Real, Strange News

Two questions:
In the name of all that's holy, how did the performance described in these posts lead to the conclusion that "Pearson is an effective litigator"? Effective litigation is the antithesis of what seems to have occurred.
You refer to him as a former administrative law judge. I had thought he was still serving (but not hearing cases until the trial is over, and that his re-appointment to a 10-year term was to be considered after the trial.

with any luck Pearson will realize the error of his ways and not show up

I am a trial attorney for the feds, and watched this trial for the humor. I did not find Pearson an effective litigator. I was surprised by his tactics and what I considered ill preparation of the witnesses. This was pretty low bar, IMHO.

Seems to me that the only question is whether the defendants are awarded costs.

Poor DC tax payer for another day!!!

This is madness.

Please let common sense rule the day tomorrow.

Please let us (both DC residents and non-residents) know how we can ensure this lunatic plaintiff is not reappointed. Can you imagine this guy sitting on the bench and presiding over a simialr case? Frightening.

So if Pearson won the case (which surely he can't) for the whole amount, how exactly would he get all those millions? Do the defendants have the resources to lay their hands on $54 million? Surely even their legal costs here must be hammering them?

You want the real story? Go down to the Court clerk's office and see how many real, non-frivolous lawsuits are sitting and gathering dust because there are no judges available for trials - cases literally sit for years while crap like this takes up two full days of in-court time. Judith Bartnoff ought to be ashamed of herself, acting as ringmaster of this circus. The case should have been thrown out on motions.

I'm a trial attorney in solo practice. All of you laugh about what he is doing, but from the other testimony from similarly-harmed customers, the business deserves to be sued. The Plaintiff here didn't do himself any favors with the claimed amount ... clearly the man has problems. But nevertheless, the man appears to have a valid claim for a few hundred dollars, and the business should pay him and the other customers. I hope that cocky insurance defense attorney loses, and has to pay for the pants, and court costs.

I'm a trial attorney in solo practice. All of you laugh about what he is doing, but from the other testimony from similarly-harmed customers, the business deserves to be sued. The Plaintiff here didn't do himself any favors with the claimed amount ... clearly the man has problems. But nevertheless, the man appears to have a valid claim for a few hundred dollars, and the business should pay him and the other customers. I hope that cocky insurance defense attorney loses, and has to pay for the pants, and court costs.

This is very scary stuff.
Pearson can bankrupt these poor people and drive them out of business.
The most dangerous miscarrages of justice happen when form outweighs substance.
Thats how you get crazy verdicts.
Nobody closes the loop and asks the question -- does this result make any sense?

1000% agree with "DC Lawyer". it seems tjat the judge, Judith Bartnoff is enjoying it and want to get more attention from media.

@ike: They offered him $12,000 to settle and he would not. He may have had a case, but it should have been handled in small claims if at all.

Mike,

You are forgetting one thing...the defendants offered the judge $12,000 for the pants. What more can one ask out of them to settle the case?

Americans for Tort Reform are trying to make political points out of this, but what they forgot was this was NOT a tort claim. Period. This a consumer claim, not a tort claim. This is not a negligence claim. Tort-reformers would love nothing more than to steal your rights and end consumer protection statutes and close the courthouse to the average person.

Ask the (not) Honorable Robert Bork how he feels about tort reform. While he insists the rest of us little guys cannot recover for damages, the former judge files a million dollar punitive damage lawsuit this year for having an ouchie-boo boo at the Yale Club. Where's his tort reform? How about Tom Delay's or Trent Lott? These famous tort reformers who want to take away your rights will insist the same courthouse doors remain open for them to file their tort and consumer claims, but keep the doors closed for you and I.

This Pearson is a misguided judge, and has probably brought an unmeritorious claim, but the judge will decide that on the facts of the case, not on our blogs. That is how our world-class legal system works, by judging cases on facts, not on public opinion, religious directives or corporate directives.

And one more thing...from what I see posted, a number of witnesses called by the plantiff don't show alot of credibility to me. One faked an Asian accent, which people can take as racist, and thus can hurt the person's credibility in this context. Another played Nazi card and Holocaust comparison on the cleaners. There is an old saying: first person to play Nazi card lose the argument

I don't know. I kind of want him to win so I can sue Blue Cross/Blue Shield-IL for their own false written advertising guaranteeing me coverage for a certain service, and then subsequently denying me coverage, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in debt and far more emotional trauma than the loss of pants.

The DC Courts are in shamble,drugs and guns abound on the street and this gentleman is a judge their,he should know better! This just goes to show what a court and government will allow time wasted on.
I hope the police and the mayor watch this guy,he maybe the next disgruntled worker in DC Government!!
I hope all this time on this lawsuit, he has prepared was on his leave time and not taxpayers nickel. I bet if you check the record he has not taken one day of leave time!!!!!!!!
I hope he has to pay the drycleaners lawyer bills and court cost .!!!!!! I hope any official that he reports to in DC Government takes a hard look at this guy, wouldn't you be proud to say he worked for you!!!. What a waste of taxpayer's money!!!!! He needs to have psychological check-up, before he returns to the bench, or the bar association needs to look at what they allow to practice law!!!!!!!!!!!. This is the most unbelievable and frivolous thing I have every heard

The DC Courts are in shamble,drugs and guns abound on the street and this gentleman is a judge their,he should know better! This just goes to show what a court and government will allow time wasted on.
I hope the police and the mayor watch this guy,he maybe the next disgruntled worker in DC Government!!
I hope all this time on this lawsuit, he has prepared was on his leave time and not taxpayers nickel. I bet if you check the record he has not taken one day of leave time!!!!!!!!
I hope he has to pay the drycleaners lawyer bills and court cost .!!!!!! I hope any official that he reports to in DC Government takes a hard look at this guy, wouldn't you be proud to say he worked for you!!!. What a waste of taxpayer's money!!!!! He needs to have psychological check-up, before he returns to the bench, or the bar association needs to look at what they allow to practice law!!!!!!!!!!!. This is the most unbelievable and frivolous thing I have every heard

The DC Courts are in shamble,drugs and guns abound on the street and this gentleman is a judge their,he should know better! This just goes to show what a court and government will allow time wasted on.
I hope the police and the mayor watch this guy,he maybe the next disgruntled worker in DC Government!!
I hope all this time on this lawsuit, he has prepared was on his leave time and not taxpayers nickel. I bet if you check the record he has not taken one day of leave time!!!!!!!!
I hope he has to pay the drycleaners lawyer bills and court cost .!!!!!! I hope any official that he reports to in DC Government takes a hard look at this guy, wouldn't you be proud to say he worked for you!!!. What a waste of taxpayer's money!!!!! He needs to have psychological check-up, before he returns to the bench, or the bar association needs to look at what they allow to practice law!!!!!!!!!!!. This is the most unbelievable and frivolous thing I have every heard

Pearson sound like a typical shytster,
crooked judge and lawyer.

OK. I didn't know about the $12,000 rejected offer to settle. (I'm out here in California, and check the Washington Post in the afternoon to see what horrible things the three branches of federal government have done that day.) So the Plaintiff is a nut. But here, under our Consumers Legal Remedies Act, if a plaintiff wins a $1, the defendant MUST pay for 100% of plaintiff's court costs, experts, depos, and attorney's fees. (The state leaves out the word "reasonable.") So it evens the playing field quite nicely. As to the comment about this case using up precious judicial resources, I agree.

I want a button! Sure wish I could crash the trial tomorrow.

"All of you laugh about what he is doing, but from the other testimony from similarly-harmed customers, the business deserves to be sued."

Just to be clear, are you saying that their loss rate is excessively high compared to the general industry? If so, are you saying this is due to some specific negligence or deliberate action?

Or are you saying that their compensation for lost items is excessively low compared to the general industry?

Keep in mind that Better Business Bureau complaints against this specific firm appear to be signficantly below that of other dry cleaners in the area...

I hope this guy gets reappointed, and if I ever have to sue anybody, that my case draws him as a judge. Cha-ching!

I have never heard of such a case in my entire life. This guy need to get a life and focus on more important issues than a lost pair of pants.

He probably wants to be famous & get a lucrative judge show like JUDGE JUDY.

This guy is a nut case.

The fact that this case even went to trial is proof that the U.S. Judicial system is a joke. Both Pearson and the Judge hearing this case should be forced into retirement. The only thing these two individuals have done is make other countries lose respect for Americans.

It's a shame that such a frivolous lawsuit is even being heard. Judge Bartnoff should be ashamed of herself.
As for Roy Pearson's, I feel as if he's a very troubled man and may not be sane enough to continue practicing as an Administrative Court Judge.
I'm hoping that the Chung's can file a lawsuit against Mr. Pearson, either for harassment, negative publicity to their business and/or racial bias. I'm sure Mr. Pearson has lost pants before at a cleaners owned by other then an Asian couple.

Rick,
Unless the text has been changed, Emil didn't write that Pearson is an "effective" litigator, but a "fastidious" one. I checked my dictionary, and those are definitely not synonyms.

I have heard of "pain and suffering" but this beats them all. This thing should be ajucated Judy Judy style: the dry cleaners should pay the plaintiff's loss, and the plaintiff should pay for the defendants legal costs and loss of business, in addition to being temporarily disbarred (if that exists) for clogging the court system. Lastly he should be barred from using a dry cleaner for a year.

Blogger Mike apparently missed a lot of details a lot of details along the way. He's worried about a cocky defense lawyer with a ridiculous lawsuit like this, from a lunatic who actually adjudicates things in this town? Seems to me that the settlement offers, of up to some ridiculous amount like $12,000, over a stupid pair of pants was more than enough to make up for the fact that they actually found his beloved breeches. $54 million over a used pair of pants in the name of consumer protection? They are nuts like this that make it difficult for legitimate consumer complaints to be adequately resolved.

Blogger Mike apparently missed a lot of details a lot of details along the way. He's worried about a cocky defense lawyer with a ridiculous lawsuit like this, from a lunatic who actually adjudicates things in this town? Seems to me that the settlement offers, of up to some ridiculous amount like $12,000, over a stupid pair of pants was more than enough to make up for the fact that they actually found his beloved breeches. $54 million over a used pair of pants in the name of consumer protection? They are nuts like this that make it difficult for legitimate consumer complaints to be adequately resolved.

Blogger Mike apparently missed a lot of details a lot of details along the way. He's worried about a cocky defense lawyer with a ridiculous lawsuit like this, from a lunatic who actually adjudicates things in this town? Seems to me that the settlement offers, of up to some ridiculous amount like $12,000, over a stupid pair of pants was more than enough to make up for the fact that they actually found his beloved breeches. $54 million over a used pair of pants in the name of consumer protection? They are nuts like this that make it difficult for legitimate consumer complaints to be adequately resolved.

Mr. Steiner,

I don't know who at the WashPost you pi**ed off to get this assignment, but I suggest you apologize immediately. This should be done on your knees while licking that person's shoes. They're trying to bore you out of journalism. Hang in there, buckaroo. I'm sure there's an annual snail race in your future after this law suit is settled.

Why aren't the defendant counter-suing this idiot for all the cost, mental anguish and harrassment.

I think this guy knows exactly what he's doing. He will eventually win the cost of the pants and then submit a outrageous, inflated, ridiculously high bill for legal costs. If the defenant has to pay the legal costs personally then the business goes bankrupt. If the inusrance company pays then they drop the cleaners coverage or raise their rates so high they can't stay in business. Does this sound plausible?

Mike,

According to the defendants attorney they pants are not lost - they are in his office. The plaintiff however insists that they are not his pants.

Fedu, it seems you know it all: Pearson wins and the Cleaners go bankrupt. Keep assuming. What you fail to see is that Pearson lost what little credibility that he might have had before the suit and he also gets laughed out of town.

Who knows, he might get sue by the defendants as well as getting disbarred.

Here's an interesting tidbit. The pants are in the courtroom hanging over a chair which sits between the plaintiffs and defendants table.

I don't think Pearson will get the attorney's fees. A pro se litigant cannot get attorney's fees for his own time, even if he is an attorney. Pearson stated that he has spent 1400 hours preparing for this case. He has a motion before the court as to getting fees (Pearson does, defendants will file theirs at the end of trial). The Judge said she knew of no law that would give Pearson attorney's fees as a pro se litigant, and his response was "well, this is a developing area of the law. I have attached some cases." We'll see, but it doesn't look good for Pearson.

One other thing, the nazi bit was really a strange outburst from a very senile lady. She was 89 years old, was hard of hearing, and couldn't answer questions completely and straight forward. She would start to answer, and then trail off into stories of what she did during WWII. It really wasn't part of Pearson's litigation strategy. It just appeared to be the ramblings of a confused, older person. I don't think this will have any effect upon anything material.

Certainly the phrase ``satisfaction guaranteed`` has to be read under a reasonableness standard, both with regard to ``satisfaction`` and ``guaranteed``. But what about the consumer protection claim, which I took to be the support for his $54 MM claim under Pearson`s supposed ``literal`` interpretation? This is an ordinary case without it -- and we don`t even hear about it. You cannot just step away from that, you have to ride that horse till it wins or drops. Anyway, it sounds like Pearson has at least made out a prima facie case for his pants being lost, so I can`t see a defendant`s motion for judgment at the close of his case. Like I've said before, he appears to have a case -- just not $54 MM.

RL, let me asked again. Are you Roy Pearson or one of his sidekicks?

The presiding judge should have ended this fiasco today and deserves some type of a reprimand for allowing it to continue. The plaintiff should be remanded to an institution and forced to get help. Unfortunately neither of these things will happen and we can all watch our tax dollars go down the drain supporting this instead of doing something good. No wonder that there is less and less respect for our judicial system. Got to love DC.

Is Sharpton at the trial?

Surely, Mr. Pearson is not the first person to sue for an outlandish and ridiculous figure in D.C. Superior Court, and gone to trial on it without taking a settlement offer. From the looks of defense counsel's web site, it appears the defendants offered to Pearson to have the court enter money judgments against them in various amounts, but not actual cash. Isn't what makes this newsworthy the fact that Pearson is not only a lawyer (one presumes), but also an Administrative Law Judge, or is it? Has anyone bothered to look at what types of cases he presumably presides over? Would it be less entertaining and humorous if it did not involve pants, but a lost suit jacket? Is this a not-so-carefully scripted comedy unfolding? If so, who would own the rights?

My prediction is that (the clearly mentally ill) Pearson shoots up a school, courtroom, etc. then kills himself...and his family sues the Chungs for $154 million worth of emotional distress.

No, Sharpton was not at the trial today.

Make way for Pearson at St E's.

Let's all take our cleaning to the Chung's stores and let them know that not all Americans are nuts.

Korean Nazi?!? Seriously now....

What a farce... God Bless America

I live outside of DC, and don't wear dry-cleaned clothing that often, but this trial makes me want to take every thread of clothing I own to be cleaned at the Chungs' business, and if they lose something, laugh it off. Hopefully when this is all over, they will see an increase in business from their supporters, which I assume are many.

Can they sue Pearson for mental anguish?

Mike, Thanks for reminding me why I don't retain services of lawyers that shoot first, aim later.

Mike, Thanks for reminding me why I don't retain the services of lawyers that shoot first, aim later.

Yes, this is indeed what makes the American public so leery of our judicial system.

But to explain one thing, there has been much said here about the judge "letting this go on".

It seems clear to me, at least, that she is bending over backwards to give him latitude so he will not have issues to appeal. His history makes it clear that he will appeal any decision that is not entirely in his favor (he filed a 58 page appeal in his divorce). Even if the judge wastes a couple days of the court's time now, she will save months if not years of the court's time in potential litigation on appeal by limiting his appealable issues. She really has no choice...

As for Roy - this man is SERIOUSLY in need of psychiatric help. I think that his employer should place him on a medical leave and demand that he get help/medication before considering his reappointment.

'ok,kl,,

Maybe someone should review the cases that he has presided over.

Did someone notice if he had gold threaded in his pants.

The pants were part of a suit that cost less than $500. The Chungs have been trying to settle with him for awhile even offering the 12K. I am still trying to figure out why he thinks he is entitled to money to rent a car so he get to another dry cleaners. There are some dry cleaners that will pick up. Also, he already had a disagreement in the past with them and they did not want his business anymore and he begged them to let him continue using their shop because of the convience to him.

I think I'll write a book, "Forensic Rhetoric for Dummies: what NOT to say and how NOT to act in court."

I'd like to know what Circus Judge Pearson is playing on so i can take my son to see the show... Is he the clown or what?

Oh heavens!!! my tax dollars are working there...

I assume that the author notes that the judge was an effective litigator because she too is part of of the DC circus which lead to this insanity. THe case has zero merit--esp. at this point. The real issue is how can this judge continue to waste court time on the case; and how did this lunatic get appointed to the bench in the first place? Apparently he was "weeping" in court? DO they have so few competent attorneys in DC that a manic depressive wacko is the best that can be appointed to the bench? No wonder DC is such a laughing stock.

Does he need to pay tax if he win the case?

That plaintiff is what we call a BLACK RACIST gaming the system. Wasn't Affirmative Action to get you through Law school and a job enough?

I found out that the Chungs's attorney fees over 2 years are probably going to be over $100,000. Pearson doesn't have the money to pay this, after he was chastised in another case during his divorce proceedings. The Chungs offered pearson $12,000 to go away, and he wouldn't accept this offer. The pants were most likely returned, although late: since they match his inseam measurements, the 3 belt loop, and the tag on his receipt. Offering $12,000 for late pants that were probably yours (he couldn't meet the burden of proof) and then being in debt about a $100,000 for complete nonsense is an atrocity: by a judge no less. I feel terrible for this family.

kjtqerah njsg iukz mkpqsxu wxafe hijyeonrw feslpm [URL]http://www.zpemdiyf.oujvtnmhf.com[/URL] dwktzhj rpowqmclx