Where have all the piñatas gone?

Piñata Tuesday or Thursday is currently on shore leave, presumed drunk. We here at LWW would never leave port without it - because a voyage ain't a voyage without piñata to sing shanties to, drink rum with, and bugger - which leaves us at the mercy of the whims of piñata. With profuse apologies, followed by a prolonged period of uncomfortable silence while we wait for you to say 'I forgive you,' and then you don't, so we say 'maybe we should go,' and you say 'I think that's best,' and then it's all 'WTF? mate,' we contritely offer unto you the following gem in lieu of piñata:

This complaint is brought within a timely manner.

The next day, we send this over since you still aren't returning our calls:

[IMAGE WILL BE ADDED - BLAME BLOGGER]

The next step is to dig Reagan up and shoot him. You should really get back to us.

Not too lazy to blog, but too lazy to be original.

Marmaduke's will is ten percent of property law and has veto power over the other ninety percent

Joe is the bomb.
http://marmadukeexplained.blogspot.com/2007/12/marmadukes-will-is-ten-percent-of.html#links

Stop. Please, just stop.

(And I mean a full stop, as in a period.)

[Defendant] wants it both ways, it wants to convince this Court to change its own opinion that the lease agreement could in and of itself be a violation of the Act, and at the same time deny Plaintiff evidence to establish the overall corporate mindset and practice of utilizing the leases with its optometrists, all in the hope of being able to argue to this Court and undoubtedly the []Circuit Court of Appeals, that [Plaintiff] has not produced any evidence to establish the requirements for class certification, all the while having attempted to prevent her from acquiring such evidence from [defendant] itself.

By my estimate, this "sentence" should properly be about four. Of course, two of those four would be redundant and the remaining two would still be annoyingly verbose.

But the comma splice? Who does that? (!!?!)

Really?

"[Defendant] did not produce any documents of a substantive nature beyond the six (6) pages that they did produce."

I've got a rhetorical question for you: WHY?

The key and foremost issue in this case, at the class certification and liability stages, is what was the mindset and intent of [defendant] when issuing said lease agreements to optometrists; put another way, what did [defendant] know about what it was trying to accomplish by utilizing such leases, and when did they know it?

Counsellor, what do you know about what you're trying to accomplish?

"Promises counsel made were erroneously false."

Thanks for encouraging the general bias against footnotes.

"'Blue cards'¹ are an anonymous method for employees to complain to management."

¹ The anonymous complaint system uses cards that are blue in color.

"Sharpening time is compensable as it is integral and indispensable to principal work activity of cutting meat."

"[Witness] saw the noose and, in his mind, it could not have been anything other than a noose."

"And you shall know them by the trail of piñata..."

Nothing beats a good piñata metaphor.* A good piñata metaphor is so satisfying that it's hard to stomach a poorly executed one. We here at LWW are 100% committed to generating dialogue on best practices for piñata metaphor in the hopes that no piñata metaphor will fail to live up to its potential, and no metaphorical candy loving children will be left behind. LWW: A catalyst for change.

Example:

Over the next few months, CIC apparently began to sense that claimants were circling ATG much like stick-wielding children around a piñata.

It's not bad, mind, but there is absolutely no excuse for a half assed metaphor about piñatas. This is my version:

Over the next few months, CIC apparently began to sense that claimants were circling ATG much like laser-wielding tiger sharks around a chum-filled piñata at a dystopian underwater birthday nightmare.

(Unfortunately, when the circling ceased, no money spilled out.)

Another example:

In competitive markets, an ILEC can't be used as a piñata.

My version:

In competitive markets, an ILEC can't be used as a piñata. What are you, some kind of fucking retard? Go back to Russia. Prick.

And finally:

If a litigant knows that he or someone aligned on his side has not consented, he can keep silent, and grant his consent if the magistrate judge decides in his favor, but withhold his consent and get another crack at the piñata if the magistrate judge decides against him.

This, I think, is the idea counsel is really trying to express:

If a litigant knows that he or someone aligned on his side has not consented, he can keep silent, and grant his consent if the magistrate judge decides in his favor, but withhold his consent and get another crack-filled piñata if the magistrate judge decides against him.

* Except for the metaphorical children, beating it with metaphorical sticks.

An Unnecessarily Literal Discourse on Metaphorical Geography

While this is not as cringe-worthy as most of our selections here at LWW, the mind-blowing obviousness of the metaphor (or, perhaps more generously, its failure to synch up with the rest of the sentence in any illuminating way) earned it a spot.

This superficial agreement masks significant conflict, however, in the standards that the circuit courts use to identify the “rare and exceptional” cases that warrant equitable tolling. It also masks significant disparity in the frequency with which the various circuit courts grant equitable tolling to untimely habeas prisoners. Literally and figuratively, the courts are all over the map, and the chief determining factors in whether an untimely habeas petition will survive a motion to dismiss would seem to be the location of the prisoner and the court in which he files.

Was this written by 13-year-old aspiring John Grisham?

If not, it's just embarrassing:

Defendant [prison guards] entered [plaintiff's] cell with plans for a party. And though [plaintiff] was invited to this party, his only purpose at this party was to be their personal pinata. Once Defendant[s] entered the cell they began putting a whooping on [plaintiff] like none he had ever experienced before. Each of the Defendant[s] took turns punching and kicking [plaintiff] in the head and torso of his body. Unfortunately, when the beating had ceased, no candy spilled out of [plaintiff], rather, he was left with three broken ribs from this brutal and savage attack.

1. Sorry for the excessive bracketing, but after a traumatic pinata experience, the guy deserves some anonymity. But not so much that his pain shouldn't be posted as fodder for amusement, of course.

2. To clarify for any non-lawyers out there, "putting a whooping" is not a term of art.

3. I think the head of my body is getting a headache. Of my body.

4. The metaphor was so good that the final comma splice was really gilding the lily.

Charging by the word now, eh?

"Thus, in light of the facts of this case and the law governing the disputed facts, it becomes transparently obvious that current and former employees of Defendant, if do have "a right" to recover for any time spent performing the activities complained of in the complaint, if said activities were uncompensated. Other than compensability under the FLSA, a far more nebulous question to resolve (though readily ascertainable after discovery) is how much time is owed on an average is owed to class members."

Res Ipsa Loquitard

"When reviewed in accordance with the facts in the Forte and Hood and Rast cases and the above legal authorities, the question is presented - what difference results in deciding the issues surrounding Plaintiff's motion to consolidate, whether in the manner in which Plaintiff seeks or in the manner in which Defendant seeks? The answer is none, with one big exception."

The One that Got Away was Even Bigger!

From a pro se litigant, explaining why 28 USC 2241's limitations period for filing habeas claims does not bar his petition:

Petitioner has made/shown diligent deep sea fishing and as a result hooked a predicate not knowing it's revelation.

1. Spell-check much? 2. Um... what?

"The instant case presents a plethera [sic] of facts that unequivicably [sic] establish that Plaintiff was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and the victim of sex-based discrimination."