I'm thinking that he is the laughing stock of his peers ...and what about the lawyers who have to appear before this clown to have a case heard? Wonder what nics they already have designed for this bozo?
Posted on 06/12/2007 7:10:56 PM PDT by Baladas
WASHINGTON - A judge had to leave the courtroom with tears running down his face Tuesday after recalling the lost pair of trousers that led to his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner.
Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson had argued earlier in his opening statement that he is acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices. Defense attorneys called his claim "outlandish."
He originally sued Custom Cleaners for about $65 million under the District of Columbia consumer protection act and almost $2 million in common law claims. He is no longer seeking damages related to the pants, instead focusing his claims on two signs in the shop that have since been removed.
He alleges that Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung, owners of the mom-and-pop business, committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."
Pearson, representing himself, said in opening that he wanted to examine the culture that allowed "a group of defendants to engage in bad business practices for five years."
An attorney for the Chungs portrayed Pearson as a bitter man with financial troubles stemming from a recent divorce who is taking out his anger on a hardworking family.
"This case is very simple. It's about one sign and the plaintiff's outlandish interpretation," attorney Chris Manning said.
The Chungs were to present their case Wednesday. Manning asked D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff to award them reimbursement for their legal costs if they win.
Pearson called several witnesses Tuesday who testified that they stopped going to Custom Cleaners after problems with misplaced clothes.
Pearson also called himself as a witness, saying his problems began in May 2005 when he brought in several suits for alterations. A pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit was missing when he requested it two days later. He said Soo Chung tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants.
As Pearson explained that those weren't the pants for the suit, he choked up and left the courtroom crying after asking Bartnoff for a break.
Pearson originally asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit, which was more than $1,000. But because the Chungs insisted the pants had been found, they refused to pay.
Manning has said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson, but the judge was not satisfied and increased his demands — including asking for money to rent a car so he could drive to another business.
I'm thinking that he is the laughing stock of his peers ...and what about the lawyers who have to appear before this clown to have a case heard? Wonder what nics they already have designed for this bozo?
If he wins it’ll be the final proof that our judicial system is completely broken — as if we needed any more proof.
The worst part of this whole thing is that the pants were FOUND a week later!
I hope this Korean couple gets so much additional business from this episode that they open a chain of dry cleaners that George Jefferson would envy. MOVIN ON UP!
Let's FReep this judge for allowing this case to enter an American courtroom. She, along with the plaintiff judge, needs to be embarrassed out of the judicial system. Booed and hissed wherever they go.
Watch French television capture the “dapper judge Pearson” outside his home. It’s in the middle of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTB4AsHJQFg
The judge is “sans coulottes”.
Oh that poor man. Suddenly, my monitor is blurry.
I disagree. I bet there are a lot of judges who sympathize with this judge. You can’t have the little people getting one over on you. You have to put them in their place.
Part of having a system of legal tyranny consists in a system which throws nothing out of court, no matter how outlandish or churlish. Personally, I think the judge hearing this should throw the judge who brought the case into jail for contempt until he voluntarily withdraws the case.
This guy makes the lawyer that Kramer from Seinfeld uses look like a real lawyer.
Now, now. I think this guy deserves a permanent dry cleaning solution.
ELAINE: Would you please just get on with the stupid Bob Saccamano story?!
KRAMER: Well, I’m on the phone with Bob, and I realize right then and there that I need to return this pair of pants. So, I’m off to the store.
ELAINE: What happened to Bob Saccamano?
KRAMER: Well, nothing. His part of the story is done. (Elaine covers her face with her hands - showing her difficulty coping with Kramer) So I’m waiting for the
subway, It’s not coming, so I decided to hoof it through the tunnel.
ELAINE: Alright, well, now that’s something..
KRAMER: Well, I don’t know if I lost track of time - or what, but the next think I knew..
ELAINE: A train is bearing down on you?!
KRAMER: No, I slipped - and fell in the mud. Ruining the very pants I was about to return.
ELAINE: (Reflects on the story) I don’t understand.. you were wearing the pants you were returning?
KRAMER: Well, I guess I was..
ELAINE: What were you gonna wear on the way back?
KRAMER: Elaine, are you listening?! I didn’t even get there!
Pants are serious businesss.
Jerry: Tan pants. Why do I buy tan pants, Donna? I don’t feel comfortable in them.
Donna: Are those Cotton Dockers?
Jerry: Oh, I can’t begin to tell you how much I hate that commercial.
Donna: Really? I like that commercial.
Jerry: You like that commercial?
Donna: Yeah, it’s clever.
Jerry: Now wait a second, you mean the one where the guys are all standing around, supposedly being very casual and witty?
Donna: Yeah, that’s the one.
Jerry: What could you possibly like about that?
Donna: I don’t know, I like the guys.
Jerry: Yeah, they’re so funny and so comfortable with each other, and I could be comfortable too, if I had pants like that. I could sit on a porch and wrestle around, and maybe even be part of a real bull session.
Donna: Hey, I know guys like that. To me the dialogue rings true.
Jerry: (Shrugs. Pause) Even if the dialogue did ring true. Even if somehow somewhere men actually talk like that, what does that have to do with the pants? Doesn’t that bother you?
Donna: (Increasingly annoyed) That’s the idea. That’s what’s clever about it, that they’re not talking about the pants.
Jerry: But they’re talking about nothing.
Donna: That’s the point.
Jerry: I know the point.
Donna: No one is telling you to like it.
Jerry: I mean, all those quick shots of the pants, just pants, pants, pants, pants, pants, pants, pants. What is that supposed to be?
If this doesn’t result in the trial judge using the words “abuse of process” it will be a travestry.
Looks to me like this person has a pathological need to Get His Way.
That may show us why he became a judge in the first place.
A blue and maroon suit? Is this man Bozo the Clown?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.