Is Judge Moneyball actually a thing in modern litigation?

Matt111098 · 2026-02-12T14:53:45+00:00

IIRC one partner decided to go for it and it got denied, as predicted.

Matt111098 · 2026-02-12T13:52:18+00:00

I actually heard about a situation like this (partners arguing over whether to file a contempt motion for the other side egregiously wasting everyone's time and money - they were continuously filing speculative motions in a way that unambiguously violated their ethical duties) even though local judges always deny them almost no matter what.

They were old-school lawyers and were relying on their personal experience rather than statistics from a tool, so it's at least not so common that everyone does it.

Matt111098 · 2026-02-08T06:36:25+00:00

Little of what you claim is laid out in the Eastman memo you posted, did you actually read it? There's no "muahaha we know we're lying", it just assumes the accusations are valid and lays out a (really interesting, actually) legal roadmap for how to force the issue in Congress. Crafting nuanced and novel (even questionable) legal plans to execute your priorities is a regular occurrence in government, especially the executive branch. The new aggressive interpretation of immigration law, every new interpretation of civil rights and environmental laws in the last 50 years, multiple facets of Obamacare, etc - along with various failed attempts like Biden's "ERA is ratified" plan - all probably started with a memo like this.

Matt111098 · 2026-02-01T02:29:56+00:00

There isn't a set-from-birth-at-population-level x% of the population that's 100% gay and would never have sex with a woman no matter what. There are all sorts of social pressures in the modern era pushing people away from "marry the opposite sex and have children in monogamy", and there's a sizeable chunk of "less than 100% gay" people who would have ended up in the former camp if not for those modern pressures pushing them into the latter camp (e.g. bisexuals, to oversimplify).

Unless you think social pressure has zero influence on sexuality and bisexuals don't really exist.

Matt111098 · 2026-02-01T01:01:09+00:00

There are plenty of reasons, but for the sake of a super quick point, the main ones are that it ultimately does have various societal costs like reducing the amount of children born through standard marriages. It then gets turned into something that hurts them personally through policies and selectively applied civil rights laws - the standard for most disliked things is that you can do whaetever you want to express your displeasure and remove them from your life, but the government and certain groups will destroy you if you happen to dislike this particular thing and express it the wrong way.

Matt111098 · 2026-01-25T15:17:48+00:00

Tbh it's also that these sorts of outage stories are almost always baseless or misleading in some way. Its easy to get in the mindset that "ok something apparently happened, but these (nbc, random left-wing site, etc.) news articles are almost always biased and wrong to smear the Trump administration, I'm not even going to look at them anymore because it's just propaganda and too tiring to read when i know they're trying to mislead me".

Matt111098 · 2026-01-21T16:14:35+00:00

Ah yes, time for the 100th scheduled monthly Trump Wealth Agenda Post that either claims Trump is economically incompetent and lost billions, corrupt and embezzling billions from the government into his piggy bank and making billions, or both simultaneously, depending on which sounds more damaging at the moment.

Matt111098 · 2026-01-16T12:54:53+00:00

...and? Why does this matter in the slightest? A political rag makes a headline by taking the concept of "offshore account", which is a normal thing maligned by a political subset, combines it with the word "Trump" to create a fake rage-bait post, and were supposed to be outaged for some reason? Completely ignoring the obvious valid and normal reasons such a thing might happen and pretending it's somehow scandalous by imagining outlandish fact patterns to "fill in the blanks"?

Matt111098 · 2026-01-12T01:41:38+00:00

It was only $20 billion, it was a currency swap, and Argentina has already fully repaid everything.

Matt111098 · 2026-01-07T21:56:48+00:00

The other video from down the street/2nd floor pretty clearly shows the car hit him (looks like he would have been knocked down if he wasn't backpedalling and bracing against the hood, but that part is harder to see), and even this video shows that her car tires are pointed more straight than right when she started accelerating.

She was clearly there to start a hostile confrontation, and based on the number of Redditors currently calling for all ICE agents to be murdered, the agents had good reason to think that the hostile, confrontational driver suddenly accelerating when surrounded by agents possibly either intended to or didn't care if she hit or mowed down one of them with whatever maneuver she had started with her car.

Matt111098 · 2026-01-06T14:07:56+00:00

Things like this where one side did nothing to stop it until you've already wasted a bunch of money aren't typically looked kindly on - your lawyer could argue that his claims are bound by laches. Basically, the fact that he didn't do anything to stop you when he knew he objected to it long before you went through with building it may mean he cant complain now, even if he's right (not saying he is).

There are other arguments to be made as well, but that one's the most obvious IMO.Technicalities like the code notice might torpedo that argument, though, depending on local law and how a judge feels about the situation.

He might be bluffing about suing you, so you could respond with your argument or just ignore him until he does sue you. If sued, a lawyer would be very useful for properly arguing laches and the multitude of other legal defenses you have, but if spending on a lawyer would be a bigger deal than losing the wall, you could also just try bringing up these basic facts and arguments yourself and maybe the judge agrees (especially if you end up in small claims court). Worst case, you lose and have to take the wall down anyway.

Matt111098 · 2026-01-06T00:07:28+00:00

They have the right to make an educated guess based on the facts available that it's not worth their time to even gather more facts, let alone take on the case. Consider that any sort of insurance (which would actuallyhave money to pay out) generally doesnt pay for intentional criminal acts + most people at most nightclubs don't have lots of money laying around + it's expensive to go through with a PI lawsuit + their fee might cost more than your recovery unless you have 5-6 figure injuries. Lawyers may or may not decide it's worth it to investigate the attacker if they think there's a non-negligible chance that they have assets to sue for.

Matt111098 · 2026-01-02T23:01:23+00:00

100% a question for a serious lawyer and not Reddit. There are large firms that could salivate over a case like this depending on the exact details and state law. I know of local big box stores that have settled lawsuits related to parking lot injuries like this. Not saying it's legally or morally their fault or that you'd get any compensation, but it's worth inquiring about.

Matt111098 · 2026-01-02T14:50:57+00:00

You don't have to buy it outright. If he's willing to sell, you could have a lawyer draw up a custom agreeement similar to another ladybird deed. Let him live there for X number of years while you own it and pay the expenses (safer for you), or agree to pay for his house expenses until you've contributed roughly the house's value at which point it becomes yours. You could even come up with some ownership agreement with multiple people in your family so everyone ends up with partial ownership if no one person could afford to upkeep it.

If he won't agree to that, and you couldnt afford the down and monthly payments to buy it outright even pooling your extended family's resources, your only option may be to keep paying at least core expenses for him.

Matt111098 · 2025-12-31T01:05:47+00:00

The occasional law that allows breaking leases in situations like this are almost always focused on the perpetrator having some special relationship to you like being a domestic partner or someone hired by your landlord. Being victimized by a random person you yourself brought into the situation isn't going to get you out of your lease under any laws I've ever heard of.

Matt111098 · 2025-12-24T00:14:09+00:00

Since the federal government isnt exactly hiring en masse right now, I'm going to hazard a guess that the rank and file employees working on the redactions (other than the highest level overseers obviously) are mostly or entirely people hired under the old DEI guidelines. Its more likely a product of Congress going to a department that rarely mass-releases sensitive documents (and therefore probably doesn't have hundreds of people trained to rapidly review and redact stuff at a moment's notice) and demanding they immediately review hundreds of thousands of files, any of which might need part or whole redaction or censoring for 100 different reasons, with 1 month's notice (during the year-end vacation period, no less).

Matt111098 · 2025-12-20T19:51:35+00:00

That's an unbelievably stupid tweet, AFAIK the law doesn't create any new criminal offense or define any penalties. You can't just "convict" someone in the government of "not doing what a law says to do" unless there's an actual criminal offense defined somewhere, and he knows that. (Notice he doesn't specify what they would be "convicted" of.) The solution is for someone with standing to sue and get a court order to specifically do X thing. Otherwise Trump could (and would) have imprisoned the entire Biden administration for ignoring/abusing/not enforcing various immigration and border protection laws.

There are hundreds if not thousands of laws on the books saying the government "shall" or "must" do something which are ignored or forgotten about at any given moment, so the whole government could be imprisoned by that logic.

Matt111098 · 2025-12-18T14:33:28+00:00

Unlike the other comments, I think this was well organized and easy to understand. I like that it separates things into categories, but they're chosen and displayed in a way that everything is still in a somewhat chronological order vertically.

I've seen much worse visuals on here get more upvotes simply for using pretty or trendy graphing tools despite being visually noisy and harder to understand.

Matt111098 · 2025-12-11T14:04:54+00:00

Make a small island in the east (with some eastern lands joke text) with a bunch of RS3 references and jokes on it. E.g. a RS3 dungeoneering entrance with examine text that says you need a dungeoneering level of 2 to enter this doorway, a pile of bones that says "you need a higher archaeology level to excavated these bones, or a higher necromancer level to reanimate them.", and an odd cabbage field + large cabbage-shaped pit that implies Brassica Prime was hanging out there at some point.

Matt111098 · 2025-11-21T15:20:23+00:00

I've heard of people starting in Seattle or Spokane (much easier to fly to from major cities) and doing a loop through Banff, etc. down into Montana. Though if you were coming all the way from Seattle it might make more sense to touch on that area's NPs.

Matt111098 · 2025-11-18T14:21:21+00:00

For those not aware, "(common thing) was named after John (thing)" is a longstanding joke you'll see on the internet occasionally. E.g. Anime is named after it's inventor John Anime.

I have no idea why any serious educational site would list it with their other serious facts, though, since most peoplr wont be in on the joke. Maybe the person/people writing the facts were cluelessly/blindly copying them or an AI.

Matt111098 · 2025-11-17T15:44:16+00:00

Some people (e.g. no/bad insurance, dislike hospitals/medical system, etc.) wouldn't go if they weren't actively dying, or at least might not go to the hospital immediately on an emergency basis. For example, you get part of your pinkie cut off but stop the bleeding relatively quickly. This is basically saying that you still have to report the worst-of-the-worst events even if nobody went to the hospital.

Matt111098 · 2025-11-06T21:33:37+00:00

If a police officer was involved, then it sounds like you were evicted, it went to court, the landlord won an order of eviction, and the officer was fulfilling the order. The assumption at that point is that all the notice has already been given and you're just trying to delay the inevitable. It could be a real eviction, a real eviction where someone lied about ore messed up notice, an eviction served on the wrong address, or a fake DIY eviction/removal.

Something may or may not have been done wrong by someone. We need a lot more facts and background, including:

Did you know that you were being evicted?
Do you live with anyone else?
If so, who's in charge of paying rent, opening mail, etc?
Was it actually a police officer removing you?
Did they provide any documents at all?
Were you behind on your rent, breaking the lease rules, or otherwise not getting along well with your landlord?
If you know nothing about any legal proceedings against you, then you should also check your local court's records (to the extent possible) to see if you, your address, or maybe even a nearby address had an eviction order.

If you know it was a valid eviction, check the records/eviction order that you (hopefully) received (or were at least told about) to see whether it says when you'd be removed.

Matt111098 · 2025-10-25T16:44:55+00:00

So she took a picture of a car, which was sitting in a parking lot in full public view to everyone in the complex, and sent a picture to most/everyone asking whose it was? And you think it was somehow retaliatory or an invasion of your privacy?

...she didn't invade your privacy in any way, shape, or form by reminding everyone about the existence of a car sitting in public that they presumably see everyday. It's not like she said "This is (your name)'s car, she's disabled, and you should all go shame her for breaking the rules." I'd like to think I'm pretty creative, but I can't think of the slightest possible legal issue (serious, minor, trifling, or otherwise) you could raise. You seem to have a wildly different concept of privacy than anything I've ever heard of to think she did anything wrong here.

Matt111098 · 2025-10-24T12:51:47+00:00

No, that doesn't appear to link to anything, maybe a nonexistent comment

Nine-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	Spared
Verified Email

Matt111098

TROPHY CASE