That is just the opposite of what I tried to say. I am not a native speaker, so I might have been misunderstood ...??

Some things just go beyond figures ...

   I am not a native speaker, so I might have been misunderstood ...??

No, you weren't. In the U.S. the primary way to get redress in these kinds of situations is a lawsuit with a concrete financial reward. And to some people, the seeking of a financial reward implies only the desire for the financial reward.

So by that logic: by virtue of seeking redress you're only out for some cold hard cash. And what easier reason is there to decide to not believe a person's claims?

Yes, it seems to be a little two-faced. You are stupid, if you don't take hard cash, but when you do, you are called crooked.

albertop, and I, are confused by your post, because you are defending her decision to refuse the 1 million with "righteousness" but must have missed the part of the article where it states she counter offered to settle for 2.7 million.

.. or, 2.7m = righteousness

Ok, that was a detail, I simply misunderstood. I thought, that she refused the settlement and wanted to bring it to court.

Still, without knowing the details, it is difficult to judge over a persons motives.