My point would be that an attorney, if indeed this thing was written by an attorney, who cannot craft a cogent argument in support of his position (as by following accepted norms of grammar) isn’t going to be taken very seriously.
You point to what seems to be a typo as “proof” of lack of cogency. Your seeming inability to actually characterize and discuss the arguments presented seems to point to a lack of comprehension on your part, making your argument strained and not credible. Frankly, given what you’ve demonstrated so far it seems as if you don’t grasp what is said in the brief, not that the brief, taken as a whole, is lacking in cogency. For example, I have just reviewed word by word the first 10 pages and found a mispelling of a word and two clear typos requiring the insertion of a connective word and the deletion of three words. But none of those corrections prevent the overall description from being cogent and a sound foundation for the ensuing argument. It seems likely they will be corrected before the brief is distributed.