Thursday, June 14, 2007

MADDENING!... Or A Suit With No Pair Of Pants

"Speak when you are angry--and you will make the best speech you'll ever regret." ~ Laurence J. Peter

Last night, I heard a story on WABC radio that I hadn't heard anywhere else, and I thought it was interesting enough to create a blog entry about, but now I can't remember what it was, and I can't find it anywhere on the Internet. It's maddening.

It sucks to get old and start losing ones short term memory.

I have been hearing a lot about one story, though, but I can't think of any comment to make about it, because the story speaks for itself. It is also maddening. Any comment I could make would be superfluous so, I won't comment, but I welcome comments from readers. From ABC news:

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."

The case gained national attention soon after the lawsuit was filed. The pants are expected to be introduced into evidence, although the judge says the pants are not his, and the correct pants are still missing.

The sartorial loss caused Pearson to suffer what he calls severe "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."

You can read more here, if you aren't already nauseous.

Wait. I do want to make one comment. It entails a seeming contradiction in the Judge's story. Has the attorney for the defendant taken note of this?

According to ABC's initial reporting of the story: The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.

"Satisfaction Guaranteed."

Yet, the latest ABC installment reports:

Pearson has a long history with the Chungs. In 2002, after a disagreement over another pair of Pearson's pant which Custom Cleaners allegedly lost - and compensated him for with $150 - Pearson was banned from the store, defense attorney Christopher Manning claimed in court.

Manning said that Pearson pleaded with the Chungs to let him back into the store, because he didn't have a car, he said, and they were the only dry cleaners in the neighborhood.

So which is the real reason? Did Pearson patronize the store because they advertised satisfaction guaranteed, or because they were the only store he could walk to?

By the way, I've seen similar behavior from dry cleaning patrons before. A few years ago I witnessed a shameful tirade from a wealthy woman directed at a black dry cleaning store owner. She was angry that he failed to remove a spot from her dress. For those who don't already know this, there are some stains that dry cleaning can't remove.

She said, "Why don't you people stay in the ghetto where you belong?"

Could this lawsuit be racially motivated? Whether it is or isn't, I will be surprised if Manning doesn't somehow connect a racial motivation to Pearson's suit. Let's keep an eye on this.


Francis Lynn said...

So the plaintiff is a judge. Why do I not find that surprising. I bet there are more judges in nut houses than you'd think. What's scary is that one whacko judge like this can, & has, made rulings that affect millions of people.

But I am surprised that the court allowed this to go forward with the $54 million tag attached to it. Instead the court gave him some slack. He can buy a lot of pantsuits with this lawsuit.

BB-Idaho said...

If ever there was a case without merit, it is this one. When he loses, he should be made to wear a dress and ankle locator....

Marshall Art said...

I know it takes all kinds, the question is: why must it?

Abouna said...

Gosh, the poor guy broke down and cried on the stand while questioning himself. Didn't any one think about getting this man a grief councilor?

The lose of a pair of pants can have a sever mental impact on anyone that could last a life-time. I lost some marbles years ago when I was a kid and I still ain't over it. LOL

Trader Rick said...

This sick freak should be in a mental institution, not on the bench. And the idiots that allowed this case to go forward should join him.

Henry said...

Sounds like he should be wearing a diaper.

Trader Rick said...

I heard he's not going to be appointed for another ten year term at 100,000 bucks plus a year...

Mark said...

I got this from FOX news:

To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found almost right away, and have been hanging in Manning's office for more than a year. Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red pinstripes.

But Manning said: "They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants matches his receipt."

Also, from Wikipedia, judging from his associations with various socialist programs in DC, I'll bet he's a Democrat. I can't find any info to support that assumption, but most Republicans don't get involved with socialist programs.

mudkitty said...

Mark, all this and you don't know that he's a republican? Give me a break dude!

mudkitty said...

How 'bout Robert Bork? The anti-litigation guy suing for a slip and fall.

Republicans only pay lip service to their principles.

How 'bout them Scooter Libby letters of support, for a convicted felon? Which he is.

Mark said...

Is he a republican, Mudkitty? If you know that, link me to the site that says it. If you can't, don't make wild assertions. I don't know, and I said so.

Henry said...

Don't waste your time, Mark. ShitKitty's limited understanding of how our government and justice systems work keeps her from knowing that Judgeships are non-partisan. She'll just retort with some fatuous demand that you "Google it yourself" before shrieking about her delusions of carrying the USC around in her purse.

Lone Ranger said...

Fox News is all over this story. Pearson is a Democrat. It would be difficult to imagine a black administrative law judge for the District of Columbia being a Republican. DC is a Democratic stronghold.

This is an obvious case of abuse of power. Lawyers are like gunfighters. They have a skill that gives them more power than the average person and they can choose to use it for good or for evil. We're seeing in the Nifong case how a single person can ruin the lives of others.

But, like Nifong, this gunfighter is not going to get away with this. He has not been reappointed to his position and is no longer hearing cases. And his bio has been removed from the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings' homepage.