Tiny Dick Update

It’s How You Use It

…And if you got the ‘short’ end of the stick, har, har…you simply need to learn how to keep it steady indefinitely; and marshall your allies; i.e., tongue & fingers.

Others use the law to make up for “shortcomings.”

Like Joseph I. Marchese. If he even has a dick, it must be limp. …How else could you explain his behavior? From an email just now:

The Summit CF11ES chest freezer was marked with an Energy Star label that significantly understated its actual energy usage. Testing by the U.S. Department of Energy found this freezer exceeds the maximum permitted annual energy usage to qualify for the Energy Star program. In addition, this freezer exceeds the maximum annual energy usage allowed by federal law. Because this appliance uses more energy than indicated on its labels, consumers may pay hundreds of dollars in additional energy costs.

If you purchased one of these freezers, we would like to hear from you to try to understand how it is performing for you, and to determine how many people purchased these mislabeled appliances. Please contact Joseph I. Marchese at Bursor & Fisher, P.A. by responding to this email.

He’s actually not looking to get you a better, more energy efficient freezer, if there even is such a thing. He’s looking to get you a class action settlement check for a whopping $2.43, while he and his firm collect a few mil.

“Little Joe” Marchese

I replied in email, modestly:

Fuck off. I took my chances and the freezer has performed as advertised; meaning, it fucking keeps frozen food fucking frozen for later use.

….Though in conciliation, I can understand how frozen blood might be problematic for a blood sucker.

Now for the science guys: as it’s a chest freezer and cold runs downhill, what could we possibly be talking about for keeping our grassfed and other precious, nutritious meats, fish, poultry — and animal products in general — at our beck & call fingertips?

Update: I got a reply from him this morning.

Thanks for your kind words, but I disagree with you. The freezer is not performing as advertised because it costs you more money to operate than advertised. In fact, the freezer uses so much energy that it violates federal law (see the attached letter from the Department of Energy and recent article from Consumer Reports magazine).

See, he just doesn’t get it. He assumes I care about “Consumer Reports” and “federal law” in such matters. I don’t. And incidentally, according to the report he attached, there is variation in how a freezer will consume energy based upon the amount of stuff in it — from empty to full — and what temperature setting you use. Consumer Reports tests them chock full of highly dense, stacked packages at zero degrees. I wonder why. In any case, the range went from something like 50% to 100% more energy use than “advertised.” So in my case for the model I have, instead of $30 per year in operating costs, we’re talking $45.

Oh, my, but the horrible harm I’ve suffered.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. JoshS on November 10, 2011 at 17:42

    That right thar is funny I don’t care who ya are. 😀

  2. John on November 10, 2011 at 19:58
    • John on November 10, 2011 at 19:59

      Message him back for his opinion of that.

    • Clay on November 11, 2011 at 06:37

      I don’t believe he violated MRPC 7.3. (and you would need to look at the state specific rule as well).

      The first part of the email reads “You’re receiving this email because you have a relationship with the law firm of Bursor & Fisher.” So, I assume Richard had previously had some type of contact with their firm. Of course, if they were simply fishing for clients without prior contact, that’s a problem.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 11, 2011 at 07:42

        Nope, have never had contact with them or heard of them, and I have never participated in any class action. Those mailings always went straight to the trash.

      • Clay on November 11, 2011 at 11:59

        Hah, well in that case, perhaps a class action should be started!

  3. Bill on November 10, 2011 at 20:34


    On a completely different topic, I would really like to use your Amazon store so you get your commission. However as I live in England, I use
    It might be worth looking into this. Surely there must be a way that you could benefit on Amazon sales outside of “The Great Satan” land. If not, there should be.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 11, 2011 at 09:14

      Thanks for the thought, Bill. I’ll look into that, but I suspect it’s impossible.

  4. msema kewli on November 11, 2011 at 02:41

    An eloquent and restrained response to this barren ejaculation from “Little Joe” Marchese.

  5. Marc on November 11, 2011 at 03:51

    THAT is fucking hilarious.

    I will write him today also but for representation as my kettle boiled my water too hot.


  6. Steve on November 11, 2011 at 07:00

    At the risk of drawing an FU, let me play devil’s advocate. I certainly don’t think class actions are a GOOD way of handling problems that arise in society such as false advertising, but what better way do you propose? Are you going to sue the company yourself? Would you have ever discovered the false claim yourself? I respect the look-out-for-oneself and personal responsibility ideals that go into libertarianism, but it seems to me that people with that world view do a lot of settling. They settle for a society with a lot of unremedied injustice. Laissez-faire capitalism means a lot of people get screwed. Regularly. I also think libertarians delude themselves that they won’t get fooled because they’re too smart.
    Why is it you curse the lawyer rather than the lying manufacturer? Isn’t this killing the messenger? I know it’s easy to vilify lawyers, especially ones that make a lot of money (which isn’t the rule since most lawyers make their living off of the middle class, which is getting poorer by the minute). But respect the business model: he makes a lot of money hammering soul-less corporations who lie, and he can justify it because maybe the class action has some chilling effect of future businesses who want to do the same thing. Win-win. Sorry you didn’t get much from the class action, but, hey, it wasn’t the lawyer who screwed you, it was the lying manufacturer.
    Your post reminds me of an Andy Rooney commentary from many years ago. It went something like this: “Turns out there are a lot of danger toys being sold to kids (gives examples). In my day, all toys were dangerous. I guess it’s better that toys today are less dangerous. But you know who supports this organization which names the year’s most deadly toys? TRIAL LAWYERS!” Ergo, what?
    By the way, love your stuff, especially attitude, but don’t always agree. I must admit that I have reexamined my own political/social beliefs in light of everything I’ve learned about how badly government has bungled everything related to nutrition. I certainly don’t want taxes on “bad” foods or more advice based on past performance.
    Also have lost 4 pounds since Sunday, going “clean.”

    • Steve on November 11, 2011 at 07:16

      >they settle for a society with a lot of unremedied injustice.

      Because the way society is currently organized there is no unremedied injustice right?

      libertarian ideology, at its core, is not really a political ideology so much as a moral/ethical one. When you institutionalize injustice you can’t expect that to breed fairness and justice. And even if you can make a “for the greater good” kind of argument. Should we start harvesting organs from the healthy because we can save more sick people? Is that the sort of justice we should live with? I would argue that people with a libertarian mindset are not settling for injustice. They are protesting against it. Also, you are only implying that a freer more self reliant society would have more injustice. Do you actually know that? How do you know that? Is there not injustice in society today? This is a skewed view of the world. A sales pitch provided by those who seek to control others, as a way to sell the benefits of their rules and mandates and so on… But the benefits aren’t there just because people SAY they are. A sales pitch is all it is. Reality tends to differ when you look a little closer.

      • Steve on November 11, 2011 at 09:54

        There is injustice institutionalized today. I agree. Essentially, IMHO, “our” government ceased to be our government some years ago. I sometimes wonder how long it took Romans to realize their government was no longer a Republic. A generation? More?
        I find myself agreeing more with libertarian thinking, but only in the context of this current state of disenfranchisement we are living in. But rather than taking to the hills and waiting it out, I would rather try to retake the government and make it work for us. I know government, even in the best of times, is imperfect. But it is better than no government at all, so long as we have a (nearly) equal voice in it.

      • Steve (the other) on November 12, 2011 at 03:11

        There are two broad reasons I’ve given up on the idea of re-taking the govt to “make it work for us”.

        1st) I don’t believe the structure of govt is in tune with the human animal. It always tends to a negative outcome because this implicit broken connection. The ideas of govt are not in line with how humans behave naturally. It’s like asking someone to stand still while you poke them with a hot iron. People delude themselves when they try to put rules in place to curb bad behavior by people in govt. Sure sometimes it works for a short while but in the end you always end up with a bad result (see point 2)

        2nd) The way govt is structured, is explicitly uses ideas like mob rule, and a monopoly on the use of force. It attempts to legitimize ideas like theft and violence through collectivism and “for the greater good” style arguments. I don’t believe a system that is based on a such a weak ethic-less foundation is a stable one. It is a house of cards that tends towards what we have today because it is rotten at the root. It’s never “sold” that way, but that’s the end result regardless.. (see point 1) To me saying we should make govt work for us is like justifying rape as a good way to procreate. Sure in some non abstract practical way it may “work”, and maybe one can find a way to rape more gently or more in line with what most people want, but that doesn’t change what it is.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 11, 2011 at 07:56

      I got the freezer about a year ago and the label said energy costs would be about $30 per year. The email said “hundreds of extra dollars” or some such thing. Well, my electric bill hasn’t budged over the last year.

      And the freezer works great, so I don’t see where the harm is.

      In most class actions I see, it’s always about some regulatory issue. When there is real objective harm to an individual who suffers important damages, there is typically a line of lawyers waiting to take on the case for a contingency.

  7. John Nugent on November 11, 2011 at 08:23

    Blood sucker indeed. The lawyer will profit at the expesne of the client claimants whose damages recovery will be depeleted substantially by the lawyer’s fees.

    There seems to be a real lack of ethical behaviour in how this guy has gone about canvassing for business.

    A bit like the internet scammers who try to sell you anti-virus software and the like. The world is full of scumbags and that covers every calling, profession, job type. Human nature.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 11, 2011 at 09:22

      I have no idea how they contacted me. While I did mention the freezer in a blog post way back, the email came to a private personal email address I reserve for friends, family and trusted businesses, not the FTA email published on the blog. Moreover, I did not register the warrantee or anything like that, simply purchased it at Home Depot.

      One possibility is that they were able to get a database of purchases from various retailers and were then able to get my email address from the issuer of the credit card I used.

  8. Joseph on November 11, 2011 at 08:57

    This is what happens when you have a society that values “business” (i.e. busywork, twiddling thumbs industriously) over production, conservation, and utility. Back in the day, lawyers did law: they solved real disputes for fees (which might be small or large). Here in the States, many of them had other professions on the side, working as craftsmen or farmers. They diversified. They contributed, on more than one level. They produced things that were useful (honest-to-God useful).

    These days, we don’t have as many versatile producers. Our lawyers have to do law all the time (no taking up side jobs, unless you are a loser), and often only one narrow kind of law. If there is nothing for them to do in their tiny niche, then they make something up, convince suckers that it is necessary, and milk the system (exploiting somebody else’s production to make a living off of twiddling their thumbs industriously). Lawyers are not the only ones spinning their wheels this way. Many other information specialists do essentially the same thing (including a lot of doctors, personal trainers, politicians, scientists, academics, educators). Every narrow specialty that presumes to arrogate to its practitioners the right to exist without producing, without diversifying, without examining the long-term consequences of their actions today, is stuck in this same stupid rut. Specialization produces some great advances. But it causes bad stuff along the way. Too many of us rush off toward the prizes of specialization without glancing at Nassim Taleb’s graveyard, where many of us inevitably end up (along with the slave labor that makes our specialties possible as stand-alone enterprises).

  9. Stephan on November 11, 2011 at 09:01

    This was super funny! Thanks for making my morning!

    While I don’t agree with the law firm’s approach, there is a point to be made here… Given the state of the environment, we should all do our part to reduce our impact upon it. I’m not saying that there should be a law suit, but this company should be held accountable for allegedly falsifying the applicance’s energy consumption.

  10. David Csonka on November 11, 2011 at 09:11

    I can’t believe I clicked through from that link on Twitter… lol

  11. Razwell on November 11, 2011 at 10:27

    The only thing funnier than taint waxing has got to be micro penis jokes – comedy platinum. Can’t go wrong with either one. LOL !

  12. Paul on November 11, 2011 at 11:50

    US Style Class actions are not allowed in my country and that’s a good thing I suppose.

  13. Cletis on November 11, 2011 at 20:09

    Richard: Can I send you some lipstick. This way when you getting screwed by Summit or some other corporation, you will look the part. French Navy, now it all makes sense.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 11, 2011 at 20:14


      Do you have a reading disability?

  14. Cletis on November 11, 2011 at 20:20

    Not really. It seem silly you would get so annoyed at someone trying to rectify a wrong. You were sold a product that was touted as energy star compliant. They lied to you. Instead of taking it out on Summit, you get angry at the lawyer trying to stick it to Summit. Your anger is directed at hte wrong person.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 11, 2011 at 20:22

      So you’re going to decide if I’ve been “wronged,” not me?

  15. Cletis on November 11, 2011 at 20:33

    You were wronged, you just fail to do anything about it. Little Joe is not saying you were wronged, the federal government is saying so. Instead of trashing Summit on your website, you trash Little Joe. For what reason? Does it make you feel tough and strong that you can curse and trash someone on your blog. Micro penis jokes. Are you kidding me. Your abuse of little joe could have been more clever, yet you resort to insults an eight year old could come up with. How would you explain your behavior.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 12, 2011 at 00:50

      I wasn’t wronged.

      You see, I’m delighted with my fridge.

      Do you get it? That’s all I care about and Little Joe was an imposition on an otherwise fine day.

      Nevermind. It’s always tough to deal with domesticated, zoo humans.

  16. jl tate on November 12, 2011 at 13:22

    I don’t know what all the trash talking about tiny dicks and sexual comments is about, but you just lost one interested reader who mistook this blog for something positive and strong. Way to go guys. Oh, and Richard, just for the record and in response to this pathetic comment you made, “For the real dumbasses: when you feel like a pizza, see if you can down a whole 4 pound tri-tip roast…and if you can’t, you’re a pussy, so try harder next time. ” all “pussies” are usually dickheads.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 12, 2011 at 13:25

      OK, jl tate.

      I never try to please all the people all of the time, cause that’s what most people try to do, and I find it boring.

      Be well.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k