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.