[jobu]

In a letter like this is it typical to state credentials before stating the intention of the letter? I'm not an expert in persuasive writing, but the form I learned was something like this:

  1. question, concern or objection

  2. bona fides and background information

  3. vision for change or outcome

  4. call to action

There are probably a multitude of theories on how to persuade or influence people, so I'm genuinely curious what the thought process was for writing something like this.

P.S.

Thanks for fighting the good fight!

[azernik]

American political writing, especially to courts and legal bodies but in some cases also public appeals (like campaign ads and ballot statements on propositions in CA) tend to swap 1 and 2; I believe this is with the intent of making the statements on the issue a more coherent and concise message.

I believe that in legal writing, there's the additional intent of making it easier for a professional to skip over the boilerplate introductions of the bona fides and jump straight to the relevant content - and make no mistake, this is absolutely a legal filing, intended to persuade a small group of professionals, with their careers and maybe also some actual principles at stake. The effect on the broader public is kind of incidental.

[huu]

The parent post is about the typo of 'premier' as 'premiere', not about whether it's appropriate to state credentials before the intent of the letter.

[jobu]

Most of the other comments are political in nature, so I thought my comment fit better with the one comment about editing.