...and more on the $54 million pants

[Wolfman]

This guy has gotta' be one of the biggest idiots in the world (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070814.wpants0814/BNStory/International/home). Having lost a lawsuit that was ludicrous on the face of it, and subjecting himself to international ridicule and derision (not to mention being in danger of losing his own job over the bad impression he's created of himself), he is appealing the original ruling!!

Now get this. The court ordered him to pay the costs for the couple he sued, but they waived that requirement voluntarily, saying that others had donated enough money to cover the $85,000 in legal costs they've incurred. You'd think that act of generosity might change his mind, right?

Idjit.

[WildCat]

Why hasn't this guy been ordered to see a psychiatrist?

[timhau]

Now get this. The court ordered him to pay the costs for the couple he sued, but they waived that requirement voluntarily, saying that others had donated enough money to cover the $85,000 in legal costs they've incurred.

Holy Jeebus.

[Geckko]

He's a judge????

[Katana]

He's a judge????


Well, for now he is.

Judge Pearson could lose his job as an administrative judge for the District of Columbia, where he hears disputes involving the decisions of city government agencies.

The city has warned Judge Pearson it might not reappoint him when his job comes up for review next month, according to The Washington Post.


He is absolutely ridiculous, but I do agree with Wildcat about the need for psychiatric evaluation.

[Alt+F4]

Here's a little justice in this case:

By the middle of next week, Roy Pearson, the D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million and lost, will receive a letter that starts the process of putting him out of a job.

I'm sure he'll appeal.

Linky: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/08/first_pants_man_loses_case_nex.html

[Beerina]

Quite frankly, I get a cathartic rush out of this guy suing a dry cleaner who "lost his pants".

Curious how, after the lawsuit started, they managed to find them. Lazy, lying slobs.

[Puppycow]

These people are too nice.
Meanwhile, at a fundraiser for the Chungs last week, donors contributed more than $62,000 toward the legal fees the family incurred in their defense against the Pearson suit. Another $30,000-plus came in from Post readers and others who made contributions to a defense fund around the time of the trial in June. The total comes close to covering the Chung's bills for the first round of the case, but Pearson's push to appeal the ruling will mean further legal fees for the immigrant family.
I guess they should have asked for legal fees after all. In fact, not asking for them is encouraging this behavior. If there is no penalty for frivolous lawsuits, then there will be more and more of them in the future.

[Puppycow]

The panel had expected to complete work on the Pearson case last night, but discussions were complicated by a series of conflicting recommendations to the Commission on Selection and Tenure of ALJs by the chief ALJ, Tyrone Butler. In rapid succession this spring, Butler told the commission that "I do not oppose" Pearson's reappointment, that "I recommend reappointment," and that "I do not recommend" reappointment, according to sources who have seen the letters.

The first switcheroo came as a result of the commission notifying Butler that he had not complied with the law that requires the chief judge to submit a yes or no recommendation to the commission that decides whether judges' performance merits an extension of their time on the bench. ALJs sit on cases involving disputes between city agencies and between citizens and those agencies.

But after Butler came back with a pro-Pearson letter, Pearson sent a series of emails within the ALJ staff disparaging the chief judge, calling him "evil" and mean-spirited. That helped sway Butler to switch yet again, to a recommendation against reappointment.His boss gives him a recommendation, and for this he sends out e-mails calling his boss "evil." Just surreal. Yes, he clearly is not playing with a full deck.

[baron]

What was a judge doing wearing $10.50 pants in the first place? Has he no self-respect?

[LibraryLady]

Quite frankly, I get a cathartic rush out of this guy suing a dry cleaner who "lost his pants".

Curious how, after the lawsuit started, they managed to find them. Lazy, lying slobs.

No, they found the pants two weeks after they lost them, and offered a $12,000 settlement which he turned down. I do not believe they are lazy, lying slobs. They are small business people who are being tortured by this....bozo.

My parents, also small business people, went through a somewhat similar situation. My father had his first heart attack a few months later.

I donated to their defense fund.

[webfusion]

Curious how, after the lawsuit started, they managed to find them. Lazy, lying slobs.

Where did you see this bit?

My understanding (from the courtroom transcripts) is they 'lost' (misdirected to their other store location) the pants on or about May 5 2005, and on May 14th, they tried to give them back to him.


From the Trial Docket No. 05 CA 4302 B: Findings of Fact:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/pearsonfindings062507.pdf
COUNT ONE: Mr. Pearson claims that he took his pants to Custom Cleaners for alterations in May 2005, that the defendants lost his pants, and that they then attempted to substitute another pair of pants for his. The defendants deny the plaintiff’s allegations, and they insist that the pants they attempted to return to him—which he has refused to accept—are the pants that he brought in to be altered.

Beyond that point, Mr Pearson actually withdrew his original complaint regarding the pants themselves!!!

The plaintiff clearly had withdrawn his claim of an unfair trade practice under D.C. Code § 28-3904(s) (to “pass off goods or services as those of another”), which related specifically to his claims regarding the pants, under Count One. The Court further noted that in the body of the Trial Brief, the section on “Conversion/ Bailment Negligence” was blank, with the word “WITHDRAWN” in large letters that “Plaintiff is not suing for lost pants,” which raised a question about whether the incident regarding the pants remained in issue at all.

In plain English, he no longer was suing over the lost pants incident.


More::::

Based on the testimony presented, the evidence admitted, and the entire record, the Court makes the following findings:
Section 12 --- (On May 3, 2005) Soo Chung initially gave Mr. Pearson a claim ticket that reflected that the pants would be ready on Friday, May 6, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. He pointed out to her that he wanted the pants on Thursday, and she then crossed out “FRI” on the receipt, by hand, and wrote in “Thur. 4:00.”
When Mr. Pearson came to Custom Cleaners on May 5 for the pants, they were not ready, and Ms. Chung eventually told Mr. Pearson that they mistakenly had been taken to another store... (Later, Mr Pearson returned) to Custom Cleaners on the following Saturday afternoon, May 14, 2005.

When he arrived, Ms. Chung, without comment, gave him a pair of gray pants with cuffs that were on a hanger. He testified that those pants obviously did not match his suit jacket, which was still hanging in the store, but Ms. Chung nonetheless insisted that the pants were his.... (blah blah blah)...

(Ultimately...) Mr. Pearson then filed this suit against them on June 7, 2005.

In Evidence:
The number on the ticket attached to the gray pants (182) is the same as the number on the tag attached to the claim ticket. Ms. Chung had no doubt that the pants she altered and attempted to return to Mr. Pearson are the same pants he brought in for alteration on May 3, 2005.

I repeat, Beerina, what is your evidence that "after the lawsuit started, they managed to find them." ??

[Puppycow]

IIRC he was technically suing for false advertising: they had a sign that said "Satisfaction Guaranteed." But he wasn't satisfied, so apparantly the sign was false. :rolleyes:

I donated to their defense fund.So how do you feel about the fact that they didn't try to make him pay for legal fees? In retrospect that seems silly now. I also can't understand why they supposedly offered him $12,000 dollars. These people are pushovers. Push back!

[baron]

IIRC he was technically suing for false advertising: they had a sign that said "Satisfaction Guaranteed." But he wasn't satisfied, so apparantly the sign was false. :rolleyes:

If I took a pair of cheap pants to a shop and they exchanged them for $12,000, I'd be satisfied.

[LibraryLady]

So how do you feel about the fact that they didn't try to make him pay for legal fees? In retrospect that seems silly now. I also can't understand why they supposedly offered him $12,000 dollars. These people are pushovers. Push back!

When you don't have much money and are trying to keep a small business afloat, you don't want to deal with lawsuits and lawyers, you want to get on with it. Settling even stupid claims is one way of doing that. They saw it as a way to get him off their backs; they didn't realize they were dealing with an obsessive monster.

And I think that's why they're not suing back either. These poor people, immigrants, trying to support their family and run their business, just want to be left alone.

Pearson is appealing the decision. I'm betting he tries to get it to the Supreme Court. He is a bully who has decided to destroy these people no matter what the cost is to himself.

[baron]

Pearson is appealing the decision. I'm betting he tries to get it to the Supreme Court. He is a bully who has decided to destroy these people no matter what the cost is to himself.

He is a bully, and a nasty little ******, but what kind of justice system allows, and arguably facilitates, his vile endeavours?

[GodMark2]

He is a bully, and a nasty little ******, but what kind of justice system allows, and arguably facilitates, his vile endeavours?

Well, he's only filed an appeal. The defendant may not need to do anything more. The appellate court can simply decide there is no merit to the appeal, and refuse to hear it. If that happens, it's all over, he can't do anything else.

[CptColumbo]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/06/pants_extra_inside_the_courtro.html
Among Pearson's many demands for big money was his calculation that he deserved $15,000 to pay for renting a car every weekend so that he can drive his clothes to a dry cleaner other than Custom Cleaners, which is the only cleaners within walking distance of his home in the Fort Lincoln section of Washington. Judge Bartnoff could barely hold in her laughter as Pearson spelled out his potential car rental costs over the next decade.

Upon judicial review, some interesting things came out about his divorce as well.

BTW the $10.50 was the cost of the alterations he wanted done, the pant were reportedly from a $1000 suit.

[CFLarsen]

It isn't a question of how crazy this guy is.

It's a question of why this guy can even get as far as the courts with such an outrageous claim as he did.

[Puppycow]

When you don't have much money and are trying to keep a small business afloat, you don't want to deal with lawsuits and lawyers, you want to get on with it. Settling even stupid claims is one way of doing that. They saw it as a way to get him off their backs; they didn't realize they were dealing with an obsessive monster.

And I think that's why they're not suing back either. These poor people, immigrants, trying to support their family and run their business, just want to be left alone.

Pearson is appealing the decision. I'm betting he tries to get it to the Supreme Court. He is a bully who has decided to destroy these people no matter what the cost is to himself.

Well, I understand that they probably want to be simply left alone, but submitting to extortion is going to encourage the predator even more. This is how the mafia and yakuza work. They are able to extort money out of people that think it is easier to submit to extortion than to push back. In this case, the guy didn't know how to quit when he was ahead but a competant extortionist would have.

[Wolfman]

the guy didn't know how to quit when he was ahead but a competant extortionist would have.I have my doubts that this guy is a competent anything.