Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

NINJEW

@ninjew.bsky.social

21 followers 39 following 140 posts

all i do is post photos of the cat and i don't do it often

Posts Replies Media Videos

Reposted by NINJEW

Mrs. Detective Pikajew, Esq.

@clapifyoulikeme.favrd.social

“ACKSHUALLY your honor it’s only 23.3%, not a quarter”
“Your brief sucked ass”

THE COURT: I don't care about now. Now doesn't help
me. I need to know what you did here. I need to understand
because we're doing a postmortem to figure out how one-quarter
of your cases were nonexistent hallucinations.
MR. FELDMAN: Fourteen out of 60 cited cases.
THE COURT: Just under one-quarter of the cases. I
cannot understand how you did that, sir. Tell me how you did
that, how you put together this brief to be so bad.

February 5, 2026 at 11:32 PM

Reposted by NINJEW

Mrs. Detective Pikajew, Esq.

@clapifyoulikeme.favrd.social

THE COURT: That may be it, although I would not think
that that was necessarily relevant to what was going on here
but OK. Where did you find it?
MR. FELDMAN: I actually researched -- I don't
remember exactly how I researched, but I researched for your Honor's name as well as decisions regarding arbitration.
THE COURT: I'm just going to note something that may
have relevance later on. Your letter to me of May 16 cites the
Himmelstein decision that causes us so much consternation later
on. There you got it right. You got the case name right. You got the court right. You got the citation right. I will never
understand — but you will eventually tell me — how it is it came to be so wrong later on.

February 5, 2026 at 11:02 PM

Reposted by NINJEW

Mrs. Detective Pikajew, Esq.

@clapifyoulikeme.favrd.social

I’m getting nauseous just reading this

1. Affable's Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss
Taking each of Mr. Feldman's three problematic submissions in turn, the
Court began with questions about Affable's brief in support of its motion to
dismiss. Mr. Feldman offered essentially two explanations for how the brief's
citation errors came to be. First, they were the product of AI "hallucinations,"
i.e., erroneous or non-existent legal authorities. (Tr. 51-52). The Court buys
this first explanation; indeed, it is the only explanation the Court credits. 3 Mr.
Feldman's second explanation was that the citation errors resulted from his
idiosyncratic research process, which involved inserting into his brief
unreported cases located via Google Scholar, Google search, or the Al-assisted
platform vLex, and then cite-checking those cases by running the brief through
a different Al program — either vLex or Paxton Al. (Id. at 37, 47-53). This automated cite check, Mr. Feldman said, introduced citation errors that he
mistook as corrections and thus neither reviewed nor fixed. (Id. at 52-53). The
Court does not find the second explanation credible, largely because it is not
coherent. To that end, the Court will now attempt to flesh out Mr. Feldman's
It was not, however, an explanation that Mr. Feldman was eager to concede. (See Tr. 47
The Court: "'You were saying to me, or you were saying to Mr. MacMull, that some o hese cases are the product of hallucinations. Did you not say that? Mr. Feldman:
16
Case 1:24-CV-09429-KPF Document 227
Filed 02/05/26 Page 17 of 33
description of his research process, but doing so is a difficult task because he offered multiple, often inconsistent explanations.

February 5, 2026 at 10:27 PM

Reposted by NINJEW

Mrs. Detective Pikajew, Esq.

@clapifyoulikeme.favrd.social

I need someone to go pull this transcript IMMEDIATELY

E. The Sanctions Conference and the Court's Findings of Fact
On August 22, 2025, the Court held a conference to discuss Mr.
Feldman's conduct. It set out to understand how his citation errors came to be
and to what extent he used Al assistance to generate his submissions to the
Court. The Court began by placing Mr. Feldman under oath (Dkt. #223 ("Tr.") at 4-5) and then proceeded to ask him a series of questions. While Mr.
Feldman did admit to relying on Al to a degree (see id. at 39-40, 68-69, 72), he failed to fully accept responsibility. His answers grew increasingly discursive
and were often entirely unresponsive to the Court's inquiries. (See, e.g., id. at 17 ("The Court: Sir, you are not answering my question. Mr. Feldman: I'll get
to that."); id. at 34 ("Sir, once again, I'm really just asking you to answer my questions[.]"); id. at 36 ("I keep asking you, and I'm not sure why you are refusing to answer me."); id. at 37 ("Sir, you are not answering my question.
I'm not sure how many ways I can ask it."); id. at 42 ("But you are still not
answering my questions, which is getting to the point of being frustrating.")).
15
Case 1:24-cv-09429-KPF Document 227 Filed 02/05/26 Page 16 of 33
Mr. Feldman struggled to make eye contact with the Court and described an
approach to legal research that was redolent of Rube Goldberg. Leaving the
conference without clear answers, the Court was left to draw its own conclusions, which it sets forth in the remainder of this section.

February 5, 2026 at 10:26 PM

Reposted by NINJEW

Mrs. Detective Pikajew, Esq.

@clapifyoulikeme.favrd.social

Making up a cite from the seminal “making up cites” case, you simply love to see it

In his Response, Mr. Feldman had contrasted his conduct with the
misconduct described in two (real) cases: Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp.
3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), and Park, 91 F.4th 610. (Response 3-4). Mr. Feldman
appeared to quote from the Mata decision, but failed to provide a pin cite:
Critically, unlike the pattern of deception identified in Mata, where sanctions were imposed not merely for citing fictitious cases but for the attorneys' "failure to be forthcoming, withdraw the prior submissions, and continue to give legitimacy to fake cases in the subsequent submissions despite having multiple reasons
9
Case 1:24-CV-09429-KPF Document 227
Filed 02/05/26
Page 10 of 33
to believe that the cases lacked authenticity," I immediately acknowledged the errors upon notification and undertook comprehensive corrective action within twenty-four hours.
(Id. at 4 (emphasis added)). In point of fact, this quote appears nowhere in Mata. A Google search revealed it to be a direct quote from an October 24, 2023 article recapping an analysis of Mata done by an attorney named Christopher F. Lyon. Christopher F. Lyon Delves into Risks of ChatGPT in Legal Field for NYLitigator, Goldberg Segalla (Oct. 24, 2023), https:// www.goldberg segalla.com/blog/professional-liability-matters/technology-2/christopher-f-
lyon-delves-into-risks-of-chatgpt-in-legal-field-for-nylitigator/. Mr. Feldman
did not attribute the quote to this article.

February 5, 2026 at 7:21 PM

Reposted by NINJEW

Mrs. Detective Pikajew, Esq.

@clapifyoulikeme.favrd.social

The Court’s eyebrows must be through the roof by now

The Response was also noteworthy for its conspicuously florid prose. For
example, it featured an extended quote from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451
and metaphors comparing legal advocacy to gardening and the leaving of
indelible "mark[s] upon the clay." (Response 3). And it included the following
passage:
Your Honor, in the ancient libraries of Ashurbanipal, scribes carried their stylus as both tool and sacred trust - understanding , that every mark upon clay
would endure long beyond their mortal span. As the role the mark (x) in Ezekiel Chapter 9, that marked the foreheads with a tav (x) of blood and ink, bear the same solemn recognition: that the written word carries power to preserve or condemn, to build or destroy, and leaves an indelible mark which cannot be erased but should be withdrawn, let it lead other to think these citations were correct.
I have failed in that sacred trust. The errors in my memorandum, however inadvertent, have diminished the integrity of the record and the dignity of these proceedings. Like the scribes of antiquity who bore their stylus as both privilege and burden, I understand that legal authorship demands more than mere competence — it requires absolute fidelity to truth and precision in every mark upon the page.
(Id. at 7-8). Needless to say, Mr. Feldman's overwrought metaphors and
historical references raised the Court's eyebrows.

February 5, 2026 at 7:17 PM

Reposted by NINJEW

doublemmia

@mobilesuitmia.bsky.social

significant

February 2, 2026 at 4:56 AM

Reposted by NINJEW

shaun

@shaunvids.bsky.social

again it is very funny that conspiracy theorists think they need to crack some elaborate code the elites use to communicate, when in reality they're just like "see you at sex crime island! bring the harem!"

January 31, 2026 at 10:27 AM

Reposted by NINJEW

Big Joel

@bigjoel.bsky.social

Like I generally don't take issue with people who want to abstract the evil of the holocaust and take away Big Vague Lessons. the position of the holocaust within western culture makes that inevitable. but in vance's, it almost reads like a random bad thing that happened

January 28, 2026 at 10:47 AM