The case of the $65 million dollar pants, part deux
Wednesday, 13 June 2007 | 210 readers so far
Breaking down in tears over a pair of pants is not a sign of good mental health. They’re pants! They can be replaced.
A Washington, D.C. law judge broke down in tears and had to take a break from his testimony because he became too emotional while questioning himself about his experience with a missing pair of pants. Administrative law judge Roy Pearson is representing himself in civil court and claimed that he is owed $54 million from a local dry cleaner who he says lost his pants, despite a sign in their store which ensures "Satisfaction Guaranteed."
Judge Roy Pearson is a criminal shyster. He should be prohibited from any position of authority anywhere and forced to pay the dry cleaners for all the hassle he has caused them. The guy is a piece of crap. Pants are worth neither tears or millions of dollars. The fact that someone can even be heard by a court with such ridiculous demands is an indicator that something is severely wrong with our justice system.
1 June 13th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Gringo_Malo says:
In Texas, the defendant’s remedy would be to countersue for attorney’s fees. I was once a juror in such a case. The defendant’s attorney swore himself in and testified as to what his bill would be. We awarded it to the defendant. Don’t know whether the sleazeball plaintiff ever paid it. Many people feel no obligation to pay judgments nowadays, OJ Simpson being a prime example.
2 June 13th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
The Truth Laid Bear says:
[...] on the southeast coast of Massachusetts, a major whaling center at that time, Bockstoce said. ItThe case of the $65 million dollar pants, part deuxthe will to exist2007-06-13 17:01:37Breaking down in tears over a pair of pants is not a sign of [...]
3 June 13th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Trevor says:
I don’t understand why these frivolous suits are ever allowed to be heard. It’s sickening.
4 June 13th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
datarat says:
You see, it was the 54 million dollar bribe in the pants pocket that he can’t get replaced…
5 June 13th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Trevor says:
You might be onto something there my data seeking friend.
6 June 14th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Gringo_Malo says:
The problem is that someone would need to decide what lawsuits are frivolous and prevent them from being heard. Who could be trusted to do that fairly and impartially? It’s the old question, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (That’s all the Latin I remember.) Allowing the jury to impose penalties on the plaintiff in a meritless case seems a good way to provide civil relief for those deserve it while discouraging those who don’t.
7 June 14th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Dan O. says:
Gringo-Malo, you’re right. It’s obvious here that Judges can’t be trusted to have common sense.
Maybe civil suits need to have their own version of a grand jury? Let “the people” decide if a suit goes forward.
Then again, those people are selected from the same jury pool as the trial, right? how about a 3 judge panel? Or a mixed panel; Judge, lawyer, layperson?
Something has got to work! This sh!t’s been way out of hand for way too long.