To be fair, I have zero answers as to why my case was presented in the media the way it was the first time around. I only have questions…

New York Post, do any of your shareholders or advertisers have financial ties to the lawsuit lending industry?

I ask this because my life is not a soundbite. Getting sued is not a wacky, fun, American past time (cue whoop cushions).


Was the “old and ugly” headline solely to sell papers? If so, I can live with that.

If you were in a burning building, with no options to put out the fire… even though the fire is no fault of your own… would you let the fire eat you alive? Or would you jump to the ground. Of course there are risks with jumping, but that is clearly the more attractive option. The New York Post was the ground and the lawsuit was the fire. It was a life or death, fight or flight situation. I knew I could get into some scrapes… but it was better then being burnt alive…quietly over the course of several years and tens of thousands of dollars later. For a $75 gig.

Which brings me back to the way the media handled it. Was it “Hey this looks like a fun three day story” or was it “Let’s make sure this is a fun three day story so people don’t start asking questions as to why this is even being allowed in our legal system”.

Sometimes I think the funny wacky frivolous lawsuit stories are to keep the general public a tad dumbed down when it comes to the state of the legal system. I was certainly in that category, until it happened to me.

We need resources, education and media outlets that are willing to dig deeper, if we are ever going to change this system.

Remember the McDonald’s coffee lady? That was far from a frivolous lawsuit. Stella Liebeck was hospitalized with third degree burns. She initially tried to get McDonald’s only to cover her hospital fees, which they refused. Her decision to take them to court was based not only on her own path to justice, but to make sure this didn’t happen to anyone else (which I relate to). I won’t post the photos of her injuries here… they are horrifying.

So why was it presented as a frivolous case? She was ridiculed all over the country for fighting for what was fair. If I had to take a stab in the dark, I would guess that the fact that McDonald’s buys advertising time in pretty much every media outlet under the sun has something to do with it.



All I am asking is that we take the reporting of “frivolous” lawsuits with a grain of salt, and dig deeper. Taking frivolous lawsuits and the “lawsuit lottery” at face value feeds the beast of the clogged court system… which then feeds the beast of the lawsuit lending industry…an industry that benefits from a clogged court system.

This shit has more layers then a wedding cake.

So in conclusion I have to honestly ask… was my case presented the way it was to shift the focus from the real issues?  Or was it just sensationalism? All fair questions…