'Pants' Judge loses job as Judge

from JoeUser Forums

Yes, there just might be a bit of Justice occurring in the D.C. lost-pants lawsuit case.

News this a.m. (10/31/2007) that Roy Pearson, the Administrative Law Judge who sued a mom & pop dry-cleaners in D.C. claiming they lost a pair of his pants (and demanding that they pay him $54 million for failing to live up to their satisfaction guaranteed pledge) has lost his job and won't have his appointment to the Judgeship extended.

I still wish there was loser pays in this case, and would still like to see the Chungs (the family that runs the dry-cleaner) clean the wallet of Mr. Pearson of every penny they can, but at least he won't be sucking up D.C. tax money for doing a job he has proven he never deserved to begin with.  (Any intelligent individual would have realized that getting themselves involved in the pants lawsuit and behaving like an idiot in doing so would pretty much disqualify themselves as someone that deserves to be a Judge.)

2,249 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Got one thing to say - about time. Sheesh.

But what can you say about a city that re-elects a convicted criminal to the city council (I'm looking at you, Marion Barry)?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Justice is served - but the Chungs are still out of business.  Where is the justice in that?

So it goes.  I am happy he will not be adjudicating any more cases, but like you wish there was a way for him to pay for his petulance.

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I Judge this ex-judge to be to damn judgementle to use good judgement. Out out damned spot!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Justice is served - but the Chungs are still out of business. Where is the justice in that?

Last I heard the Chungs had shuttered one store, but still had two stores in business.  I don't think that has changed, but I know that they were very frustrated with the justice system in general (and rightfully so).

As far as I know, Pearson is still appealing his original loss in the case, but chances of his appeal doing anything other than being a complete and utter nuisance and financial drain on the Chungs is still nil.  Unfortunately, there's no loser pays in D.C. though, so unless the Chungs can find some reason to counter sue Pearson, they may never be able to get money out of him and instead would be relying upon the generousity of anyone that has contributed to their legal defense fund.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

And what about the judge who agreed to even hear this case in the first place? Shouldn't this have been thrown out of court on day one, instead of proceeding to the point where it cost the Chungs so much money to defend?

I think the original judge gave Pearson a ton of leeway because of the fact that he's a lawyer and/or Judge and there was concern that if the case was tossed out it would just come back via Appeal.  According to the news reports on the subject, from reporters that regularly cover the legal beat, the original judge gave Pearson the benefit of the doubt all along in the original case, but basically sat there looking like 'we'll humor this request only because we have to' the whole time.  I think that judge really would have loved to have booted the case to begin with, but if there was even a tiny chance that the appeals court above would have over-turned (her I think, though it may have been a him) that judge, then it was best to give the man (Pearson) his day and have done with it.

Sadly, even after he lost fair and square, he wasn't done with it because he ignored the best advise of everyone around him to go back to appeal the original case.  Chances of that appeal going anywhere are basically nil, unless Pearson has some very incriminating pictures of more than half of the Appeals court panel, and that is not likely.  I'm guessing at this point Pearson is applying that Hollywood approach to things of any press is good press.  He keeps his name out there, and who knows, perhaps he is getting invites to appear on TV somewhere (though I would like to think that about the only place that would have him would be something like the Colbert Report where'd they'd take advantage of him and let him make an even bigger arse out himself).

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)little-whipOctober 31, 2007 12:47:23


Aren't there laws against malicious prosecution?

And what about the judge who agreed to even hear this case in the first place? Shouldn't this have been thrown out of court on day one, instead of proceeding to the point where it cost the Chungs so much money to defend?


I BELIEVE that only applies to criminal cases, not civil matters.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Phew, at least your legal system saw this for what it was. The 'judge' in question is a particularly low form of life, in my opinion. Thankfully this scumbag will never hear another civil matter again.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
It could've settled for some ungodly amount, like $12K IIRC, but the judge wouldn't take it. It really should've been the value of the pants, or any replacement pair he bought.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just can't help thinking that with a decent attorney, the Chungs can countersue, as they have suffered significant financial damages, stress, a besmirching of their name and loss of real property.


Here's where I hold respect to the Torah Justice system. It wouldn't even have been a question. This Judge came in to sue the cleaners for $54mil. I think this is exceedingly ridiculous amount to sue for a pair of pants. But with this system what he was suing for and lost would be his required payment to the cleaners. I still think this would reduce frivolous lawsuits and if there was a suit then the amounts would be more reasonable.

JMO
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Justice is served - but the Chungs are still out of business. Where is the justice in that


Nice! But yeah, they had to close their business and that's sad! They should counter sue for defamation or someting!