A-hole Judge sues cleaner for $65M over pants

[Kiwon]

Roy Pearson expected to learn his fate last night, after a judicial panel reviewing whether he should keep his job met for several hours. The three-judge panel did not reach a decision and is now expected to decide early next week.

This should have been the shortest meeting in history. The answer is "No!"

This is a perfect example of two things:
1. The entitlement mentality when it relates to government employment and benefits.
2. The nauseating corruption of D.C.

[woodbuck27]

Did he leave something. . . really important. . . in the pockets?

[Kiwon]

Update: (copied from a Korean website)

Laundry Involved in Missing Pants Case Closes Shop

September 20, 2007 – 9:42 am

The Chungs who ran the laundry involved in the US$54 million missing pants lawsuit have decided to close shop.

The reason for the closing, according to their lawyer, are mental stress resulting from the lawsuit and declining revenues.

Although former judge Pearson never won the case in court, he did win in the end by driving the Chungs out of business. Not a good day for the little guy.

[MJZiggy]

They should sue him for lost revenue. Buck up, Chungs. Hopefully there will be public outrage and people who own dry-cleanable clothes should all go to their shop.

[MJZiggy]

Now it's done.

http://wtop.com/?sid=1275886&nid=25

Pants Judge to Lose Job
October 23, 2007 - 8:26am
judge roy pearson
Roy Pearson has been under fire since he sued Custom Cleaners. (AP)
WASHINGTON - The administrative law judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against a D.C. dry cleaner is about to lose his job, The Washington Post reports.

A D.C. commission on Monday voted behind closed doors not to reappoint Pearson to the bench for another 10 years.

Sources tell the paper the decision isn't final until the panel sends Pearson a letter formally letting him know. That letter could go out early next week.

In making its decision the panel reviewed not only the lawsuit but also Pearson's work and temperament as a judge. He was appointed in 2005 to an initial two-year term.

The Chungs, who owned Custom Cleaners in Northeast, sold the business because of the revenue losses and emotional toll the family suffered as a result of the lawsuit.

Pearson, who originally sued for $67 million, lost his suit when a judge ruled that the Chungs did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store.

The Chungs, who found found Pearson's lost pair of pants, had offered to settle the case.

Not done yet...And there's THIS

http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1182539&nid=25

Cleaners Seek $83K From Judge
July 6, 2007 - 4:24pm
judge roy pearson
Judge Roy Pearson's suit renewed calls for litigation reform. (AP)
Neal Augenstein, WTOP Radio

WASHINGTON - Custom Cleaners wants the administrative law judge who lost his $54 million suit against the cleaners to pay their lawyers' fees -- $82,907.50.

Attorney Christopher C. S. Manning, who represents the Chung family, filed the Motion for Attorneys' Fees in D.C. Superior Court.

Manning says Roy L. Pearson's lawsuit was a perfect example of a bad faith, bizarre odyssey that should have been a very simple small claims court case. He says Pearson set out to destroy the lives of a hardworking immigrant family through outrageous litigation.

Manning writes that Pearson, an administrative law judge and attorney, "should have known better."

The court filing claims that Pearson, who originally sued for $67 million over a pair of pants, "consistently sought to harass and intimidate Defendants and unnecessarily drive up Defendants' litigation costs."

Court records show Pearson has not yet filed his motion to have the judge reconsider her ruling against him, and he's indicated he will appeal.

Last month Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Chungs did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store.

Pearson, whose lost pants were found, had previously rejected several settlement offers, including one for $12,000.

[mraynrand]

Now it's done.

I doubt it. What do you want to bet the judge will sue his employers for wrongful termination?

[Kiwon]

Now it's done.

I doubt it. What do you want to bet the judge will sue his employers for wrongful termination?

Ouch! You're probably right.

I guess I'm naive but I thought that the Judge would have already been responsible for the Chungs legal fees.

Something is wrong when a nut can bring an off-the-wall lawsuit against someone and they are still out $83,000.

[mraynrand]

Now it's done.

I doubt it. What do you want to bet the judge will sue his employers for wrongful termination?

Ouch! You're probably right.

I guess I'm naive but I thought that the Judge would have already been responsible for the Chungs legal fees.

Something is wrong when a nut can bring an off-the-wall lawsuit against someone and they are still out $83,000.

How do you think the ALCU wins all those suits - most people can't afford to fight a legal battle, so they put the crucifiction in a drawer or storage shed.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Now it's done.

I doubt it. What do you want to bet the judge will sue his employers for wrongful termination?

Ouch! You're probably right.

I guess I'm naive but I thought that the Judge would have already been responsible for the Chungs legal fees.

Something is wrong when a nut can bring an off-the-wall lawsuit against someone and they are still out $83,000.

How do you think the ALCU wins all those suits - most people can't afford to fight a legal battle, so they put the crucifiction in a drawer or storage shed.

ah, yes, wouldn't be a good day without rand getting in a dig at a "liberal" institution.

Your point, which is pretty much bs..as the aclu targets aren't for the most part small businesses, is the law of the land...if you are big and have money you can ride out a lawsuit. Pretty much standard tactics for any large corp battling a smaller company or individual.

[mraynrand]

Your point, which is pretty much bs..as the aclu targets aren't for the most part small businesses, is the law of the land...if you are big and have money you can ride out a lawsuit. Pretty much standard tactics for any large corp battling a smaller company or individual.

Go look at the stats. The ACLU has won a huge number of suits based on the inability of the defendant to afford the costs. Businesses and hospitals likewise make financial decisions to hand out awards that are less expensive than the legal fees. The Lawyers know it's a game that they can win, just like the ACLU. I never said the ACLU targets businesses - that was your misread - so the B.S. you claim is of your own making - especially since you agree with me that the tactic is 'the law of the land.'

[Kiwon]

Here's a nice follow-up on this story.

Leave it to recent immigrants to remind native-born Americans of what the country should be like.

Watch the short video.

http://iamlawsuitabuse.org/stories/story.asp?s=43254