...and more on the $54 million pants

Wolfman · 14th August 2007, 06:45 PM

This guy has gotta' be one of the biggest idiots in the world. 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 · 14th August 2007, 06:50 PM

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

timhau · 15th August 2007, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

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 · 15th August 2007, 03:09 AM

He's a judge????

Katana · 15th August 2007, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Geckko

He's a judge????

Well, for now he is.

Quote:

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 · 17th August 2007, 08:23 AM

Here's a little justice in this case:

Quote:

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/rawfi..._case_nex.html

Beerina · 20th August 2007, 08:02 PM

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 · 21st August 2007, 01:11 AM

These people are too nice.

Quote:

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 · 21st August 2007, 01:28 AM

Quote:

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 · 21st August 2007, 04:42 AM

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

LibraryLady · 21st August 2007, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 21st August 2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

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...ings062507.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::::

Quote:

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 · 21st August 2007, 11:19 PM

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.

Originally Posted by LL

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 · 22nd August 2007, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

LibraryLady · 22nd August 2007, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

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 · 22nd August 2007, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

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 · 22nd August 2007, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by baron

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 · 23rd August 2007, 03:10 PM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfi...e_courtro.html

Quote:

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 · 23rd August 2007, 03:30 PM

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 · 24th August 2007, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

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 · 24th August 2007, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

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.

14th August 2007, 06:45 PM	#1
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,809	...and more on the $54 million pants This guy has gotta' be one of the biggest idiots in the world. 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.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

15th August 2007, 03:09 AM	#4
Geckko Muse Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 688	He's a judge????
Geckko Muse Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 688

15th August 2007, 03:42 AM	#5
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Originally Posted by Geckko He's a judge???? Well, for now he is. Quote: 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.
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

17th August 2007, 08:23 AM	#6
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,780	Here's a little justice in this case: Quote: 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/rawfi..._case_nex.html
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

20th August 2007, 08:02 PM	#7
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	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.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

14th August 2007, 06:50 PM	#2
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,019	Why hasn't this guy been ordered to see a psychiatrist?

15th August 2007, 01:51 AM	#3
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,662	Originally Posted by Wolfman 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.

21st August 2007, 01:11 AM	#8
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,752	These people are too nice. Quote: 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.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

21st August 2007, 01:28 AM	#9
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,752	Quote: 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.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

21st August 2007, 04:42 AM	#10
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	What was a judge doing wearing $10.50 pants in the first place? Has he no self-respect?
	__________________

21st August 2007, 05:13 AM	#11
LibraryLady ...but not JUST a LibraryLady Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Building a house in the common ground Posts: 13,075	Originally Posted by 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. 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.
	__________________ What would Hüsker Dü? I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. Mildred Loving

21st August 2007, 07:45 PM	#12
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Quote: 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...ings062507.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:::: Quote: 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." ??

21st August 2007, 11:19 PM	#13
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,752	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. Originally Posted by LL 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!
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

22nd August 2007, 04:37 AM	#14
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by 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. If I took a pair of cheap pants to a shop and they exchanged them for $12,000, I'd be satisfied.
	__________________

22nd August 2007, 05:46 AM	#15
LibraryLady ...but not JUST a LibraryLady Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Building a house in the common ground Posts: 13,075	Originally Posted by Puppycow 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.
	__________________ What would Hüsker Dü? I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. Mildred Loving

22nd August 2007, 09:28 AM	#16
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by LibraryLady 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?
	__________________

22nd August 2007, 04:57 PM	#17
GodMark2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 1,042	Originally Posted by baron 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.
	__________________ Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know.

23rd August 2007, 03:10 PM	#18
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 9,130	http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfi...e_courtro.html Quote: 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.
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling

23rd August 2007, 03:30 PM	#19
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	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.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

24th August 2007, 12:01 AM	#20
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,752	Originally Posted by LibraryLady 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.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

24th August 2007, 11:29 AM	#21
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,809	Originally Posted by Puppycow 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.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"