site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   3445 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for September 26, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Mildly interesting court opinion:

  • In year 1988, a married couple purchases a shopping center and an adjacent vacant lot. The shopping center's "anchor tenant" is a grocery store whose below-market lease of 0.77 $/ft2 was signed in 1962 and can be extended all the way to 2012, but the other tenants pay rent at the market rate.

  • In year 1994 the municipal government declares the two properties blighted. In year 1999 the grocery store terminates its lease. And in year 2018 the municipal government starts condemnation proceedings for the two properties. The couple does not object to the condemnation, but engages in extensive litigation regarding how much money constitutes just compensation for the taking. The couple argues that the proper valuation date is year 1994, and the judge agrees. The parties submit the question of valuation to an arbitrator.

  • The municipal government argues that the grocery store's below-market rent of 0.77 $/ft2 results in valuation of 2.3 M$ for the two properties at issue. The couple argues that the market rent for the grocery store was 8.5 $/ft2 and on that basis the proper valuation of the two properties is 4.8 M$. The arbitrator finds that the grocery store was so "old", "in below average condition", and "grossly substandard in size" that the market rent for the grocery store was 4.0 $/ft2<ins>—but, when its existing below-market rent is taken into account, the rent for valuation purposes is 2.0 $/ft2</ins>, and the valuation for the two properties is 2.9 M$.

  • The couple appeals, arguing that the grocery store's below-market lease was irrelevant and should not have been admitted as evidence. But the appeals panel rejects that argument. The existing lease was "a fact relevant to the determination of what a willing buyer would have paid for the property in 1994".

  • The municipal government also appeals, arguing that the proper valuation date is 2018 rather than 1994. But the appeals panel rejects that argument as well. The law specifically states that the proper valuation date of a condemned property is the earliest of (a) when the condemning government takes possession, (b) when the condemnation proceedings begin, (c) when the condemning government takes action to "substantially affect" the condemnee's use of the property, and (d) when the property is declared blighted. Obviously, item d, which occurred in year 1994, was the earliest of these four events. The municipal government has no one but itself to blame for failing to start the condemnation proceedings until a whopping 24 years after declaring the properties blighted.

Funny excerpt from an otherwise boring court opinion:

Frank and Roseann Carone passed away in August and June 2022, respectively. Jeanie Mayer and Anton Mayer Sr. are their daughter and son-in-law. Plaintiffs Anton Jr. and Francisco are Jeanie's and Anton Sr.'s sons and decedents' grandsons.

On January 31, 2006, decedents executed reciprocal wills in which plaintiffs were named as beneficiaries. With the help of a new attorney, Michael Zimmerman, they drafted several more wills in 2007, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017. Plaintiffs were named as beneficiaries in the 2007 and 2011 wills.

In 2015, Anton Jr. became estranged from the family, including his sister, his parents, and the decedents, over a scheduling dispute regarding his wedding and his sister's wedding. As a result, neither his parents nor decedents, were invited to his wedding. Decedents were greatly upset by Anton Jr.'s conduct and Roseann asked Zimmerman whether she and Frank could rescind stocks they had gifted Anton Jr. [Anton Jr. was disinherited in the 2015 and 2017 wills.]

In 2019, Francisco's relationship with his parents and sister deteriorated because of his efforts to reconnect with Anton Jr. Francisco was residing in an apartment owned by Frank, which he vacated without providing notice. Decedents expressed their displeasure regarding Francisco's move and his poor relationship with them on several occasions to a few family friends. On June 10, 2019, they asked Zimmerman to draft new wills disinheriting Francisco [in addition to Anton Jr.]. These wills were not signed by decedents until 2021.

Zimmerman testified about his more than four decades of experience as a tax, wills, trusts, and estates attorney. He first met with decedents to plan their estate in 2007. Zimmerman recounted his longstanding relationship with decedents and the counseling he provided in drafting their various wills between 2007 and 2022. His work included drafting eight wills, living trusts, and health care proxies for Frank and performing tax work for him over the years. Zimmerman testified the number of wills decedents asked him to draft was highly unusual. He explained decedents "would have issues with the family and would change percentages. They would continually just change their minds as to who they wanted to give to."

Crosspost from >>>/k/64289538:

beam "rifle"

fired with one hand

This has really annoyed me ever since I noticed it.

  • The GM's beam spray gun kind of looks like a pistol, so I'm okay with seeing it fired with one hand.

  • The RX-78-2 Gundam's beam rifle looks more like a rifle, and probably should be fired with two hands, but it's not quite big enough to damage my suspension of disbelief.

  • The Zeta Gundam's beam rifle is as tall as the fucking mobile suit! For it to be fired with one hand just looks ridiculous.

  • And then we reach the Ex-S Gundam's beam smart gun, which isn't any longer than the Zeta Gundam's rifle, but has enough extra heft that it finally needs to be fired with two hands even in-universe.

[Yes, I am aware that a pistol can have a rifled barrel and a long arm can be smoothbore.]

Mildly funny excerpt from a lawsuit:

Since Plaintiff’s promotion in January 2018, the [Division] and/or [the Department's Deputy Director] has never provided him with a written description of his job duties and responsibilities. In contrast, Plaintiff’s predecessor, and all of Plaintiff’s subordinates, have written job descriptions as reflected in their annual Performance Assessment Reviews.

Since Plaintiff’s promotion in January 2018, the [Division] and/or [the Deputy Director] has never provided Plaintiff with a Performance Assessment Review (“PAR”).

[The Department] is required by Civil Service Commission regulations in the New Jersey Administrative Code and the [union] contract to provide employees with PARs on an annual basis. Plaintiff performs PARs for all of his subordinate staff on an annual basis, as required by [Department] policies. On occasions when Plaintiff has been late with any part of the PAR process, [the Department]’s Human Resources staff members have been quick to e-mail him reminders.

Not receiving annual PARs has caused Plaintiff to receive a disadvantageous numerical ranking in the Civil Service Commission computer system. According to the Civil Service Commission website, staff with no PAR on file receive a numerical ranking of “1”, while staff members with good or very good PAR ratings receive a numerical ranking of “4”.

This ranking can prevent Plaintiff from receiving automatic step increases in pay, and puts Plaintiff at a disadvantage when competing for other Civil Service titles, thus further suppressing his earning potential and preventing him from advancing in his career. In fact, Plaintiff has applied unsuccessfully for at least 10 civil service positions within the state government since 2018, and believes that not having PARs on file for his current position negatively affected his chances of obtaining any of those positions.

Only recently, on or about January 10, 2023, did [Supervisor] finally begin the PAR process for Plaintiff by sending Plaintiff a PAR form listing his supposed “job expectations” for Plaintiff to review. Upon review of this document, Plaintiff determined that it contained a completely incorrect and inaccurate list of job duties and responsibilities that are not reflective of the actual job functions he performs as Supervisor of the [Unit].

Plaintiff suspects that [Supervisor] mischaracterized his job duties and responsibilities in the PAR purposefully, as retaliation for pursuing his discrimination claims through the Division on Civil Rights, and as part of a calculated attempt by the [Division] to force him to request a Civil Service “desk audit” alleging that he is working “out-of-title”, rather than pursue his equal pay claims.

If Plaintiff were to file a desk audit request, then any resulting directive from the Civil Service Commission to adjust his title and/or compensation would date back only to the date he filed the desk audit request. By filing a desk audit request, Plaintiff would be giving up his right to pursue equal pay claims and seek backpay for the ongoing pay differential dating back to January 2018.

No PDF is provided because the plaintiff is my father. The complaint was filed in May 2023, but discovery has been repeatedly extended from November 2024 to December 2024, September 2025, and January 2026, so no end is in sight. I am not particularly close to my father (I stumbled across this lawsuit purely on accident by looking up my last name in my state's database of cases), so I have no personal knowledge of the merits of the case. But, as the kids say nowadays, big if true.

To clarify the importance of these missing PARs: The union contract specifies (p. 38) that every employee must be rated on a three-point scale (unsatisfactory, commendable, or exceptional) on an annual basis. Generally, if your rating is at least two, then you get an automatic "step" pay increase of around 4 percent within the "range" assigned to your job (p. 170), on top of any other "across-the-board" increase that may apply (3.5 percent per year in this contract—p. 28). The meaning of a blank PAR is not mentioned in the contract, but apparently it counts as a score of one (or maybe zero, since the complaint describes it as a four-point scale rather than a three-point scale). The plaintiff in this case alleges that his bosses were intentionally depriving him of these regular raises by failing to fill out his annual PARs.

The municipal government argues that the grocery store's below-market rent of 0.77 $/ft2 results in valuation of 2.3 M$ for the two properties at issue. The couple argues that the market rent for the grocery store was 8.5 $/ft2 and on that basis the proper valuation of the two properties is 4.8 M$

Huh? Why is the valuation only ~twice as much after the square foot price is 11x bigger?

Whoops, my mistake.

Without considering the ACME contract rent, the arbitrator determined "the market rent[]" for the ACME building was $4.00 per square foot. He then considered the ACME contract rate, finding "[a]ny reasonable buyer would certainly consider the financial impact of this lease in determining what it would be willing to pay for the subject site. To suggest that the ACME lease can be ignored in determining its market rent is manifestly unreasonable." Factoring in the contract rent, the arbitrator found the market rent for the ACME building was $2.00 per square foot.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats