.

Notice how thsee word choices (adverbs and adjectives) signal misleading statements, and things which were just pure speculation without ANY basis in fact or truth or evidence. It’s deliberate. The Opinion begins… “After careful review…” (Already, … OBVIOUSLY, this is a HUGE LIE.)

A 23 page Opinion. The Litigant got beaten up pretty badly. The Prosecution was flawless, and ENTIRELY FALSE. The Court has a very high opinion of themselves.

BUT, there is an immediate problem. It’s HUGE. It’s arrogant. It’s careless.
The Court described itself as well-reasoned, ably, complex, certainly, lawfully, expressly, properly (4x), fully, not lightly, legally (2x), correctly. The court was NONE of those things.

There are NO REASONS listed.
Not a single logical relevant statement or explanation.
There are pages of unnecessary disinformation carefully disguised as half-truths which offer no support. Those pages serve to exhaust the reader. The volume of unnecessary sentences undermines comprehension. Glad to be finished the reading, the Reader contemplates the motivation for the volume of vexatious irrelevance to which he has been subjected.

There are NO LAWS listed. NOT ONE.
There are NO LAWS expressed (properly, correctly or otherwise).
Instead of indicating an applicable law and it’s relevance, the writer has instead indicated other decisions by other courts with the suggestion of similarity without the details. The Court applies this ‘we did this before” (well, maybe it was the same), as it shoots holes in the Litigants attempts to substantiate their position. This method quickly ignores any reasoning presented by the Litigant. With that dismissed, the COurt next suggests their prompt dismissal of the Litigant ios reason enough to not provide reasoning or explanation.

Every RIGHT asserted by the Litigant, is ignored, dismissed, or waived.
The waiver of a right which is being asserted cannot be disregarded based on the failure to assert the right – BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ASSERTED. SO, CLEARLY NOT WAIVED. Any further reasoning or explanation is unnecessary where the Court has incorrectly indicated the waiver by the Litigant.
(Logical fallacies when combined with deliberate and intentional stupidity CANNOT BE ADDRESSED AND MUST BE NEGLECTED because you cannot argue with stupid.)

The Court demonstrates a tremendous disdain for the Litigant, the Law, the Rules, Constitutional Rights. Facts are of no consequence when
beating up this Litigant. Speculation and suggestion outweigh Facts and Truth.

The Court has only itself to blame. Where the integrity of the court is affected, there is a mandate of CONFIDENTIALITY which denies and prevents justice. It’s unlawful and unconstitutional. But, as the sole and exclusive arbiters of all things constitutional, the judiciary cannot address THEIR OWN BAD RULE. Conflict of Interest applies. CONFIDENTIALITY applies to the confidentiality problem.

HOW DO YOU GET ONE OF THE LARGEST LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM?
The STANDARD RESPONSE from Senate and House is “THEY DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN MATTERS CONCERNING THE JUDICIARY.” I guarantee that excuse was provided by lawyers (and likely the ones on the judiciary committee.)

Try getting a meeting with the Chairman of Judiciary, who happens to be the Senator from my location. Senator Stewart Greenleaf has been unavailable to meet with me since 2008. Greenleaf obstructed the legislature a few years ago by requiring special hearings to determine the constitutionality of a statute of limitations for child predators. The law was stalled allowing the time available to prosecute to continue to toll – ASSERTING PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PREDATORS. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE? FOR OVER 30 YEARS??? DIDN’T UNDERSTAND CONSTITUTIONALITY? The legislature and the media accepted this farce. Greenleaf knows exactly how the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law has remained a secret since 1987. He’s been there the entire time.

The thing is… THE PA CONSTITUTION IS VERY CLEAR. A law is required to provide jurisdiction to the courts. The courts are NOT permitted to affect the jurisdiction of the courts. Pa Const Article V Section 10(c)
– The court without jurisdiction cannot grant it to themselves. NOPE. No authority.
– The court cannot assume jurisdiction. It can only be provided by LAW.
– The court knows this to be FACT.
– The opinion of the court neglects to even use the word JURISDICTION. Not once.
– The assertion by the Litigant that the court lacked authority is ignored. Ignored by every level of the judiciary. All have the mandate of confidentiality to conceal information which adversely affects the integrity of the court.
– There had been a law for a brief period of time. It lapsed. The lapse was the deliberate and intentional action of the Legislature. The court cannot assume jurisdiction where the Legislature INTENDED there to be no jurisdiction.
– The litigant is not being DIRECT. The litigant is a lawyer mandated by the improperly enacted and unconstitutional CONFIDENTIALITY. The Litigant cannot expose the cause of the corruption maliciously and falsely prosecuting her.
– BUT, I AM NOT A LAWYER. I can. I did. I earned the title of ‘the worst kept secret in Pennsylvania”
– And the same people are involved in the cases which deny any protection of the Law and ignore all constitutional rights.
– President Trump is NOT A LAWYER. The lawyers have a problem. The lawyers know that what they have done and are doing is WRONG. They do it anyway.

It is important to consider that the CONFIDENTIALITY MANDATE ONLY APPLIES TO TRUTHFUL STATEMENTS. The TRUTH is confidential.
There is no similar requirement for LIES.

Hmm, hmm, hmm! Lolly Lolly Lolly, get your adverbs here! Lolly Lolly Lolly, got some adverbs here! Come on down to Lolly’s, get the adverbs here! You’re going to need If you write or read Or even think about it Lolly Lolly Lolly, get your adverbs here! Got a lot of Lolly, jolly adverbs here! Anything you need And we can make it absolutely clear! An adverb is a word (That’s all it is and there’s alot of ’em. That modifies a verb (Sometimes a verb, sometimes) It modifies an adjective Or else another adverb And so you see that it’s positively, very, very, necessary. Lolly Lolly Lolly, get your adverbs here! Father, son and Lolly selling adverbs here! Got a lot of adverbs and we make it clear So come to Lolly! [Hello Folks, this is Lolly senior saying we have every adverb in the book so come on down and look.] [Hello Folks Lolly junior here. Suppose your house needs painting. How are you gonna paint it? That’s where the adverb comes in.] [We can also give you a special intensifier so you can paint it very neatly or rather sloppily.] [Suppose you are going nut gathering. Your buddy wants to know where and when. Use an adverb and tell him.] Get your adverbs. Use it with an adjective, it says much more Anything described can be described some more Anything you’d ever need is in the store. And so you choose very carefully every word you use. Use it with a verb it tells us how you did. Where it happened where you’re going Where you’ve been Use it with another adverb at the end. And even more. How, where or when. Condition or reason These questions are answered when you use an adverb. Lolly Lolly Lolly, get your adverbs here! Quickly quickly quickly, get your adverbs here! Slowly surely really, learn your adverbs here! You’re going need them If you read them If you write or talk or think about it Lolly . . . [If it’s an adverb we have it at Lolly’s!] [Bring along your old adjectives too, like slow, soft and sure.] [We’ll fit them out with our “l-y” attachment.] [And make perfectly good adverbs out of them!] Get your adverbs here!  [Lots of good tricks.] Lolly, Lolly, Lolly!    [Adverbs deal with manner place and time.] Lolly, Lolly, Lolly!    [Condition and reason.] Father, son and Lolly!  [Comparison Contrast] Lolly, Lolly, Lolly!    [Enrich your language with adverbs.] Lolly, Lolly, Lolly!    [Besides they’re absolutely free.] Lolly, Lolly, Lolly!    [At your service.] Indubitably!

There is an unspeakable reason.

How do you tell an entire population, an entire country, that their government has lied to them? … for decades? … has operated on two fronts. One front protecting, propping up, covering up, concealing corruption, crime and criminals. The other side working to prevent exposure of the truth.

People at the top were so corrupt and so arrogant that they thought they could get away with anything. They proceeded down the path, protecting themselves, covering up, giving immunity to people who were clearly breaking the law. They went after anyone who learned what occurred, and their supporters were targeted also. Directly affecting MILLIONS of Americans, they misinformed the other 90% of Americans. But, the truth has been there, every time we turn around, another piece unraveled. Unravels.

I AM NOT THE LITIGANT IN THIS EXAMPLE.

The Litigant is/was a lawyer. Educated. Informed. Knowledgeable. Discovery of the Truth by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania caused a demonstration of an arrogance so powerful, it could falsely prosecute the State Attorney General. It’s not just a Pennsylvania thing. It went national… gradually. The corrupt could silence any lawyer within it’s control. Confidentiality Of Information is the needle in the haystack of American Injustice. They attacked Kathleen Kane when she learned. Our first conversation. Face to face. Her words, “I know what they did to you.” resound in me still.

I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO HER AND WHY. Justice is coming.

But, confidentiality could not silence a non-lawyer targeted for over a decade. Unrelenting abuse and destruction while without any protection of the Rule of Law, and denied his constitutionally protected rights. Upon finding the Rule 1.6 Confidentiality problem, I experienced running into walls of lawyers permitted to maintain confidentiality of the problem regarding CONFIDENTILITY.

Since Ronald Reagan was President, the office of the American President has been held by lawyers – obligated by an improperly enacted and unconstitutional confidentiality. The first non-lawyer President since Reagan will restore the US Constitution, the RUle of Law and Make America Great Again. The efforts against President Donald Trump are tghe actions of lawyers scared to death they will be drawn into and exposed in the treason which undermined the judiciary and crippled the US Constitution. The main thing to understand is that the corruption was so deep at the top. Friendly news media was attempting to spin the story the way they wanted to, because the noose was tightening.

The Opinion of the Superior Court must be shown for the farce it perpetrates and attempts to protect. I was there at the trial. I was at the Superior Court when they heard arguments in the appeal. It is also essential in my litigation to be identified as a part which Kane was not permitted to present as part of her defense.

It is useful in my litigation to identify the connection to the prosecution of Bill Cosby which abruptly halted his plans in the broadcast media.

And then there’s that CASTOR MANIFESTO that details the corruption of the District Attorney and the abilities for a career professional prosecutor skilled in how to [screw] others.

Justice is Coming.