From Live Nation Motor Sports, Inc. v. Davis, 2006 WL 3616983 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 12):
[T]he court notes that Davis's statements are generally defiant and full of inappropriate hyperbole that do not assist the court in determining the facts. Here are a few examples from Davis's Mot[ion to Quash: "Defendants DO NOT ACCEPT these "Supercross LIVE!" copyright labeling by Plaintiff." "Plaintiffs have come roaring into this federal court with the overwhelming force and the ethics, or lack thereof, of Ghengis Khan." "Plaintiff has the gaul [sic] to ask this court to affirm its spoils with a partial summary judgment and preliminary judgment." "A lie repeated five (5) times becomes the truth. Ten (10) times is this Plaintiff's version of the truth in this complaint."
My sense is that judges are generally much more moved by calm argument than by fulmination -- and more moved by normal text than by ALL CAPS.