i already forget how i used to feel about you

i cannot take it anymore. someone should just give her feedback that she cannot write. seriously, her grammer does not stay consistent throughout the sentence.
eg. "it is useful to remember that section 9A of the interpretation act provides that in the interpretation of a provision that 'would promote the purpose or object underlying the written law (whether that purpose or objection is expressly stated in the writen law or not) shall be preferred to an interpretation that would not promote that purpose or object."

obviously, what she meant was this:

"it is useful to remember that section 9A of the interpretation act provides that AN interpretation of a provision that 'would promote the purpose or object underlying the written law (whether that purpose or objection is expressly stated in the writen law or not) shall be preferred to an interpretation that would not promote that purpose or object."

isn't it clear that there is an OBVIOUS difference between "in the interpretation" and "an interpretation"? so there i am, waiting to see a comma behind the phrase "in the interpretation of blahblahblah" but no.. she doesnt do that. she changes the structure of the sentence all together!

it's fine when its ONE sentence. but when every freaking sentence is like that, reading is a pain. and that's an EASY sentence to decipher. omg. her writing is so convulated i wonder how she ever got her masters.

ok another example. "this requirement of capacity to marry (referring to monogamy) occupies the whole of PART II of the Act devoted exclusively to 'Monogamous Marriages.' ".

isn't it a little superfluous? couldn't she jsut write "this requirement of capacity to marry occupies the whole of PART II of the Act."

or if she really wants to get her point across, "this requirement of capacity to marry occupies the whole of PART II of the Act. THIS CAN BE SEEN BY THE EXCLUSIVE DEVOTION OF PART II UNDER THE HEADING 'MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGES'.

There. simple. gets the point across. her writing is more tedious and convulated than the statutes. it is open to multiple interpretations. so much for clear writing.

here's yet another example. "Even if the subsisting marriage were polygamous, the provision attached to prohibit the solemnization of any further marriage."

Interpretation 1: "the provision attached PROHIBITS the solemnization of any further marriage" or alternatively "the provision attached ACTS TO prohibit the solemnization of any further marriage"

Interpretation 2: She did not finish the sentence. She really wanted to write "Even if the subsisting marriage were polygamous, the provision attached to prohibit the solemnization of any further marriage, means that blahblahblah..."

you see the obvious grammatical errors? there are so many examples of her not using commas when the sentence jsut begs for it. my gdness.

that's problem number one. her style of writing is bad (to put it mildly). the next problem, she does not substantiate her points. she says things like "this is obviously undesirable." and there i am, waiting for the reasons why it is obviously undesirable, but they don't come. so i think to myself "ok, i really don't see the OBVIOUSNESS in this" and what happens? im stressed out of my mind because she is THE authority.

to think she tells us the importance of writing well and substantiating your arguments.