I understand the stupidity of the litigant, but what kind of lawyer takes this case?


Jessie Nizewitz and her naked date frolic in anonymity

Jessie Nizewitz and her naked date frolic in anonymity

Model who appeared on “Dating Naked” television program sues producers because they showed her naked.

“I think they owe me a huge apology,” [Jessie] Nizewitz said.

She added that the show cost her a “budding relationship” with a man she had been seeing for a month.

“He never called me again after the show aired. I would have hoped we could have had a long-term relationship. He was employed, Jewish, in his 30s and that’s pretty much ideal,” Nizewitz said.

It does appear that Jessie’s going to need someone in her life who is gainfully employed if she is to stay out of the homeless shelters. A job, and a few functioning brain cells wouldn’t hurt, either.


Filed under Uncategorized

18 responses to “I understand the stupidity of the litigant, but what kind of lawyer takes this case?

  1. Joey B

    I’d be very upset at that “money shot” being exposed. Who’s the guy…Joey Buttafooko?
    I’ve always been amused at the US attitude to nudity. Most people (especially me) look far more attractive clothed.

    • It’s the oddest thing about our country I believe, Mickster. We’re all about sex sex sex, but go absolutely nuts over a fully naked body. And you’re quite right: as a great fan of swimming without a suit, I’ve long noticed that a girl in a string bikini has an allure that that same girl naked does not. They can both be attractive, mind you, but a few scraps of fabric make things sexier.

      • I agree Chris, but why does the NY Post insist on all this sex stuff in their newspaper? It is confusing; the USA is puritanical towards sex, but then again, sex sells papers and magazines in this country.

  2. electricrook

    Immodestly kills allure

    • Possibly, although I think it’s more the presentation of the last barrier. Either way, no question that the concept of “modesty” has devolved since the day of Victorian bathing beauties.

  3. Charlie

    “Model who appeared on “Dating Naked” television program sues producers because they showed her naked.” That is a bold-faced lie. Her private parts were supposed to be blurred out and the producer made a mistake in one scene and showed her most intimate part.

    “I understand the stupidity of the litigant, but what kind of lawyer takes this case?” That is adding insult to injury. The only question is, is the author an idiot or just a bastard?

    • ? After stripping down buck naked and frolicking with a equally-naked stranger on national television, what, exactly,was left of her modesty? A patch of pubic hair?
      Uh huh.

  4. Charlie

    The agreement was that they would NOT show anything private. So all the audience sees by definition is nothing salacious. You are denying the premise.

    • Okie, tits and ass aren’t “salacious”, but her pubic patch is? It’s strictly a matter of taste, I understand, but for my money, her pubes are probably (I haven’t looked) the least salacious bit of the dirty three.
      This woman will be laughed out of court before the bailiff can cry, “Streisand Effect!”

      • Charlie

        No, look at the picture. Her breasts are blurred out. You see no more than what you see at a beach with tight bakinis.

        She has an agreement that they are allowed to show her skin with private parts blurred out. They published pictures of her private parts. They had no legal right to do that and it was a violation of her privacy. I hope she gets all $10,000,000. I think she deserves a lot more.

        • Five minutes of jury deliberation, and that’s including the 4 1/2 minutes ordering out for coffee

          • Charlie

            Not really. In many famous cases, when the jury reached a decision that surprised many people, jury members said that they followed the judge’s order to strictly apply the law and that’s what they did.

            They had no legal right to publish those pictures. They are guilty. I hope a criminal complaint follows her award.

  5. 30 seconds – they’ll skip the coffee

    • Charlie

      She gave them permission to show her with nothing intimate revealing, by touching up the video. It was supposed to be a PG video. Instead, they threw in a scene that showed her vagina and did not edit it out. They showed her most private, intimate body part to the world against her wishes and without her permission. Anyone who can’t understand the horror of that is a true psychopath with no empathy for human beings. And likely isn’t getting any because of it so they have to be macho and talk about it as if they do.

      • Oh give it up, Jessie, would you? This is a two-person conversation, no one else is reading it, and your dilemma has been posted around the world. Go find another blog to whine on.
        As an aside, “showed your vagina”? Really? You let them place an optic camera in you whoo-hoo and didn’t expect them to use the interior shot? You should have read the script.

        UPDATE: Oh, I see, they really did get up close and personal. Well, it’s all over the web now, and anyone who Googles Jessie Nizewitz now or forever in the future will be given a glimpse of her nether parts.
        You shouldn’t have shaved down there, and you could have kept some scrap of modesty. Idiot.

        • Charlie

          It has nothing to do with “expectations”. They had no right to publish that unedited picture. She was violated by them and hopefully they will pay dearly. Insensitive virgin pigs should go back to their pigsty.

          • You know, looking at the picture (it wasn’t available in the first news articles), I can understand her fury. I have a daughter her age and if that had happened to her, I’d be out looking for the creeps who did it, with the intention of shooting them in the balls. But before I left the house with my revolver, I’d have had a conversation with my daughter asking her, in effect, “what the hell were you thinking?”

            That said, it really is gross, and they did violate their contractual agreement with her, so I hope she does get damages.

  6. bill

    Maybe a lawyer who goes to court inebriated ?