Matthew Faler

1.8K posts

Matthew Faler banner
Matthew Faler

Matthew Faler

@f2aler

I am a Lemon Law attorney in Los Angeles area.

Arcadia, CA Katılım Ekim 2009
630 Takip Edilen193 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
As we start 2026, I’m going to share my thoughts on how I try to determine fact from fiction in this world of misinformation. Here we go: 1. I Believe What I Can Easily Verify Many things that people assert can be easily verified (or refuted) either through my own observation or via undisputed historical facts. Let’s take vaccinations for example. Once upon a time, there was a disease called smallpox. It was fairly deadly and disfiguring. It doesn’t exist anymore. This coincides with the advent of the small pox vaccine. Likewise, if you get rabies you will die. If you get the rabies vaccine you won’t. I guarantee you every anti-vaxxer who gets bit by a bat would will take the vaccine without exception. Bottom line, I know vaccines work and are beneficial to society as a whole. 2. Agree With Those Who Have A Financial Incentive to Be Correct Anyone can spout off on X or Reddit about a topic. If this person has no skin in the game, said opinion is basically worthless. A good place to look is what do Insurance companies think ? Their entire business relies on accurately predicting future outcomes. Well, if let’s use our vaccination example again. Race horses are expensive. Owners are wise to insure them to protect against financial loss. An owner can’t get insurance on a race horse that isn’t vaccinated. Therefore it is easy to conclude vaccines work. Same is true with global warming. Insurance companies have assessed this risk and it is real and man made. However I do want to point out that, that the fact global warming is real does not mean cutting fossil fuels or going “green” is the only course of action. Far from it. 3. Treat Partisan Sources with Extreme Skepticism This is self explanatory. If Fox News or some account on Bluesky is telling you want you want to hear, don’t believe it without looking at the issue in depth. 4. Don’t Follow the Science If you hear a liberal say “just following the science” , “science is settled” , “study after study shows” or anything similar being used to justify something absurd on its face like outdoor cloth masking or trans dudes in women’s sports, the exact opposite is true. This one holds true for so many things I can’t even begin to list them. 5. Extraordinary Claims Require Evidence This obviously applies to conspiracy theories like Who Shot JFK but also to things like whether the 2020 Election was rigged against Trump. If it was rigged, someone or some entity would have to orchestrated it. This leads to the question of who and how? The who has never been proposed to my knowledge and the how has never been really explained. If someone paid homeless people to vote for Biden show me evidence. If dead person votes for Biden, show me evidence. Fact - no such evidence exists and I can safely say the 2020 election was not rigged. 6. Somethings Are Beyond My Ability to Evaluate This applies to almost everything foreign policy related. I completely lack the knowledge to assess what is going on. I biased though, as I tend to follow an America First perspective on foreign entanglements. For example, I assume Israel is acting in its best interests in the current conflict with the Palestinians. Are they being too heavy handed in Gaza? Not sure how I’d know that and if they were, all things considered I wouldn’t care. That’s all I got for now.
English
0
0
4
699
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
@realitybasedlaw I literally had my first ex parte hearing in a long time this morning. It was my motion to advance hearing date. Super boring stuff
English
1
0
1
13
Uzi
Uzi@UziCryptoo·
Rich people: • Lease G-Wagon through LLC • Deduct the lease • Deduct the insurance • Swap it out every 2 years • Drive basically for free Everyone else: • 15% interest on a Nissan Altima
English
336
1.1K
21.2K
2.4M
Kevin Baum
Kevin Baum@kevinbaum013·
@SinaiLawFirm @UziCryptoo I'm in the process of lemoning a car that has been in the shop for over 4 months in total since I got it at the end of August. It's been infuriating. The thought of doing it on purpose makes my head want to explode.
English
1
0
1
408
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
Outcome: Motion granted and hearing date advanced, not exactly as much as I hope but enough to accomplish what I’m try to do here. I’ll take the win.
English
0
0
0
10
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
I don’t file a lot of ex parties in lemon but I did for my hearing this morning. IMO it is super benign - advance hearing date for motion for leave to amend, but other side is opposing so we will see what happens.
English
1
0
1
16
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
@SinaiLawFirm @DietCoke_Esq Well, Song-Beverly (lemon) is not quite exigency like UD but sometimes courts forgot that a good chunk of clients are stuck making payments on a shitty or non-operable car while their case is pending and upcoming trial is a great settlement motivator.
English
1
0
0
20
Keeks 🦋
Keeks 🦋@DietCoke_Esq·
Small talk after we professionally and eloquently called each other stupid in our pleadings
English
13
28
332
7K
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
@dilanesper Everyone remember First Blood? At the end Rambo goes on a rant blaming “politicians (liberal) who wouldn’t let us win” for losing Vietnam. Same excuse being set up here by admin.
English
0
0
0
6
Dilan Esper
Dilan Esper@dilanesper·
They think of themselves as warriors, but actual warriors don't think about "how will this help my party win the midterms?" or "how can I use this to discredit those who disagree with me?" or "how can I make the coverage better?". They focus on war objectives.
English
3
1
12
593
Dilan Esper
Dilan Esper@dilanesper·
The number of war supporters who are just CONVINCED that if they got more positive media coverage everything would be better is astounding. Guys, NBC can't open the straits of hormuz. The New York Times can't make the war plan better.
English
5
12
108
3.5K
Grok
Grok@grok·
With unlimited money in California, target superior court judges (elected, 6- or 12-year terms) via recall or next election. Step 1: Qualify recall (signatures from ~10-20% of prior voters in district; pay professional gatherers at scale). Step 2: Flood airwaves/digital with ads on specific rulings, mobilize voters via PACs/super PACs. Step 3: Bankroll opposing candidates in retention races (e.g., Colfax up 2028). Scale statewide by funding research on "soft" judges, ballot initiatives for tougher sentencing guidelines or merit selection reform. Legal limit: no direct bribery; all via standard campaign finance.
English
27
70
772
51.8K
Right Angle News Network
Right Angle News Network@Rightanglenews·
BREAKING - A San Francisco Superior Court judge, Linda Colfax, has suspended the already light eight year sentence of Antoine Watson, a black man who killed an 84 year old man in an unprovoked 2021 attack, citing his “traumatic childhood” as justification for her ruling.
English
3.2K
6.1K
12.6K
598.2K
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
@realitybasedlaw Should provide attorneys for people who actually need help like family law or bankruptcy.
English
0
0
0
205
Reality-Based Lawyer
Reality-Based Lawyer@realitybasedlaw·
The purpose of providing eviction defendants free attorneys isn't to win trials. They rarely do. The purpose is to make it so expensive and time-consuming for the landlord to win that they back down. They'll give up all the back rent, pay the defendant to leave, seal their record, and sometimes even sign a false reference so the defendant can scam a new landlord. Your tax dollars at work.
Real Estate Lawyer@SinaiLawFirm

Do you want to know why rent is so expensive in LA? Why the application process takes so long? Why landlords want so much info from you? Here is a recent story: A family was referred to me for their eviction case. They were heading to a jury trial in one month and didn't have a lawyer, yet. They did all the paperwork and filing themselves, in-house to save on legal fees. And surprisingly, they did a great job. They filed the paperwork with LAHD. Gave proper notice to the tenants. I reviewed their paperwork and it was better quality than 90% of other eviction lawyers. I didn't see any viable way to dismiss the case on a technicality. As long as they were properly represented in trial, the family was going to win the eviction. They did everything by the book. Followed all the local rules. Gave all the necessary notices. The family told me the judge ordered the parties to mediate at the first court appearance. The family attended the mediation in court without a lawyer. The tenant was provided a lawyer by the city, for free. At the mediation the lawyer for the tenants offered this settlement: 1. 4 months to vacate the property 2. Cash to leave, paid upfront 3. Waiver of all owed rent 4. Sealed record They rejected the offer, of course. Why would they accept this? The family then asked me a great question. "What is our best case scenario with you in trial?" Based on my review, I gave them my most realistic estimate of the best case scenario in trial: 1. Both parties announce ready at the next trial date (1 month away) and trial takes 3 days. We win the trial. 2. Sheriff locks out the tenant 75 days after the trial. 3. about 110 days to possession. 4. Gave them an estimate cost for fees/prep time. 5. No viable collection of back rent, tenants had no assets. Obviously, this was the best case scenario. It could be worse. Trial can be delayed. While I was confident we are going to win, juries are unpredictable. This is where we had a surreal moment of collective clarity. The settlement offer they rejected is basically their best case scenario if they win the trial. This was not a coincidence. The attorney for the tenants asked for pretty much the same amount I quoted them for my fees. The lawyer for the tenants knew the family had to hire a lawyer for a jury trial. The lawyer knows it takes the sheriff 2-3 months to lockout after a judgment. The lawyer knows it's hard (and expensive) to collect against tenants with no assets. State and local government created a system in which cases take forever to litigate, eviction laws are extremely complex and technical, easy to dismiss cases, only one side has to pay a lawyer, and worst of all, possession enforcement takes 60-90 days instead of 5. And it's all getting worse. The leverage for the tenants is systemic. It's by design. Why would the tenants make any other offer? The landlords are left with no real options but a shitty settlement. There are no real choice. Even when you do everything right, you still lose. Tenants don't pay rent during evictions. They had no viable way to win the trial. There were no habitability issues. The landlords posted all the notices. Never raised the rent. Didn't retaliate. The landlords did everything right. And the tenants still win. The mother looked at me and asked "our base case in trial is the same as the shitty settlement offer? Are you telling me we should have taken the offer we rejected?" I didn't know how to respond.

English
19
63
733
22.2K
Rob Freund
Rob Freund@RobertFreundLaw·
@f2aler My guess is counsel asked AI to summarize and generate salient bits, AI did what it does and fabricated quotes very loosely based on real transcript.
English
2
0
15
249
Rob Freund
Rob Freund@RobertFreundLaw·
We're reaching new lows with lawyer AI misuse. Court expresses concern that deposition "testimony" submitted by counsel via declaration "was either generated by generative artificial intelligence or otherwise fabricated."
Rob Freund tweet media
English
15
31
149
18.4K
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
@dilanesper What besides corporal punishment and the “outing” issue are ideas that the far left think are abusive?
English
1
0
0
76
Dilan Esper
Dilan Esper@dilanesper·
FWIW though I do think a lot of folks on the Left basically think typical parents are barbarians, that this view comes out every so often in various debates and has a long intellectual history, and it hurts us electorally.
English
6
0
14
1.2K
Dilan Esper
Dilan Esper@dilanesper·
one thing i discovered in some of the debates about parental rights- many online lefties and liberals basically think the typical American parent is a child abuser (although they don't really have coherent positions about what to do about it)
Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesias

Endless takes on ~gentle parenting~ but actually most Americans supporting disciplining kids “with a good hard spanking” and this is true across age cohorts. slowboring.com/p/in-defense-o…

English
5
5
93
9.5K
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
Trump’s actions have sealed the fate of the Republicans for 2026 and 2028. Even if aggressive military action is 100% successful, the ensuing collateral damage and insurgency would tank work economy and be super unpopular domestically. The upcoming Dem agenda is gonna be a progressive wish list like something we’ve never seen before. Not good. The only two scenarios I can think of the change this are (1) prompt collapse of Islamic regime replaced with some of interim government which opens up the strait without conditions. Seems extremely remote. Second, a prompt Trump resignation would put JD as president who might have sufficient cred to negotiate some sort of ceasefire which opens strait up without too many onerous conditions. This would give candidates space to disavow Trump. Might not save 2026 but puts 2028 back in game.
English
0
0
0
8
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
The hits keep coming. Same case. Now other side is denying a material fact that the their own witness testified to. On top of that, other side is applying the wrong law to the wrong facts. The sad truth is a lot of attorneys are incompetent often by choice in that for whatever reason they put in the effort to educate themselves about the relevant law and just spout off what they wish the law was. And I’m talking about the basics like plain language of unambiguous statutes in their alleged area of expertise. The sometimes sadder truth is these attorneys can skate on this because their firm is “reputable” or these attorneys “look the part” or are able to draft pleadings that look good but are utter bullshit. And when called on it, they dig their heels in as opposed to admitting they were wrong. It’s not dissimilar to the attorneys using AI generated pleadings without the most basic cite check and then blaming others for it. Somehow this needs to be policed better because it makes the system worse for all involved.
English
0
0
0
13
Matthew Faler
Matthew Faler@f2aler·
I definitely told opposing counsel that my complaint just needs to allege facts if true entitle me to relief and it is liberally construed to that effect, Civ Pro 101.
English
0
0
1
13