"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.