Category: Uncategorized

In some older posts, I shared lists of books and DVDs that were found in photos from Paisley Park. I came across an Instagram post sharing a couple more titles,

Top stack:

• The Matrix Reloaded
• Steel Magnolias
• 500 Days of Summer

Bottom stack:

• Divergent
• Johnny Stecchino
• Watching the Detectives
• Limitless

Those are the ones that can be read with reasonable confidence from the image. A couple of the very top items are partly cut off by the discs sitting on them, so there may be additional titles that aren’t fully legible.

I was re-reading a passage from Prince’s memoir recently, and he mentioned the film About Time. The title immediately caught my eye—he wrote a song called “Time,” and there’s an interesting resonance there that feels intentional, though that is something I won’t share for now. I’ll admit, when I first learned the premise, I hesitated. Another time-travel romance? It felt like well-trodden ground, a premise bordering on sentimental in a culture already saturated with temporal what-ifs.

But by the final act, I was utterly disarmed. Quiet tears turned into a steady stream I couldn’t stop. The film surprised me—not with its mechanics of time, but with its profound excavation of heart. It laid bare that universal, aching desire to reach back into the fabric of the past: to correct a moment, to salvage a goodbye, to stretch a second with someone gone too soon. It wasn’t about altering history for grandeur, but about the intimate, heartbreaking edits we all wish we could make in the story of those we love.

A Self-Rep’s Secret Weapon

I once heard an interesting concept about contracts: that words need meaning to matter, and the writer of the contract has the ability to define them. The person who controls the definitions controls the agreement. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but I applied this concept when fighting my case.

In law, words are not just words. They are weapons, shields, and sometimes the entire battlefield.

The difference between winning and losing can come down to how a single term is defined. And as a self-rep, understanding that dynamic gives you a tool that levels the playing field against opponents who assume you won’t notice.

The Problem with “Plain Meaning”

We all grow up thinking words have stable meanings. A chair is a chair. Reasonable is reasonable. Adequate is adequate. But walk into a courtroom and you’ll discover that every one of those words is up for grabs.

Take “adequate.” What does it mean for notice to be adequate? For lighting in a parking lot to be adequate? For insurance coverage to be adequate? The word itself gives no answer. It’s a vessel waiting to be filled. And the party who fills it first, most persuasively, often wins.

Where Definitions Come From

When a word is disputed, courts look to sources. Sometimes the statute itself provides a definition. Sometimes regulations do. But when they don’t—when the law uses a word like “reasonable” or “adequate” or “timely” without defining it—the door opens.

This is where dictionaries become useful. Not just any dictionary, but sources courts respect. Black’s Law Dictionary is the obvious heavyweight—it’s written specifically for legal contexts. But regular dictionaries matter too. The Oxford English Dictionary. Webster’s. Even, in some cases, specialized dictionaries for technical terms.

I learned to cite dictionary definitions in my written arguments. Not as the final word, but as evidence of what a word ordinarily means. It’s a way of saying: this isn’t just my interpretation. This is how the language works.

The “Adequate” Example

Consider how “adequate” might be argued in different contexts:

In a dispute about disability accommodations, “adequate access” could mean compliance with technical standards, or it could mean something functional and practical, or it could mean whatever is reasonable in the circumstances. Each definition leads to a different outcome.

In a contract dispute, “adequate performance” might be defined by industry custom, by the parties’ prior conduct, or by a dictionary’s plain meaning. The choice of definition determines who wins.

In a notice provision, “adequate notice” might mean ten days, or thirty, or whatever gives the recipient a real opportunity to respond. Again, definition is destiny.

How to Use This as a Self-Rep

Here’s the practical play:

First, identify the key words in your case. Not the obvious legal terms—those often have settled meanings. Look for the ordinary words. The ones that seem too simple to fight about. Those are the ones where definitional arguments win cases.

Second, research how those words have been defined. Check your statute’s definition section. Look at regulations. Search caselaw for how courts have interpreted the same word in similar contexts. And yes, pull out dictionaries. Multiple dictionaries. Build a range of authoritative sources.

Third, argue definition early. Don’t wait until the word is in dispute. If your case turns on whether something was “reasonable,” file a motion or include in your factum a section on what “reasonable” means. Define your terms before the other side defines them for you.

Fourth, use definitions offensively. When the other side uses a word vaguely, call them on it. “Opposing counsel says the notice was ‘adequate,’ but they haven’t told us what ‘adequate’ means. By any ordinary definition—citing sources—it was not.”

The Deeper Lesson

What I came to understand is that law is largely a battle over language. Not because lawyers like words—though many do—but because language is how we translate messy reality into rules that can be applied consistently. Every case is a story told in words, and the words that matter most are the ones that carry the weight of judgment.

When you’re a self-rep, you don’t have a lawyer to fight these battles for you. But you have something else: the ability to read slowly, to question assumptions, to notice when a word is doing more work than it seems. Lawyers are trained to move fast, to rely on habit, to assume definitions are settled. Self-reps who take the time to ask “what does that word actually mean?” can catch things that faster readers miss.

An Example from My Case

In our dispute, one of the key words I weaponized was “emergency.” The board had locked us out of certain actions by requiring approval for everything—unless, they conceded, an emergency existed. They likely thought this was a harmless exception, a word with no real teeth. But we argued that our circumstances fit any ordinary definition: imminent, unexpected, requiring immediate action. Seeking board approval under those conditions wasn’t just impractical—it was unreasonable, and the word “emergency” existed precisely to cover such moments.

The board’s argument collapsed not because we proved them wrong on the facts, but because we proved they were using the word wrong. The right definition won the day.

The Bottom Line

Words are not just words. They are the architecture of argument. When you’re fighting a case, every important word is a potential battleground. And on that battleground, a self-rep with a dictionary and some caselaw can stand equal to any lawyer.

The key is to see the battle coming. To notice when a word is doing heavy lifting. To ask, before the other side does, what that word actually means. And to be ready with answers when the court looks to you for definition.

I wrote about this in my novel, Condozilla. Clara doesn’t go to law school—she goes to the dictionary. Watch as she learns to weaponize words and realize how much power actually sits in language. If you’ve ever felt like the other side was speaking a different language, Clara’s story is for you.

I Used AI to Find Out.

If you’ve been on TikTok lately, you’ve probably noticed a resurgence of a 70s disco classic. Anita Ward’s “Ring My Bell” is having a moment, but not just because people are rediscovering its funky charm. The track is being repurposed as a manifestation tool.

Users claim that listening to the song or using its sound helps them attract abundance, energy, and positive vibes. At first, it’s easy to write this off as just another social media trend. But it got me thinking about something I’ve explored on this blog before: the science and spirituality of musical tuning.

Why this song? Why now? I had a theory: What if the frequency of the track itself is what’s making it feel so “powerful”?

The Spark: A Theory About Tuning

For years, I’ve been fascinated by the difference between the standard A=440 Hz tuning and the slightly higher A=444 Hz (often associated with the “Scientific” or “Verdi” tuning, believed by some to have a more resonant, healing quality).

Listening to “Ring My Bell” with fresh ears, something stood out. The track sounds… bright. Energetic. Slightly sharp compared to modern pop. I grabbed my tuner to test it on the fly, and my hunch seemed correct: It was leaning toward the 444 range rather than the standard 440.

But I wanted hard data. So, I decided to turn to an unlikely analysis partner: Gemini AI.

The AI Analysis: Deconstructing a Disco Hit

I asked Gemini to analyze the track’s signature sound and historical context. The results were fascinating and confirmed my suspicions.

According to the AI’s digital frequency analysis, Anita Ward’s “Ring My Bell” doesn’t sit at the standard concert pitch we use today. Instead, it hovers around 444 Hz to 445 Hz.

Here is the breakdown of why a 1979 disco track might feel so “sharp” and why that might matter for manifestation:

1. The “Tape Speed” Factor

In the late 70s, producers often used a technique called varispeed. By slightly speeding up the master tape (even by 1-2%), they could make a track sound brighter and more energetic for the dance floor. “Ring My Bell” is a victim (or beneficiary) of this technique, pushing it away from 440 Hz and toward that higher, shimmering 444 Hz range.

2. The Energy Shift

The AI compared the track to a standard pitch:

• Standard Pitch: A4 = 440 Hz
• “Ring My Bell” Estimate: A4 = ~444-445 Hz
• Cent Offset: ~15-20 cents sharp

That 15-20 cent difference is subtle to the untrained ear, but noticeable to the subconscious. It creates a feeling of heightened energy and “brilliance”—exactly the kind of sensation you want when trying to raise your vibration for manifestation.

3. The “Pew” Factor

And what about that iconic “pew-pew” electronic drum sound? The AI pointed out that it’s a frequency sweep, starting high and dropping rapidly. While it doesn’t have a static tuning, it contributes to the overall “high-frequency” atmosphere of the production.

So, Is It Manifesting or Just Physics?

The TikTok community is using the song to “ring the bell” of abundance. Whether you believe in the metaphysical power of 444 Hz or not, the data is clear: This song is tuned higher than usual.

If you subscribe to the idea that higher frequencies (like 444 Hz) promote clarity, positivity, and spiritual alignment, then “Ring My Bell” is accidentally the perfect manifestation anthem. It’s a disco track that literally vibrates at a higher rate than the music we hear today.

Try It Yourself

If you want to feel the “tuning” difference for yourself, try this:

1. Listen to the original track and notice how it feels in your chest and ears.
2. If you’re a musician, try to play along on a keyboard tuned to 440 Hz. You’ll find it sounds just slightly off.
3. Pitch-shift your instrument or DAW up by about +18 cents. You’ll suddenly hit the “sweet spot” of that classic disco recording.

Whether it’s intentional magic or just analog tape drift, it seems the internet has accidentally stumbled upon a scientifically sharper frequency to fuel their intentions.

What do you think? Is 444 Hz the secret sauce to the song’s viral manifestation success? Let me know in the comments.

The Dark Side of Condo Living

Most people who move into a condominium, think they understand what they are signing up for. Shared amenities, monthly fees, a board of directors elected by residents—all reasonable enough. What they don’t understand is how quickly reasonable arrangements can morph into something else entirely. Something that, shares unsettling similarities with how cults operate.

I’m not using that word lightly. Cults aren’t just compounds in remote locations with charismatic leaders and purple Kool-Aid. The defining characteristics of cultic systems can emerge anywhere you find insular communities, concentrated power, and the slow erosion of critical thinking in favor of group conformity. Condominiums, it turns out, provide fertile ground.

The Insularity Factor

Cults thrive on isolation. Cut off from outside perspectives, members gradually adopt the group’s reality as their own. Condos create this same dynamic naturally. You live in a building with the same people, pass them in hallways, share walls and grievances and the occasional elevator ride. Over time, the building becomes its own small world. Outsiders don’t understand your specific rules, your ongoing disputes, your particular frustrations. Only the people inside truly get it.

This insularity becomes problematic when the board or a vocal faction starts defining what “getting it” means. Question a decision and you’re not just disagreeing—you’re not a team player. You don’t understand how things work here. You’re not one of us.

Power Without Accountability

In a healthy organization, power is checked by transparency, term limits, and meaningful avenues for dissent. In condos, those checks often exist on paper but fail in practice. Boards control the information residents receive. They interpret the rules. They decide which expenses are urgent and which can wait. They approve contracts with preferred vendors. And because most owners are busy with their own lives, paying attention only when fees increase or something breaks, the board operates with minimal oversight.

This is where the cult parallel sharpens. Cults concentrate power in a leadership structure that answers to no one. Dissent is framed as disloyalty. Transparency is selective. The message, explicit or implied, is: trust us. We know what’s best.

The Doctrine of Rules

Every condo has governing documents—declarations, bylaws, rules and regulations. These are necessary, in theory. In practice, they become scripture. Interpreted rigidly by those in power, selectively enforced against those out of favor, and used to shut down questions rather than answer them.

I’ve seen board members cite rules with the certainty of biblical literalists, never questioning whether the rule itself made sense or whether its application in a particular situation was fair. The rule is the rule. Obedience is the measure of character. This is textbook authoritarian control dressed in the language of property management.

Shunning and Social Consequences

Cults control members partly through social consequences. Question too much and you’ll find yourself on the outside, shunned by people who were once neighbors and friends.

Condos can replicate this dynamic with disturbing precision. Speak up at a meeting about financial discrepancies and watch how many people suddenly avoid eye contact in the elevator. File a dispute and discover that the owner who used to wave hello now walks past you like you’re invisible. The social cost of dissent is real, and it silences people effectively.

Us vs. Them Narratives

Cults need enemies. Outsiders who don’t understand, authorities who threaten the community, apostates who turned against the truth. These narratives bind members together in shared suspicion and loyalty.

Condos generate these narratives organically. The board versus that difficult owner. The owners versus the property manager. The building versus the city, the developer, the lawyer down the street who’s always causing trouble. Once us-versus-them thinking takes hold, critical thinking declines. Anyone questioning the group narrative becomes suspect themselves.

The Slow Creep

Here’s the thing about cults—people don’t join them intentionally. They join a community, a cause, a group of like-minded people. The control creeps in gradually, each small step normalized by the steps before it.

Condos work the same way. You don’t wake up one day in a building run like a cult. You wake up one day realizing that for years, you’ve been avoiding certain topics, staying quiet at meetings, pretending not to notice things that bother you. You wake up realizing that your home has become a place where you don’t feel free to disagree.

Why This Matters

I’m not saying every condo board is a cult. Most are filled with well-meaning volunteers trying to do a difficult job with limited training and even less thanks. But the structure of condo living creates vulnerabilities that boards and owners alike need to recognize.

When meetings become performative rather than substantive. When questioning feels like betrayal. When rules matter more than fairness. When social consequences follow dissent. When outsiders are the enemy. These are warning signs. Not of cults, necessarily, but of systems tilting toward control rather than community.

What Helps

Healthy condos fight these dynamics actively. Transparency in financial matters. Meaningful opportunities for owner input. Boards that welcome questions rather than resenting them. A culture where disagreement is treated as engagement, not disloyalty. Regular rotation of board members. Outside perspectives—lawyers, mediators, professional managers—who can see what insiders have stopped seeing.

These don’t guarantee harmony. But they make it harder for cult dynamics to take root.

The Bottom Line

Home is supposed to be where you feel safe. Where you can be yourself, hold your own views, disagree without fear. When that changes—when home becomes a place where you watch your words and avoid certain neighbors and swallow your concerns—something has gone wrong.

I thought about this while writing Condozilla. Clara lives in a building where the board has drifted into something resembling control. Not evil, necessarily. Not malicious. Just a group of people who’ve stopped questioning themselves, stopped listening, stopped seeing owners as anything other than obstacles. Watching her navigate that dynamic—finding her voice, holding onto herself, refusing to be silenced—became the heart of her story.

If you’ve ever felt like your home stopped feeling like yours, Clara’s story is for you. Condozilla is available now.

What Happens When No One Listens

When our condo corporation decided to take legal action against our unit, we knew the law was on our side. That wasn’t arrogance—it was the conclusion we’d reached after reading the rules ourselves, after consulting the governing documents, after doing the kind of homework that self-reps learn to do when their home is on the line. We tried to communicate this to the board. We tried to explain it to the other owners. But none of them would hear us out.

By then, too many emotions were already strained. And when people feel they hold power, they dig their heels in. We warned everyone that this would not end well. We told them we would defend ourselves. We told them their case was weak. But reason had already left the building.

Talking to a Wall

I have to say, it was almost like trying to explain ourselves to cult members. There was simply no way to speak reason into the conversation. Every attempt to present facts was met with resistance. Every effort to clarify the rules was treated as aggression. The board had made up its mind, and the owners who bothered to pay attention had fallen in line behind them.

There were a couple of people who seemed to hear us. A few who nodded along, who asked thoughtful questions, who appeared to understand that maybe, just maybe, there was another side to this story. But their numbers were so small that it didn’t matter. They couldn’t shift the momentum. Eventually, those people either left the conversation entirely or walked away from their units altogether. The ones who stayed were the ones who had already decided.

The Aftermath No One Admits

Even when the condo lost their case—and they did lose—no one was willing to admit defeat. No one apologized. No one stood up and said, “We made a mistake.” Instead, each unit owner was slapped with a special assessment to cover the legal costs. The very people who had refused to listen, who had dug in their heels, who had treated us like the enemy—they all had to pay. And still, no one acknowledged what had happened.

There’s a particular kind of silence that follows a preventable loss. It’s heavy and hollow at the same time. You can feel it in hallways, in meetings, in the way people look away when you pass. No one says they were wrong. No one says they’re sorry. They just carry the cost and hope you’ll forget.

The Circle of Blame

What I realized from all of this is that condo accountability works in a kind of circle jerk of blame. No one is responsible because everyone can point to someone else.

The board holds all the cards. But most board members are volunteers with busy lives, and many are too overwhelmed or disengaged to truly understand what they’re signing off on. So they defer everything to property managers and lawyers. “The manager said this was necessary.” “The lawyer advised this course of action.” The board signs where they’re told to sign.

As an owner, you might try to hold the manager or lawyer accountable. But the law is clear: the board is responsible. Managers and lawyers are agents of the corporation. They advise; the board decides. The board signs off on every decision, even the ones they didn’t fully understand. So you go back to the board. And the board points to the manager and lawyer they relied on. Round and round.

But who gave the board this power? That would be the owners. The same owners who won’t come to meetings. Who won’t vote on issues. Who won’t read the documents or ask the hard questions until it’s too late. Condos are democracies, but democracies only work when people participate. When they don’t, power concentrates by default. And concentrated power, insulated from accountability, starts to behave in predictable ways.

The Democracy Problem

This is the part that haunts me. Not that our board was uniquely bad—they weren’t, not really. They were ordinary people who got caught in a system that made it easy to stop listening. The problem is structural. In a healthy democracy, decision-makers face consequences when they make bad choices. They get voted out. Their policies get reversed. Someone says, “We tried that, and it didn’t work.”

In condos, that feedback loop is broken. By the time a bad decision reveals itself as bad, the board members who made it may have already rotated off. The owners who funded it through special assessments have no mechanism for recourse beyond voting in the next election—if they even bother to show up. And the next board inherits the mess with none of the accountability.

What I Learned

I learned that being right isn’t enough. You can be right about the law, right about the facts, right about what’s coming. If no one is willing to listen, right doesn’t matter.

I learned that power protects itself. Not through conspiracy, usually, but through inertia. People who have decided they’re right don’t want to hear they might be wrong. They circle up. They shut down. They wait for you to go away.

And I learned that democracy is a participation sport. When owners check out, boards fill the vacuum. When boards defer to managers and lawyers, accountability dissolves. When no one wants to be responsible, everyone becomes responsible—by paying for mistakes they didn’t make and decisions they didn’t make.

The Bottom Line

Our condo lost their case. We paid our share. They paid everything else. And no one learned a thing.

I thought about this while writing Condozilla. Clara lives in a building where the same dynamics play out—the board that won’t listen, the owners who won’t engage, the lawyers who advise without consequence. Watching her navigate that world, holding onto her voice when everyone wants her to be quiet, became a way for me to process what we went through. She’s not always right. But she’s always paying attention. And in a system designed for people who aren’t, that might be the most dangerous thing of all.

If you’ve ever felt like the only one asking questions in a room full of people who’ve already decided, Clara’s story is for you. Condozilla is available now.

What Every Self-Rep Needs To Know

If you’ve spent any time in a courthouse hallway waiting for your number to be called, you’ve watched this scene play out. A frazzled litigant approaches the counter, clutching a stack of papers, desperate for guidance. The clerk listens, shifts uncomfortably, and delivers some version of: “I’m sorry, I can’t give you legal advice.” The litigant walks away defeated, no closer to understanding what they’re supposed to do next.

I’ve been that litigant. And I’ve also come to understand, over time, that the clerk’s response isn’t unkindness—it’s a boundary drawn by law, policy, and professional obligation. Knowing what sits on each side of that boundary can save you a lot of frustration.

What Clerks Can Do

Court office clerks are the administrative backbone of the justice system. Their role is to manage filings, process documents, collect fees, and keep the machinery running. Within that mandate, there’s a great deal they can help with.

Clerks can generally explain court procedures and deadlines as they appear on the face of the rules. They can tell you what forms are available for a particular type of filing. They can check your documents for completeness—ensuring all required fields are filled, correct fees are attached, and necessary copies are included. They can tell you how to calculate filing deadlines based on the rules of civil procedure. They can direct you to publicly available resources, like self-help centers, family law information desks, or court websites. They can confirm whether a document has been filed and provide access to the court file.

In Ontario, for example, the Ministry of the Attorney General provides guidance that court staff may assist with procedural questions, such as “What is the filing fee for a motion?” or “How many copies of this document do I need to file?” They can also explain the effect of checking certain boxes on standard forms, as long as they’re not telling you which box to check.

What Clerks Cannot Do

The line gets drawn at legal advice. Clerks cannot tell you what to do.

They cannot advise you on whether you should bring a motion or what arguments to make in it. They cannot tell you how to word your affidavit or what evidence to include. They cannot predict how a judge might rule on your matter or what strategy might improve your chances. They cannot interpret the law for you or explain how a statute might apply to your specific facts. They cannot recommend whether to accept a settlement offer or how to respond to opposing counsel’s demands.

This prohibition exists for good reasons. Clerks are not lawyers. They haven’t been trained in legal analysis, and they don’t carry professional liability insurance. More fundamentally, providing legal advice would compromise the court’s neutrality. If a clerk guided one litigant toward a particular strategy, and that advice affected the outcome, the entire proceeding could be challenged for lack of impartiality.

There’s also the appeal risk. If a judge appears to help a self-rep too much, the opposing party can appeal on grounds of bias or procedural unfairness. The same principle applies to clerks. Their role is to serve all litigants equally, not to advocate for any of them.

The Grey Area

Between administrative assistance and legal advice lies a grey zone that varies by jurisdiction and even by individual clerk. Some clerks will gently point out that a form appears incomplete or that a deadline seems to have been missed. Others will strictly limit themselves to accepting whatever you hand them without comment. Their willingness to venture into grey territory often depends on workload, temperament, and how many times they’ve been burned by litigants who later claimed they were given wrong information.

What feels like unhelpfulness is often self-preservation. Clerks work in a high-pressure environment where one misplaced comment can become the subject of a complaint, an appeal, or both. The ones who seem abrupt have usually learned the hard way that kindness can be mistaken for guidance, and guidance can become a liability.

What This Means for Self-Reps

Understanding these boundaries doesn’t make them less frustrating, but it does make them more navigable. When you approach the counter, know what to ask for. Ask about process, not strategy. Ask about deadlines, not arguments. Ask about form numbers, not what to write in the boxes.

And when you hear “I can’t give you legal advice,” recognize it for what it is: not a refusal to help, but a statement of legal limitation. The clerk isn’t saying they won’t help you. They’re saying they legally cannot cross a line that exists to protect the integrity of the system—and to protect you from receiving bad advice from someone not qualified to give it.

Where to Go for Help

If clerks can’t give legal advice, where do you turn? Self-help resources vary by jurisdiction. Many courts have duty counsel available for family law matters. Some have advice lawyers stationed in the courthouse. Legal clinics provide assistance for low-income litigants. Law libraries, where they still exist, offer access to texts and reference materials. And increasingly, courts publish detailed guides for self-reps on their websites—everything from step-by-step filing instructions to templates for common motions.

None of this replaces a lawyer. But for those of us who can’t afford one, or who’ve chosen to navigate this system on our own, knowing what help is actually available—and what isn’t—makes the difference between spinning in circles and moving forward.

I thought about this while writing Condozilla. Clara spends countless hours in courthouse hallways, watching these exchanges, learning which questions get answers and which ones get shut down. She figures out that the system’s boundaries aren’t arbitrary, even when they feel like it. And she learns to ask the right questions—not just of clerks, but of herself.

If you’ve ever stood at a counter wondering why no one will just tell you what to do, Clara’s story is for you. Condozilla is available now.

Being a self-represented litigant is, I have to say, one of the most stressful and loneliest experiences I think anyone can go through. It’s not just the stigma, though that’s real enough—the bias, the assumptions, the way people’s faces shift when you explain why you’re in court without a lawyer. It’s that the experience itself is fundamentally isolating in ways that are hard to convey to anyone who hasn’t lived it.

If your lawsuit involves a condo, the loneliness has a particular flavor. You will likely be hated by the other owners. Not in a dramatic, confrontational way necessarily, but in the quiet, everyday way of people who see you in the hallway and look away. They won’t want to understand your position. They’re busy with their own lives, their own problems, and yours is not something they have room for. Technically, if the condo loses, it affects them financially. But human psychology doesn’t work on technicalities. Most of them are secretly hoping you lose so they don’t have to pay. They won’t say it, but you’ll feel it. You’ll feel it every time you pass someone in the elevator who used to say hello.

Friends and family are their own kind of difficult. Even the supportive ones don’t know how to help you. If you’re lucky, they might be willing to listen while you talk through your problems. But the reality is that litigation is really boring stuff to anyone not living inside it. The deadlines, the procedural steps, the arcane disputes over document production—it’s the kind of detail that glazes eyes within minutes. Your loved ones want to be there for you, but they don’t know what to do with you. They can’t strategize with you. They can’t review your factum. They can’t sit beside you in court. They can make you tea and tell you it’ll be okay, and that matters more than they know, but it doesn’t change the fundamental aloneness of the work.

Then there are the people inside the system itself. Along the way, you will encounter moody office clerks who treat your confusion as inconvenience. You will face sharp conduct from lawyers who know exactly how to make you feel small. You will experience disrespect simply for being lost, for not knowing rules that were never designed for you to understand. Some of this is intentional; most of it isn’t. It’s just what happens when you move through a world built for insiders as someone on the outside. Every interaction carries an extra layer of friction, an extra reminder that you don’t quite belong here.

What makes it loneliest, I think, is that no one else can carry it with you. A lawyer carries the weight of a case for their client. They absorb the stress, manage the strategy, handle the sharp edges of opposing counsel. When you’re a self-rep, all of that is yours. Every motion, every deadline, every ambiguous email from the other side—it all lands on you. There’s no one to pass it to. No one to say, “Here, you deal with this.” The case lives in your head constantly, not because you lack discipline, but because there’s no one else for it to live in.

No one understands the self-rep experience until they’ve experienced it themselves. And they don’t understand how difficult it really is because it’s not widely talked about.

And yet, there are moments when the loneliness shifts into something else. Something quieter, but not entirely bad. You learn to rely on yourself in ways you never expected. You develop a kind of stubborn self-trust. You stop waiting for someone to validate your position because you realize no one is coming to do that. You become your own strategist, your own researcher, your own emotional support system. It’s not the same as having a team behind you. But it’s something.

I thought about this while writing Condozilla. Clara walks through her building feeling eyes on her, knowing what people are thinking, knowing they’re hoping she’ll just go away. She talks to friends who want to help but can’t, friends who listen politely and then change the subject. She stands across from clerks who sigh at her questions and lawyers who speak to her like she’s dumb for not hiring a lawyer. But she keeps going. Not because it’s easy, but because the alternative is walking away from the only person fighting for her mother’s case—and that person is her.

If you’ve ever felt completely alone in a fight that only you seem to care about, Clara’s story is for you. Condozilla is available now.