Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Better to Keep Your Pants On!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Better to Keep Your Pants On!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_ ... llar_pants

    According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration to Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, a place he patronized regularly despite previous disagreements with the Chungs. A pair of pants from one suit was not ready when he requested it two days later, and was deemed to be missing.
    But the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers, Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied that by three defendants.

    Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs that Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."

    Based on Pearson's dissatisfaction and the delay in getting back the pants, he claims the signs amount to fraud.

  • #2
    Jackass. The USAnian litigious society is just one of many reasons why the American empire is reaching its death throes. Learn Chinese. They shouldn't be cursed by lawyers for a couple of hundred years.

    Comment


    • #3
      This jackass is pressing on with his suit:

      http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sectio ... id=5389441

      Comment


      • #4
        The irony of your title is astonishing :-)

        Comment


        • #5
          Better to Keep Your Pants On!
          That's much better advice to all young people than anyone ever gives it credit for!! There's one possible positive outcome to not heeding that advice, but dozens of negative outcomes. :twisted:

          Comment


          • #6
            This man should be removed from the bench. He's making a mockery of the legal process.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Law dude
              He's making a mockery of the legal process.
              Too late. The OJ trial already set that in stone.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Law dude
                This man should be removed from the bench. He's making a mockery of the legal process.
                Shouldn't he be disbarred? Shouldn't he also be ordered to pay defendants' legal fees?
                "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                by Thomas Henry Huxley

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pego
                  Shouldn't he be disbarred? Shouldn't he also be ordered to pay defendants' legal fees?
                  Disbarred, I don't think so. Censured, probably. Ordered to pay defendants' legal costs, also probably.

                  I can understand why you think disbarment would be in order, but I think courts will hesitate to do something that could be seen as having a chilling effect on aggressive lawyering. (Bear in mind that the ethical rules governing lawyers' conduct require the "zealous" representation of one's client.)

                  I think a good slap on the wrist would send the right message to him and others. If he ever did anything like that again, suspension or disbarment might be more in order. But again, I'd pull his robes right now. The man clearly lacks what they call "judicial temperment."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Law dude
                    (Bear in mind that the ethical rules governing lawyers' conduct require the "zealous" representation of one's client.)
                    Even when he represents himself? Doesn't that stretch the spirit of this ethical rule just a tiny bit ?
                    "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                    by Thomas Henry Huxley

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Loses case:


                      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ernational

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MJD
                        Loses casel
                        Yay! Justice wins one!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The judge will "rule later" if Pearson has to pay dry cleaners' legal expenses. If that happens, justice would be truly served.
                          "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                          by Thomas Henry Huxley

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            My eldest daugther is an attorney and even she is critical of the US legal system.. joking ( I think) that there are only a dozen competent attorneys in the country and she is skeptical about the other eleven..

                            I have sat on juries for days on matters that it seemed to me could have been decided in minutes on the basis of stipulated facts. And, I have won and lost litigation bounced from court to court, each bounce requiring repetiton of the same paper work, discovery, etc, etc., etc.. I marvel at the ability of competing/cooperating attorneys to milk a case; writing indistinguishable letters to each other and the courts as they exhaust the disputed estate..

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/19/news/pa ... topstories

                              Couple have now sold their second of three shops as an alleged ramification of the (bad) press from the lawsuit.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X