Jenifer Whiston
LightNews LightNews
banner
jeniferw.bsky.social
Jenifer Whiston
@jeniferw.bsky.social
24 followers 28 following 5 posts
data nerd, curler, dog lover
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Jenifer Whiston
roooooland.bsky.social
i'm not a lawyer, is it considered good practice to include the ChatGPT "here you go! let me know if you need anything else!" paragraph in your brief that also has at least nine citations to cases that don't exist? storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
93. Defendant’s inclusion of a prayer for relief in their answer, seeking dismissal and attorneys' fees, is not only procedurally improper but also an attempt to introduce matters that are not part of the defense. These requests should be struck from the answer because they were made without a counterclaim, and Defendant has not provided any legal basis for these demands. The Court should order Defendant to comply with the proper procedures for seeking relief. 94. This approach directly challenges the procedural flaws in their prayer for relief and argues for the proper course of action in response to the claims and defenses they have raised. Hopefully, this helps ensure that Defendant doesn’t get to throw out these extraneous and baseless requests in their answer. Let me know if you need any adjustments or further help! 95. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court may strike from any pleading any “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” A request for attorney’s fees is an affirmative defense and must be pleaded with sufficient factual detail to provide notice to the opposing
April 11, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Reposted by Jenifer Whiston
donmoyn.bsky.social
Most members of the public have little reason to be aware of 18F, or will understand what its loss signifies. So this post tries to capture that, by including the voices of those who worked there. First, from @waldo.net
Once, I was part of a team of four people at 18F that saved the Department of Defense $500 million with a single, three-day project. 18F projects saved many millions of dollars as a matter of course, while delivering better results for Americans. Another time I was part of a two-person team (our billing worked out to about half an FTE, as I recall) that partnered with a court for 18 months to help them build, from scratch, an open source case management system to drive the operations of the entire court. The whole thing cost them just a few million bucks, vastly less than they’d been spending on their old system, and today their cost of operating it is a rounding error compared to their old infrastructure costs. All the work 18F did for all their agency partners was open source. Public money should produce public software, for public inspection. In short, 18F works just how Musk and team pretend that they want government to work. But when his team found it, they destroyed it. 18F’s work is evidence that government works well, which undermines their message that it doesn’t. 18F’s parent agency, the U.S. General Services Administration, turns a profit as an agency. So it has to be destroyed too.
March 4, 2025 at 2:21 PM