Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

First, Pants Man Loses Case. Next, His Job.

By the middle of next week, Roy Pearson, the D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million and lost, will receive a letter that starts the process of putting him out of a job.

City sources tell me that a marathon meeting of the commission that reviews the performance of administrative law judges (ALJs) ended last night with unanimous agreement to meet again next Monday to revise and finalize the wording of a letter that will state the panel's doubts about granting Pearson the 10-year reappointment that he has been seeking throughout the last months of his battle against Custom Cleaners and its owners, the Chung family.

The panel had expected to complete work on the Pearson case last night, but discussions were complicated by a series of conflicting recommendations to the Commission on Selection and Tenure of ALJs by the chief ALJ, Tyrone Butler. In rapid succession this spring, Butler told the commission that "I do not oppose" Pearson's reappointment, that "I recommend reappointment," and that "I do not recommend" reappointment, according to sources who have seen the letters.

The first switcheroo came as a result of the commission notifying Butler that he had not complied with the law that requires the chief judge to submit a yes or no recommendation to the commission that decides whether judges' performance merits an extension of their time on the bench. ALJs sit on cases involving disputes between city agencies and between citizens and those agencies.

But after Butler came back with a pro-Pearson letter, Pearson sent a series of emails within the ALJ staff disparaging the chief judge, calling him "evil" and mean-spirited. That helped sway Butler to switch yet again, to a recommendation against reappointment.

Within the commission, the discussion about Pearson's future has focused on when and whether it is right to measure a judge's performance by his behavior outside the courtroom. The panel looked specifically at whether Pearson's extraordinary zeal in pursuing the case against the Chungs was so frivolous and embarrassing to the judicial system that it should be taken as evidence of his lack of judicial temperment. "A judge has a right to bring a lawsuit like any other citizen," said a source close to the commission, "but he doesn't have a First Amendment right to bring a frivolous lawsuit."

The commission is expected to address the Chung case specifically in its letter to Pearson, pointing out that his no-holds-barred pursuit of mega-millions in a case stemming from a $10.50 alteration on a pair of suit pants raises serious questions about his judicial temperment and raises public questions about judicial ethics and standards. Following receipt of the letter, Pearson would then have the right to a hearing before the commission. Only after that hearing would the commission formally move to end Pearson's tenure as a judge. Pearson has not been sitting as a judge since the end of April, when his first term on the bench expired. Rather, he is now technically considered an "attorney advisor" to the Office of Administrative Hearings. Asked what Pearson does in that position, a high-ranking city official said, "Zippo."

Separately, Pearson is preparing an appeal of Judge Judith Bartnoff's rejection of his case against the Chungs.

Meanwhile, at a fundraiser for the Chungs last week, donors contributed more than $62,000 toward the legal fees the family incurred in their defense against the Pearson suit. Another $30,000-plus came in from Post readers and others who made contributions to a defense fund around the time of the trial in June. The total comes close to covering the Chung's bills for the first round of the case, but Pearson's push to appeal the ruling will mean further legal fees for the immigrant family.

The commission's chairman, D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert Rigsby, declined to comment on the specifics of Pearson's case, saying only that "We met for several hours last night and discussed the vacancies and the reappointments of 11 ALJs. We worked well into the night and will do so again on Monday." He said the commission will finish its work on Pearson and the other ALJs up for new terms on Monday night.

As satisfying as it would be to see Pearson lose his post over his obsessive pursuit of the Chungs, the downside for the owners of the dry cleaners is that with Pearson out of a job, their chances of ever recovering the court fees that Pearson has already been assessed and the attorney's fees that he may yet be ordered to pay would be severely diminished.

As has happened at every stage of this sorry case, it is possible to win the legal battle while still being destroyed by the process.

By Marc Fisher |  August 2, 2007; 1:31 PM ET
Previous: Taxi Zones and Phony Doctorates in The City of a Million Mysteries | Next: Random Friday Question: What to Read at the Beach?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



...next stop, St. E's?

Humor aside, I think Mr. Pearson may be in dire need of some competent mental health treatment.

Posted by: dirrtysw | August 2, 2007 2:52 PM

I believe the appropriate term is "Pyrrhic victory".

Posted by: Arlington observer | August 2, 2007 3:01 PM

Job or no job, Pearson is not judgmentproof. He must own property, a house, car, etc., that can be seized for payment. Unless he spent everything, including his life's savings, on those darn pants.

Posted by: Gasmonkey | August 2, 2007 3:26 PM

Great...let him feel it the shorts for a little while putting those people through all of that for nothing!

Posted by: kbullock | August 2, 2007 3:28 PM

GO AFTER HIS ASSETS. COUNTER SUE HIS BUTT OFF!

Posted by: FloppyDisk | August 2, 2007 3:39 PM

Lack of judicial temperament? This goes way past that and into the pathological. This guy is unfit for the bench and it's in no one's best interest that he be reappointed. Look for him on a local steam grate in a year or two.

Posted by: BarryS | August 2, 2007 3:42 PM

The man should be locked up in a crazy-house.

Posted by: Pelagius | August 2, 2007 3:42 PM

Hey,

People are blasting this judge as if he does not have the right to bring a suit against a business that he feels wronged him. He is not crazy or anything like that, he is just extremely upset and he felt like he was not fairly dealt with. I went throught a very similar situation and I wanted to take legal action because they were not honest about what happened. However, cooler heads prevealed, but that does not mean that I was not mad as H@LL. He should not lose his job because he excerise his rights and used a legal loophole to bring light to the issue. I bet you they will NEVER do that AGAIN. Will they?

Posted by: EzO | August 2, 2007 3:52 PM

I question the entire ALJ selection process. How competent could someone have been deemed in the first place who was supposedly unemployed for 5 years prior? They should start posting job ads at DC DOES, where Pearson will probably be filing a claim next week.

Posted by: Outraged | August 2, 2007 3:59 PM

I'm cheering for a bureaucracy that for ONCE made a sound decision regarding the power crazy people should have over us. However, it seems likely to me that Pearson will spend his unemployment going after the city for wrongful termination, costing the taxpayers a bundle.

It can be hoped that he will get another job some day, and garnishment of his wages will see some balance restored. After all, while I don't want him serving as a judge, (too much power over helpless people) I don't wish to see him collect welfare til the end of his days.

EzO, as for defending his right to sue, by all means. People sue and are sued all the time, as is their right. A sane person would have taken any one of the increasingly generous settlements. He crossed into crazy territory when he tried to convince a jury that his lost pants and resulting pain and suffering were worth $65,000,000. If it's not crazy, then it's malicious harassment, and in either case, he has shown himself to be unfit to hold public office.

Posted by: WDC | August 2, 2007 4:01 PM

EzO- seriously?? i could see your point if he took it to small claims court, but unless those pants were magic, but 54 million dollars?? Theres a big difference between exercising your rights and exploitation.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 4:05 PM

I think Pearson has some serious mental issues. As bad as his pursuit of the pants case is, I fear that the total destruction of his career and marriage, on top of his mounting legal obligations against any remaining assets he might have, could drive him to the brink. Should he take his own life, I think a lot of people will have regrets. Someone should be watching him closely.

Posted by: RichardC | August 2, 2007 4:06 PM

Let me guess, EzO is black. Stand up for your people, no matter how wrong one is! That's it, right?

There is no justification over suing for $65M then $56M over a pair of pants for alteration, which were found a week later. Have you messed up at work before? Did your boss sue you for $100M because you didn't bring him/her his/her coffee at the right temperature. If you think it's justified, you must not have an education past the third grade.

Seriuosly, do me a favor and just jump off a building, take Pearson and that cop Washington with you.

Posted by: DT | August 2, 2007 4:14 PM

If this case was frivilous from the beginning, why did't the Judge(not Pearson) realize that and end the matter?

Posted by: Robin Ficker of Robin Realty | August 2, 2007 4:15 PM

RichardC writes:

"Should he [Pearson] take his own life, I think a lot of people will have regrets."

I will not have any regrets.

Posted by: Mister Methane | August 2, 2007 4:19 PM

Everyone - please stop flinging around the word "crazy". Doing completely ridiculous and irrational things does not guarantee that one is mentally ill. Frankly, it demeans those who truly are by associating the phrase "crazy" with cruel, stupid and/or obsessive actions. This type of thinking equates "crazy" with "mentally ill" which leads to people being denied basic rights due to something beyond their control. Depression is a mental illness - would you call a depressed person crazy?

No, I am not the PC police. Just someone with bipolar who would like to see less stigma against the mentally ill.

Thanks.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 4:19 PM

I don't think anyone is debating the right of someone getting mad and trying to get a satisfactory resolution.

But I think what makes this case absolutely ridiculous is the fact that Pearson actually had the nerve to take this case to court and waste the court's time on such a frivolous matter.

I know I have been mad about clothing getting lost or destroyed at the dry cleaners. I wanted to retaliate. But in the end you have to realize that it is just a piece of clothing. It can be replaced and quite honestly, I don't have the time nor would I want to waste that much energy on a piece of clothing.

There are plenty of other things in my life to worry about.

This case absolutely calls into question Pearson's ability to be a sound judge. He showed the world how if you are a person of a small mind, a little bit of power can really corrupt your judgement. He completely used his knowledge of the law and his title, to bully the dry clean owners. Judges probably have to take an oath not to abuse their power; just like police officers or public officials.

I'm glad that he's losing his job. He deserves it. I'm sure he'll get another job or the courts can cease his assets. What comes around goes around.

Here's another saying: Forgive and forget. Why live with all of that negative energy?

Posted by: Jigirl | August 2, 2007 4:20 PM

$56M + crying over suit pants that were found a week later + the inability to see how frivolous the suit is = crazy.

Robin Ficker of Robin Realty? How stupid are you? C'mon. Seriously now. You need to take a jump off a building too.

Posted by: DT | August 2, 2007 4:25 PM

THis judge is a control freak. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This egomaniac tried to bully these poor (literally - poor) people into submission. He deserves to be fired and thwon back into the masses with the rest of us "poor people." Better yet, send this control freak to Iraq and let him try and bully the American-haters over there.

Posted by: Va Beach | August 2, 2007 4:26 PM

Judges are supposed to be at the top of the legal food chain. If his view of rational thinking leads to $54Million for a pair of pants and the legal efforts spent to resolve this issue, then he is out of his league. Who appointed him the that position in the first place?
Ezo: the court system exists to serve the public. Encumbering the system to delve in this kind of trivia, is an abuse of the public's resources.

Posted by: Estr | August 2, 2007 4:27 PM

THis judge is a control freak. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This egomaniac tried to bully these poor (literally - poor) people into submission. He deserves to be fired and thrown back into the masses with the rest of us "poor people." Better yet, send this control freak to Iraq and let him try and bully the American-haters over there.

Posted by: Va Beach | August 2, 2007 4:27 PM

Sure, the judge had every right to bring a lawsuit...it's his right as a citizen.

But his peristence in making a 54 million case about a pair of $10.50 pants was utterly ridiculous and a waste of taxpayers money! Had he made his case and settled, I would have been more understanding. But instead of ending the madness after the case was thrown out, his ego drove him to appeal the ruling in an effort to punish the Chung's, therefore breaking their bank with legal fees, and breaking their spirits. It went from way over the top, to downright cruel.

His actions doesn't merit one who should sit on any bench.

Posted by: Evab | August 2, 2007 4:29 PM

Unfortunately, even if Mr. Pearson did get appointed, the Chungs would never see any money at all because he would keep dragging it out, with appeal after appeal. One thing I wondered: why didn't the Chungs' attorney file a pleading of his own, demanding that Mr. Pearson provide "the name and address of every person who authorized him to act on that person's behalf, including when such authorization was given, whether such authorization was oral or in writing" or some such thing, thereby forcing him to explain exactly who these people are that he claims to be representing.

Posted by: Julie | August 2, 2007 4:29 PM

Of course there's a God.

Posted by: potrzbe | August 2, 2007 4:31 PM

Of course there's a God.

Posted by: potrzbe | August 2, 2007 4:31 PM

Roy L Pearson Jr (202) 269-1191 3012 Pineview Ct NE,
Washington, DC 20018

It's amazing what a little Google can do. I'm over trying to belittle the posters, backing Pearson, that obviously lack any kind of logic or common sense.

There are too many idiots in the world, can't fight them all. Let them be stupid, I say.

Posted by: DT | August 2, 2007 4:41 PM

Sure, the judge had every right to bring a lawsuit...it's his right as a citizen.

But his peristence in making a 54 million case about a pair of $10.50 pants was utterly ridiculous and a waste of taxpayers money! Ok, the Chung's didn't own up to their end of the deal of same day service, and then supposedly lost his pants, but they did offer to settle in court for his inconvenience. But no, his ego wouldn't allow that, so the COURT had to tell him to go away, which was still not enough for him! He then decides to appeal the ruling in an effort to punish the Chung's, therefore breaking their bank with legal fees, and breaking their spirits. It went from way over the top, to downright cruel.

To me, it was an abuse of power as an officer of the court, and his actions don't merit one who has the judgement or reasoning to sit on any bench.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 4:42 PM

Send that fool to the nut house

Posted by: Alby | August 2, 2007 4:43 PM

As long as Judge Pearson overturns the Virginia driving fines before he leaves, I'm fine with it.

Posted by: 22046 | August 2, 2007 4:45 PM

"I know I have been mad about clothing getting lost or destroyed at the dry cleaners. I wanted to retaliate. But in the end you have to realize that it is just a piece of clothing. It can be replaced and quite honestly, I don't have the time nor would I want to waste that much energy on a piece of clothing. "

That is exactly what people like the Chungs count on. They did this not only to him, but to countless other people in the neighborhood. If the judge had not denied class action status, then would you say that Mr. Pearson belongs to a neighborhood of crazies??

The pants didn't cost $10.50, the alterations did. It was a part of a SET of a designer suit. The Chungs claimed to have found the pants a week later, only it didn't match the jacket of the expensive suit at all. I would be pretty ticked off too.

I've had to take my pants back to the cleaners twice to have them shortened and BOTH times, they have come back EXACTLY the same. I am all about resolving things amicably, and maybe not to the tune of $54 million, but he should get SOME redress. Sheesh, the judge could have at least awarded him a symbolic victory and given him the costs of a new suit.....now this will continue to be dragged out b/c the judge will need the cash award to pay his bills after being out of a job now.

Posted by: tlawrenceva | August 2, 2007 4:47 PM

How do you know this guy is unfit for the bench? Well, putting the suit itself aside, this passage from the above says everything:

"But after Butler came back with a pro-Pearson letter, Pearson sent a series of emails within the ALJ staff disparaging the chief judge, calling him "evil" and mean-spirited."

Um, the chief judge wrote a pro-Pearson letter, who then turned around and slammed the chief judge... to his own staff?

Yeah, that alone shows poor professional judgement.

Posted by: corbett | August 2, 2007 4:49 PM

I don't see how what Pearson has done, that he pursued zealously, that was wrong, differentiates him from any other public or private official who zealously pursued something that was wrong.

And often it simply takes some additional zealousness, zealotry, for it to be seen as "right". As long as it isn't done with malice or intent to cause emotional distress. In that case you have no right to do it, regardless of what it is, even if it is a so-called "constitutionally-protected right".

The issue here is whether Pearson is right, legally, yet simply and temporarily denied his rightful settlement by the SC judge, and as well, whether he is pursuing this case out of righteousness or out of malice, or, indeed, as a result of some twisted pathological issue.

I would say the answer would be in calling your superior "mean-spirited" *after* he has written a letter recommending your continued appointment. Then I would have to say that the mofo is crazy and definitely should not be reappointed.

The problem remains that his case will go forward on appeal and he may yet win at least some judgement against the Chungs. To find for the Chungs entirely was quite a reach. Anyone (certainly for $54M) could have come up with a pair of pants and stuck a matching cleaning tag on them. If the man says that those are not his pants...what are you going to do, say he's lying? Based on what?

And if there really was no problem with the "satisfaction guaranteed" sign, then why remove it? "For fear of being sued again as a result of having it", indeed!

Posted by: cc | August 2, 2007 4:56 PM

EzO,

The pants were found a week later and he refused to take them back. They offered to pay him $15,000 and he refused the settlement offer to pursue a lawsuit for $54,000,000 over a pair of pants. As you said in your case, "cooler heads prevailed" well, a judge is morally obligated to be one of those cooler heads. What if he was presiding over a case that you were involved in, and became "mad as H@LL" at you over some perceived slight or insult. What if you were in the right in the case but because he was "mad as H@LL" you lose the case and throws you in jail for contempt to boot? Would that be justice? Would you say, "I mad him mad, I guess I got what I deserved", or would you think "that's excessive, I didn't deserve this"? Would that be as excessive as say $54M for a pair of pants? If he can't control his anger over a pair of pants then he lacks the objectivity required of a judge! He's a jacka$$ plain and simple and I hope he is disbarred as well!

Posted by: BD | August 2, 2007 4:59 PM

tlawrenceva, he was provided a VERY ripe setlement offer in excess of $10,000.00 and he declined TWICE. He could have had several new suits and saved alot of people alot of stress ans wasted funds. Hence, he was not looking for a true remedy. He was looking for something that the court system could not provide and he is now reaping what he sowed.

Posted by: tman | August 2, 2007 4:59 PM

so I can see that the ALJ review had a very definite decision to make. What sort of message would they be sending by firing one of their own judges simply because he brought an unpopular lawsuit in the courts?

They would be countering the message that they send every day. That every citizen has the unfettered right to make use of the court system in the pursuit of his or her own rights, without fear of punishment or retribution, as long as the case being brought is legitimate. And if not, the Chungs themselves had the right to countersue, and we note that they have yet to do so (much less win). What they are doing here is, literally, the wrong thing to do. Especially if he *is* doing good work otherwise. And in fact he will have a good case to make in this exact manner, in front of the review board. Were it not for this case, he would have his job, and there is nothing in and of the case *itself* which says that he would not be a good ALJ, especially given his work history in the position.

But he's got to stop sniping at his superiors! That alone would make it seem that he would be a bad fit to continue in his position.

Posted by: cc | August 2, 2007 5:01 PM

As I recall, he dropped the portion of the suit (ha ha) that was for damages for the lost pants, and only pursued the consumer protection action for the big bucks. So, the judge was perfectly justified in finding that he take nothing on the suit.

Posted by: Scilicet | August 2, 2007 5:02 PM

"As satisfying as it would be to see Pearson lose his post over his obsessive pursuit of the Chungs,"

...see, now this is turning it into a personal attack. Even as a WaPo reporter, you don't have the right to say this. He is obsessively pursuing this *case*, not the Chungs, and in fact, you are turning this into a personal attack against Pearson. Especially you morons who post his address and phone number.

I do have to say though, there does come a time when you have to let it go, and if there was ever a time, this would be that time. Pearson should not let this case take over his life. I mean, it's a frigging pair of pants! If you're going to spend years of your personal time, of your life, writing a brief and preparing for a trial over a pair of pants, and then appealing it if you lose? You've got real issues. Having said that, hey, law schools spit out thousands of people like him every year, who do just this sort of thing, albeit over slightly more significant issues.

Posted by: cc | August 2, 2007 5:06 PM

Crazy or not crazy isn't really the point, nor is Pearson's right to bring a lawsuit and pursue it vigorously. I have my own opinions about those issues, but they're not important compared to the serious competence question that Pearson's position raises. To state that a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign means that a business must agree to ANY demand that a customer might make -- no matter how unreasonable -- is just legally wrong. So wrong in fact that a first year law student should know better. If Pearson was seriously advancing this position, then I call into question his competence as a lawyer, let alone a judge.

THAT'S why he shouldn't be reappointed. The rest I couldn't care less about.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 5:07 PM

It's time to remove Pearson from the bench and disbar this incompetent, disgrace to the legal profession. He should not be allowed to NIFONG another innocent party.

Posted by: ALEX H. | August 2, 2007 5:09 PM

I guess that the summary issue here is who is to say that he is the only nutcase sitting on the bench. Or in some other position of power.

Posted by: cc | August 2, 2007 5:09 PM

.
.
.
.

Roy Pearson is so stupid that he belongs on the Supreme Court right alongside Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. He'll feel right at home because those guys don't like Asians and other minorities either. And, they are also morons.

.
.
.
.

Posted by: Frank | August 2, 2007 5:09 PM

Lock pearson (that's right use a small p here)up and swallow the key. What goes around comes around. The so-called judge(pearson)will get what's coming to him real soon. I can't believe this thing is considered a judge. Joke of all jokes. I'm not surprised though, poor azz needs some money. Somebody send pearson (hot mess)back where he came from-the jungle of the stupids. This is a disgrace in USA. In another country he would have been shot 50 + just for saying what he said. Glory to God that he didn't win and, hopefully like right now, he'll be out of a job. Crazy is a nice word for this so-called human. Too bad I can't call pearson what I really would like to say here. Sorry, no good, son of a true, idiot he is, down right stupid so-called man. Yuke! Crazy doesn't fit him; it's better and got more sense than he will ever have. Stupid of the stupids-pearson.

Posted by: Hopeful | August 2, 2007 5:12 PM

Is this the same Robin Ficker who had an NBA rule named after him? This would be the guy who had tickets to the Bullets/Wizards games and sat behind the visitor's bench. He would shout obscenities to and harass the opposing team. When asked to stop, he refused. The Bullets/Wizards/NBA (?) had to post guards to keep him far enough from the opposing team's bench. Mr. Ficker just wouldn't understand reasonableness.

Posted by: Bullet | August 2, 2007 5:12 PM

"It's time to remove Pearson from the bench and disbar this incompetent, disgrace to the legal profession. He should not be allowed to NIFONG another innocent party."

...well, the case could have been thrown out of court on its face. It wasn't. Same as with the Duke case. There are some major differences between this case and that case. Nifong blatantly lied to the trial judge, he withheld critical evidence from the defense, he blatantly abused his authority, and in fact, he was reelected during the trial. And this is a CIVIL case. I don't see a comparison between Pearson and Nifong. I see a similarity in the penalties that the defendants were facing...but in the end, if after consulting with their lawyer, they thought they might really be liable for a $54M judgement, what could you tell them? How could you criticize Pearson, if their own lawyer thought that he had a good case?

Again, it is a very good question as to why she found for the Chungs. If the pants were off the table, because Pearson dropped the lost-property part of the suit, then why is this even a concern, whether the pants were found or not? It becomes an issue of customer service. If the Chungs did not give him good service, and they have a sign guaranteeing customer satisfaction, then they should pay *something*. Maybe not $54M but still something. To dismiss that part altogether makes no sense. Especially if they have a history of poor service.

Posted by: cc | August 2, 2007 5:17 PM

"He is obsessively pursuing this *case*, not the Chungs"

No way. His continued pursuit of this case is malicious, to say nothing of frivolous.

Attorneys have been sanctioned for a lot less than this. A bookshelf has twice the sense of decency and professional responsibilty.

Posted by: Yeah right | August 2, 2007 5:18 PM

Marc, Aren't you afraid Pearson will sue you?!?!

Posted by: LeagleEagle | August 2, 2007 5:20 PM

The Wiki entry on the case shows exactly how bad Pearson's judgement is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung

This excerpt says it all:
"The Chungs' lawyer portrayed Pearson as a bitter, financially insolvent man; under questioning, Pearson admitted that, at the start of the court case, he had only $1000-2000 in the bank due to divorce proceedings, and was collecting unemployment."

If you're broke, why would you turn down an offer for $12K (sorry I mistated that he was offered $15K in my earlier post) unless you were going after something else i.e. more money, or revenge.

Posted by: BD | August 2, 2007 5:25 PM

No one has really commented upon how competent Mr Pearson was as an administrative judge. Certainly, he knows how to prolong the ridiculous which shows at least some legal ability and knowledge. At that same time, it would be almost impossible to take any of his future decisions seriously when he cannot see the total lack of good judgement he's exercised in this case. I do recognize that Mr Pearson must truly hate the long suffering Chungs as he thought nothing of rejecting their generous offer to pay him 1500% the cost of his pants but sought to ruin the Chungs forever.

My thoughts are that Mr Pearson should be taxed for the Chungs' legal bills although I do recognize that they will most likely never be able to recover these costs. I applaud the fact that the public has seen fit to donate roughly $95,000 and think that the Chungs should be satsified that that has made them whole and should be grateful that basically, the entire world was on their side. Mr Pearson on the other hand should be grateful that he will be forever mentioned in the same breath as Sysiphus and Willey Coyote who rolled that massive tort boulder up the hill only to have it roll back over top of him on the way down.

Correct me if I'm wrong too but I believe that the Chungs really do not have to spend a great deal at appeal. After all, Mr Pearson is arguing the merits of his case which is not against the Chungs' expensive attorney but against a panel of judges. Now, if the appeals court just happened to overturn the judgement then the Chungs would have to spend their newfound savings but it seems unlikely at best that Mr Pearson will prevail in this case.

Finally, I applaud the Chungs for having the good sense not to punish Mr Pearson with a countersuit of their own and have decided that the public ridicule he's had to and will continue to endure and that the bitterness he's going to endure is enough of a punishment to last him forever......

Posted by: Lawrence | August 2, 2007 5:26 PM

There's a legal term for pushing a 54 million dollar lawsuit over a pair of pants. It's called a frivolous lawsuit. Anyone who does what this guy did has no business being a judge. His judgment is pathetic.

It's unbelievable that he was offered 15 thousand bucks for a pair of pants. That's a travesty in and of itself. But to turn that down and ask for $54 million? There is no defense what so ever for this guy. None.

Posted by: PW | August 2, 2007 5:26 PM

Mr. Fisher, can you please change the title of your post to "Man Loses Pants, Then Shirt" ?

Posted by: Downtown Cubefarm | August 2, 2007 5:27 PM

Aww come on guys, cut the dink a break. Surely he is a pillar of jurisprudence, one who will exercise discretion and due care in considering legal matters and render fair and reasonable judgments. I think it's disgraceful that he's losing his job over this. You know, I only wish that I had thought of suing that dirt poor Asian family that lost my sequined tuxedo jacket last fall. Too bad the ol' sod lost cuz I sure could have relied on the precedent he *should* have set to cash in and retire to sunny Omaha.

Posted by: Capt. Sarcasm | August 2, 2007 5:28 PM

CC, no offense intended, but you're way out of your depth here. Pearson rejected the Chungs' settlement offer, and there is no legal basis for the court to hold the Chungs responsible for mere puffery and sales talk.

Posted by: Yeah right | August 2, 2007 5:28 PM

"A judge has a right to bring a lawsuit like any other citizen," said a source close to the commission, "but he doesn't have a First Amendment right to bring a frivolous lawsuit."

Boy, I hope the source close to the judicial commission isn't a lawyer, and doesn't advise them in any fashion.

The First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with it. The right to trial by jury is a Seventh Amendment right.

The Constitution really isn't that hard to read, but it's stunning how many people who should know better-lawyers, journalists, pundits, etc.- misstate what it says.

If that source is a lawyer who works for the commission (or is on the commission), he or she should lose their job just like Judge Pearson should.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 5:31 PM

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely!" Shocked any judge in D.C. would grant Pearson the right to pursue this case through appeal. Shocked that chief ALD FIRST recommended Pearson for reappointment and rescinded that recommendation only when Pearson went after HIM. Crooked system, crooked government since 2001, no accountability or honor in government since Bush was installed.

Posted by: marilyn delson | August 2, 2007 5:33 PM

There was accountability and honor in government before Bush???!? Amazing.

Posted by: Capt. Sarcasm | August 2, 2007 5:36 PM

Ye all gather round.
Thee "Pants Tale" has an ending.
No job for nut job.

Posted by: Pants Haiku | August 2, 2007 5:44 PM

"Pearson rejected the Chungs' settlement offer, and there is no legal basis for the court to hold the Chungs responsible for mere puffery and sales talk."

...and it took the judge 26 pages to say that?

Look, you can call it "puffery", but I call it "bullsh*t", especially when they have no intent to honor it. And they should pay for saying it and not honoring it. Otherwise they could put up all the puffery they want to, and the "puffery" could be anything, and they can just say that it is "puffery" and get away with not holding their word.

It is one thing to state your opinion, another to justify it, another to explain it to those who don't get it the first time. Pearson has his appeal. What will people say if he wins on appeal?

You know, we have a DC government which thinks that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to handguns, which is right now arguing that it has the right to ban handguns in the city even after they lost the case in court. What do we make of Pearson that we are not willing to make of Fenty et al, who continue to support the DC handgun ban and continue to arrest, prosecute and sentence people under the DC handgun ban?

Posted by: cc | August 2, 2007 5:49 PM

DT

Let me guess, your white. And any person that defends a person of color has to be doing because of color? Does that mean that any time you defend a person of your race that is the reason. You sound about as dumb as you think the poster is.

Posted by: gdavis4 | August 2, 2007 5:49 PM

The good news here is that Pearson is the type of judge that isn't appointed for life!

Posted by: RG | August 2, 2007 5:51 PM

...not to mention the push for DC voting representation in Congress. Apparently a lot of people have not read that part of the Constitution, in this city.

How many lobbyists have an office in the Capitol? Eleanor Holmes Norton, for one.

Posted by: cc | August 2, 2007 5:52 PM

"The First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with it. The right to trial by jury is a Seventh Amendment right."

You're missing the point. The issue the source appeared to be addressing was whether Pearson's "speech" via this law suit was a "matter of public concern." This is a First Amendment concept applied to government employees, and if the matter wasn't of public concerned, Pearson's speech could provide a permissible basis for his dismissal.

Not that calling his boss "evil" wouldn't, as well . . .

Posted by: Yeah right | August 2, 2007 5:53 PM

I mean, there's one quick way to solve this problem. Rescind DC "home-rule". Appoint L. Paul Bremer as the DC pro consul.

Posted by: cc | August 2, 2007 5:54 PM

"and it took the judge 26 pages to say that"

The length of a decision has no significance. Some judges (or their law clerks) are verbose, and some are terse.

Has nothing to do with whether or not his claims were ridiculous, which they weren't, because ridiculous would be far too charitable a description.

"Pearson has his appeal."

Sure, he has an appeal. His right to an appeal has nothing to do with whether he's fit to hold the job he currently (sorta) does.

Posted by: Yeah right | August 2, 2007 5:59 PM

The Pearson case is the pure definition of "the need for tort reform". Small businesses need to be protected from 'tards like Pearson.

Posted by: vcthree | August 2, 2007 6:10 PM

Why can't people who sue for damages way over previous awards be counter-sued for extortion?

Really, it seems like emotional blackmail is being used when you're threatened with financial ruin over a pair of lost pants.

Posted by: Peter B | August 2, 2007 6:13 PM

Pearson was WRONG, clearly the panel reached that conclusion, and he may indeed have mental health issues. But, posting what may be his name, address and phone number is way out of line.

Posted by: enoughalready | August 2, 2007 6:14 PM

"Everyone - please stop flinging around the word "crazy". Doing completely ridiculous and irrational things does not guarantee that one is mentally ill."

Doing completely ridiculous and irrational things....hmm, hey, I think you just defined crazy.

Explain to me again why Pearson should not be described as crazy?

Posted by: Patsy Cline's Blues | August 2, 2007 6:18 PM

Kick him out on the street with no pants.

Get rid of home rule in the District. Bring back the commissioners. Before Marion Berries, the District had low taxes, no potholes and a low crime rate.

Put DC back under the thumb of Congress

Posted by: Not Suited...for home rule | August 2, 2007 6:36 PM

First mistake, taking your clothes to a cleaners for alterations. Most of them are not seamstresses who know how to properly fix and adjust clothes.

Second, the pants did match the jacket. Pay closer attention, his issue was that he doesn't buy pants that had cuffs and the ones returned did. The tags on both articles of clothing matched!

I don't buy it. Very rarely do you spend that kind of money on suits that don't have cuffs at the feet.

He was an idiot and abused to system. He should absolutely have been fired from his job. Anyone remember the judge who told the lady in PG County that "This is isn't divorce court and he didn't deal with those matters here" when she tried to get a restraining order and ended up on fire in a cell phone store? He lost his job too.

Posted by: Amanda | August 2, 2007 6:38 PM

As I recall, folks at the DC Bar said that, however ill-advised, Pantsless Pearson's lawsuit was not technically frivolous. Dear God, what would a frivolous lawsuit look like? Anyway, as we have seen, a judge can bring disrespect to his office and demonstrate unsuitable (oops) temperament off the bench. Judge Person will lose his gown as well as his pants and will undoubtedly sue about that, too.

Posted by: Mike Licht | August 2, 2007 7:10 PM

You could also say that the reason that the ruling is 26 pages long is that the judge knew this lunatic was going to appeal, and she wanted to leave as little room for anything to go wrong and let this sham continue as possible.

Posted by: James | August 2, 2007 7:12 PM

Do not JUDGE others in haste. Yes, it APPEARS the dollar amount is excessive. But when my Saks dress shirt was shreded, I stupidly asked for only $59, reducing the price because of six wearings. But I could replace the shirt. Maybe the judge could not replace his trousers because they may have been one of a kind, hand tailored in London. When you start adding up repacement costs, travel and lodging costs, sentimental value, it adds up. This man may be putting the industry on notice to clean up their act, and doing all the rest of us a favor. So please, take the larger and positive view. My current dry cleaner is excellent, by the way.

Posted by: LLRLLR | August 2, 2007 7:13 PM

Several issues come into play. There is no denying that Mr. Pearson was within his right to bring suit (no puns intended); what is questionable, to me, would be how would Judge Peason take the case if it or something similar came to the court in which he presided. My non-legal view is he has has shown a disregard for justice in taking advantage of the law even if he's within his legal rights; a judge should set an example and, to me, he set an example I would not expect as a judicial standard. As for the Judge in this case; she did not have the right, under the rules that govern this type of court/case to dismiss the case as frivilous; that's not within her judicial ability; she was required to allow the case reach conclusion; and, the reason the decision was 26 or so pages (and not merely a one sentence rebuttal) is to preclude, if possible, any overruling of her decision by a higher court; her merely saying she found in favor of whoever, and not providing judicial reasoning, would be fodder for a court to say that she reaced a decision, not a conclusion. The sitting judge did what she was required to do, and, in my opinion, did it correctly and admirably, especially considering the high profile this case had..

Posted by: Dungarees | August 2, 2007 7:18 PM

Plain and simple, an abuse of power by
Pearson.

He has severe mental health issues, there is no doubt about that.

But this case has less to do with his professional position and more to do with his being a public citizen. He actually wasted all this time, energy and resources, not just HIS but our taxes, the time and energy of public employees that worked to process his case, etc. etc. What a selfish, obsessed man.

His head was so in the clouds that he didn't give a second thought to the fact that he was using a public court to file his frivolous lawsuit of MULTI-MILLION proportions

And in his tiny pea-sized brain, he actually thought he was going to teach everyone a lesson, that yes he would, because he is an administrative law judge? He was filing this case on behalf of other customers that were not satisfied in their business transactions?
That is the biggest amount of cra$ that I have ever heard of. Suddenly he is the common man, fighting for decency everywhere? Please,spare me the lies
Pea Pearson with the pea-sized brain.

He obviously used this case to vent against all the "wrongs" done to him - as another poster mentioned, and as I recall reading too that yes, he was going through a divorce and hard-up for money.

But that's no reason to take that, and every other past grievance you've had including the time in 2nd grade when Johnny didn't invite him to his birthday party and any other time he was snubbed- and take it out on the Chungs, or anyone else.

And to those ignorant posters that mention race, no, it's not about the Chungs being Asian- that has nothing to do with this.

He used this case, and it began to build, and had more steam, as he continued to justify its legitimacy in his pea-sized brain, that yes, he was truly standing up for his "principles."

Pea Pearson- you're a person whose time has come and gone. You dug your own whole, because of your mis-guided, zealous greed and evil.

Best of luck to you in the future. You certainly have made a name for yourself - public enemy #1.

Posted by: WP fan | August 2, 2007 8:35 PM

He brings new meaning to "Sicko."

Posted by: An Observer | August 2, 2007 9:01 PM

Just goes to show anyone can become a lawyer and still have no common sense.

Posted by: mriley0223 | August 2, 2007 9:14 PM

Has anyone considered that maybe the pants found by the Chungs are not Pearson's suit pants, but are the pants that Pearson brought in to Custom Cleaners? His son admits borrowing the suit (with some others) for some time, then having it cleaned before returning the suit to his father. Maybe the son's cleaners mixed up the suit pants, but since Pearson did not wear the suit reguarly at that time, he did not notice the mis-match when his son returned the suit, and only noticed after the pants were mislaid by the Chungs.

Posted by: Kenny | August 2, 2007 9:30 PM

It is good to know that Pearson is not offered a job. I am an employee for a shop owned by a well respected immigrant. I am very scared to lose a job if Pearson is suing my company for anything.
Can you kindly please send Pearson to St Elizabeth Hospital for more evaluation on his mental/brain ?

Posted by: scared immigrant | August 2, 2007 9:42 PM

I am shocked that this case was allowed
to go on as long as it did. Pearson
has a screw loose in the cranial area
but no one blew a whistle to stop this
clearly mad judge. I hope he gets no
compensation,(for loss of job) as a result
of this. I feel sorry for his family
who probably suffered as a result of
his demented judgement.

Posted by: Bryna Wities | August 2, 2007 9:55 PM

I am shocked that this case was allowed
to go on as long as it did. Pearson
has a screw loose in the cranial area
but no one blew a whistle to stop this
clearly mad judge. I hope he gets no
compensation,(for loss of job) as a result
of this. I feel sorry for his family
who probably suffered as a result of
his demented judgement.

Posted by: Bryna Wities | August 2, 2007 9:55 PM

I am shocked that this case was allowed
to go on as long as it did. Pearson
has a screw loose in the cranial area
but no one blew a whistle to stop this
clearly mad judge. I hope he gets no
compensation,(for loss of job) as a result
of this. I feel sorry for his family
who probably suffered as a result of
his demented judgement.

Posted by: Bryna Wities | August 2, 2007 9:55 PM

I am shocked that this case was allowed
to go on as long as it did. Pearson
has a screw loose in the cranial area
but no one blew a whistle to stop this
clearly mad judge. I hope he gets no
compensation,(for loss of job) as a result
of this. I feel sorry for his family
who probably suffered as a result of
his demented judgement.

Posted by: Bryna Wities | August 2, 2007 9:55 PM

I'm shocked at even the few people who are defending Pearson. If the cleaners are bad, then stop going to them! Don't be so arrogant as to claim that you are doing the "community" a favor with a frivolous lawsuit. When I see a sign saying "satisfaction guaranteed" I know it's more a decoration than a legal contract - in the free market we are all already "guaranteed" satisfaction; if you cannot understand what puffery is, you are as stupid or stupider than Pearson and shouldn't be allowed out in public by yourself anyways.

This whole case stunk. It was likely at least partially racially motivated and it's so disgusting. I guess we can only be thankful another urban intifada didn't happen! I'm outraged that this public circus was allowed to go on as long as it did, and that Pearson was nearly allowed to keep his job as a *JUDGE*.

Please don't try to defend these frivolous lawsuits. If some cleaner shreds your shirt and won't refund you, then sue them for the amount of the shirt, maybe twice over in the form of punitive damages. A penny more and you are just pushing it.

People with the power of Pearson who abuse their status need to do jail time, seriously; I demand that Pearson does time! How are ordinary people supposed to defend themselves from the onslaught of a person in the upper ranks of government when we see, plain as day, that the abuse was allowed to continue to the extent that it did, nearly bankrupting the Chungs, and causing them no small amount of grief?

Posted by: rhadams | August 2, 2007 9:56 PM

It's not that often that we get to see such arrogance, greed and stupidity as shown by scum pearson. Listen, pearson, your arse is cooked. The only uncertainties left are when they are going to fire your arse, when you gonna file for bankruptcy and last but not least how long society gonna ridicule you!

No rest for the wicked.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 10:38 PM

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure forbids attorneys from filing documets with a court in order to harass another party, or delay a proceding, or without a good faith basis in law or fact. Now, DC has its own rules of Civil Procedure, but DC's rules are much like the federal rule and they contain a very similarly worded prohibition. This sad embarassing should be taught in law school Civil Procedure courses as the new standard for what Rule 11 violations truly look like. It should also be included in Ethics courses as misconduct by judges while not on the bench.

Congratulations [Judge] Pearson. You've become a punchline.

Posted by: Pagasus | August 2, 2007 11:04 PM

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but their fees were paid by the donations people sent. So if they did get the fees reimbursed from him, that would be money in their bank. Both parties need to piss off as I'm tired of reading about this crap.

Posted by: Bulletinboardforum.com | August 2, 2007 11:17 PM

"Correct me if I'm wrong too but I believe that the Chungs really do not have to spend a great deal at appeal. After all, Mr Pearson is arguing the merits of his case which is not against the Chungs' expensive attorney but against a panel of judges."
Consider yourself corrected. The "panel of judges" do not defend themselves; it is up to the Chungs to hire an appellate lawyer to defend against any appeal filed by the Pantless Nut.

Posted by: Not Nutty | August 2, 2007 11:39 PM

GDAVIS,
I'm not white, which shouldn't even matter anyways. If you've seen all the ridiculous posts in the other blogs about this topic (look in July and June)... see who's defending the incompetent nutjob.

I'm merely proving a fact set forth by the comments in the previous blogs. So no... I'm not as dumb as the defenders of the incompetent judge suing for $56M, who are defending him because he's black. I'm not saying all people think that obviously, but I don't see any non-blacks coming to Pearson's defense.

I've already written responses on other blogs comments... I suggest you read the other blogs before getting all pissy with me. After all, I'm not the one that's suing a family for $56M. I'm also not the one that shot two Marlo furniture store deliverymen. I'm not the one that has posted comments saying that I hate Asian business owners, Asian businesses, but yet, I love Asian women. Great logic.

Go read the previous blogs, my friend.

I also bet that anyone that is backing Pearson doesn't have an IQ higher than 50. Find me someone that does... and have them clearly explain to me how a pair of pants is worth $56M after they booted him three times from their business. He begged to come back. His thank you? A nice lawsuit for $56M.

Thanks but no thanks go read the May/June/July blogs and see who's defending, Ms. Righteous.

Posted by: DT | August 2, 2007 11:39 PM

Bullett, yeah, it's the same Robin Ficker. Just another blowhard loser that doesn't have the intelligence and common business sense to operate a stable career.

Posted by: Maryland | August 2, 2007 11:46 PM

tlawrenceva - are you kidding me? What is the point of your post? He WAS offered MORE than fair compensation MULTIPLE times before this suit was filed. And how do you know the pants he took to the cleaners were the ones that matched the suit as he claims? Why would you assume anyone mentally unstable enough to file a multimillion lawsuit over a pair of pants even has it together enough to be sure which pair of pants they brought to the cleaner in the first place?

Posted by: Rosslyn | August 3, 2007 9:56 AM

All of the Pearson defenders (yes, you three or four) should ask themselves the following question: Does "Satisfaction Guaranteed" mean that a business has to do ANYTHING to satisfy a customer, no matter how outrageous the demand? If you answer yes, you're just as legally ill-informed as Pearson. Could Pearson have gotten a round-trip first class ticket to Tahiti because his feelings were hurt and the trip would make him feel better? If you defend Pearson then logically you'd have to answer yes to that.

Since he dropped the lost property portion of his case, the entire lawsuit hinged on that issue. Contrary to what you Pearson defenders might believe, the law applies a reasonableness standard to these types of cases, and his initial demands were simply unreasonable. The only reason that his case wasn't thrown out prior to trial is that the DC Superior Court judges have enough experience with vexatious litigants to know that if you give them enough rope to hang themselves they usually do, without the extra possible grounds for appeal that a dismissal or summary judgment would entail.

As far as his reappointment goes, someone who uses his legal training to press a case without a legal foundation in the hopes of striking it rich doesn't have the proper judgment or temperment to be a judge. If he really thought that he had a legal basis for his consumer protection claim, then he's an incompetent attorney and shouldn't be a judge anyway.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 10:54 AM

Great post at 10:45am.

Posted by: DT | August 3, 2007 11:09 AM

I meant 10:54.

PS. I like how Robin Ficker is trying to push his real estate company through the comments. I've noticed it on other posts. Which would be great for him, if he actually had something smart to say. But then he ends up looking as stupid as Pearson.

Posted by: DT | August 3, 2007 11:14 AM

THIS GUY SHOULD LOSE HIS JOB, HE IS MORON WHO CARES IF HE CAN PAY A JUDGEMNET, THINK WHAT THIS MORON COULD SCREW UP AS AN ACTIVE JUDGE

Posted by: STEVE | August 3, 2007 11:35 AM

Thanks.

I've noticed a disturbing trend, best evidenced by "cc" stating that "If the Chungs did not give him good service, and they have a sign guaranteeing customer satisfaction, then they should pay *something*. Maybe not $54M but still something. To dismiss that part altogether makes no sense."

OK, here's the sense: Not every slight -- real or imagined -- is compensible. Were you the person in front of me at Dulles the other day demanding an upgrade to first class because the flight was delayed due to weather? If so, no one around you was impressed. Or maybe you were the person at near me at a restaurant last week who very loudly opined that she was entitled to a free meal because the waiter got an order slightly wrong.

Read most reasonably, a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign means that if you're not satisfied the business will perform the work again to your satisfaction or will refund your money. MAYBE even pay someone else to do the work that it can't do. In the event of lost or damaged property, the business would be obligated to pay for the FAIR MARKET VALUE (familiar with that term, right?) of the property. That's it.

Put another way, you're not legally entitled to a little something extra for your trouble. More and more people seem to think otherwise, and this attitude of entitlement is truly disheartening.

Posted by: The 10:54 Poster | August 3, 2007 11:38 AM

Further to my last post regarding "Wiley E Pearson", I did ask how Mr Pearson had conducted himself during his stay on the bench. It must have been okay because his ultimate boss, Mr Butler saw fit to reappoint him during all of this unfortunate controversy. Apparently Mr Butler never thought that Mr Pearson's incredibly bad sense of judgement would ever be put under the microscope in his cases and might ultimately reflect badly upon the all of the other administrative judges. It was not until Mr. Pearson criticized Mr Butler that Mr Butler's blindness was miraculously cured and he realized just how small and petty Mr Pearson could be. Funny that he just couldn't see it until then.

Posted by: larry | August 3, 2007 11:51 AM

clearly this guy is a imbicle. who can argue the other side. why this touchs a nerve is its indictment of the legal system. there should be a catagory beyond frivolouse lawsuit. this should be frivoluse and criminal lawsuits. let Mr pantless cool his heels in prison for 5 years. then put the heels who did not judge the suit frivoluse in prison for a year for being blathering idiots and making a mockery of our courts. wake up america!

Posted by: steve | August 3, 2007 11:52 AM

I hope the Chung's sue Pearson in civil court for all he's worth! He made a mockery of our laws with his ridiculous actions and continues to do so with his future plans for an appeal! I hope when the Chung's get through with him in civil court, ALL he has is a pair of pants to his name!

Posted by: None at this time | August 3, 2007 11:59 AM

You see, to us hicks in the flyover states who just don't understand, this case stinks like a hog farm in July.
Maybe ya'all in the DC are more in tune with the niceties of law 'n such, but out here we think the Bar Association should disbar this idiot. Outrageous lawsuits like this give the tort reformers a concrete pillar on which to post their reforms. This, and the eight million dollar hot coffee award, end up hurting the ability of wrongfully harmed people to seek redress through the courts, as legislators restrict tort awards just because of Judge Roy Pearson.

Posted by: blacksho89 | August 3, 2007 12:02 PM

Wow! The Post has a new feature that lets posters tell what color other posters are now? Technology never ceases to amaze me!

Rather than make personal attacks on people's stupid ideas because of their assumed race, why not attack the stupid ideas? You'd be much more persuasive. For example, "This guy is unkind and has no sense of proportion, so he probably made a very bad judge" works better than "Black people are irrational and dangerous and this guy and his defenders are some ign'ant colored folks." Just a thought.

-Negro Ex Machina

Posted by: Advn2rgirl | August 3, 2007 12:09 PM

Nah, it is just TNB at its finest!

Posted by: MH | August 3, 2007 12:38 PM

Re: tlawrenceva: The Chungs generously offered Mr Pearson $12,000. It's just that he refused. Why should he be rewarded for turning down such a generous offer?

On another note, I wonder if Mr Pearson recognizes how much damage this frivilous lawsuit has done to him professionally and no doubt, personally.

Posted by: Lawrence (not of VA) | August 3, 2007 12:50 PM

Advn2rgirl,
You know I tried to do that until you get ignorant posts from people making racist remarks against Asians, defending Pearson. However none of those arguments contain any kind of logic other than defending him because he is black. So as human beings, it's okay for one race to be racist towards another as long as they're not white.

Suing a corporation for $56M that has seriously wronged you and others... might be justifiable. You'd have a class action suit where everyone involved would get like $100. Suing a mom and pop shop over a pair of pants for $56M?

Honestly, anyone justifying that is on crack. But he has some people on his side. You tell me the logical reasoning why he has any backers other than race, and I'll kiss your feet right now.

Posted by: DT | August 3, 2007 12:59 PM

When will the Reverends Jesse and Al wake up and see how blatently racist this persecution of the poor Judge is? Where's O.J. when needed?

Posted by: Anon | August 3, 2007 1:21 PM

Look at the post above. Case closed.

Posted by: DT | August 3, 2007 1:38 PM

DT,
Occam's Razor says "crazy," honey. Crazy comes in all colors. Scrolling back, it looks like one defender was still mad about a shirt that was torn up, somebody else... you know what? There were four posters: EZO, TLLawrenceVa, CC and LLRRLLR. You can read their stuff for yourself; I don't feel like it. But you don't have to kiss my feet. Some people just feel persecuted and admire anyone who they perceive as challenging the power structure. And when the local drycleaner's threatens your power, you have bigger issues than I can begin to help you with.
As to racist remarks against Asians, I wonder if the Post removed the offensive comments, b/c they don't seem to be up now, which is as it should be.
Finally, please don't jump on my case about misusing "crazy"/using it colloquially. I mean "irrational, disordered thinking" and no offense or harm to anyone with mental health issues, especially not anyone inclined to come to my house and teach me the error of my ways. (And yes, granted not all mentally ill people are violent, but y'all violent ones are the ones I'm worried about.)

Posted by: Advn2rgirl | August 3, 2007 1:45 PM

DT, are you familiar w/ the concept of "sarcasm"? It'll make your day so much happier.

Okay, I'm out. This has been fun. :)

Posted by: Advn2rgirl | August 3, 2007 1:47 PM

any lawsuits for the amount higher than the following will be automaticaly deemed frivolous under section 44.639 or the federal judicial code:

accidental death $1,000,000
loss of limb 500,000
loss of eye 200,000
broken bones (each) 60,000
muscel sprains 50,000
minor cuts 1,000
loss pants 59,000,000

who knew? this guy was crazy alright.
crazy like a fox.

Posted by: DC District Court | August 3, 2007 1:49 PM

This guy is a bleeding http://rectalwart.com

Posted by: fireem | August 3, 2007 2:06 PM

The loss of his job should be good punishment. Unfortunately, he will never understand the pain he caused those dry cleaner owners. Power corrupts. Abolute power corrupts absolutely. An old saying that fits this situation.

http://car-insurance-phoenix-swicki.eurekster.com/

Posted by: Gary | August 3, 2007 2:25 PM

huh?

"Rather than make personal attacks on people's stupid ideas because of their assumed race, why not attack the stupid ideas? You'd be much more persuasive. For example, "This guy is unkind and has no sense of proportion, so he probably made a very bad judge" works better than "Black people are irrational and dangerous and this guy and his defenders are some ign'ant colored folks." Just a thought."

I'm just saying the fact that he has any defenders at all is mind-boggling. Whether it's trying to re-word to be more persuasive or not, it's still the same outcome, the only people backing him up are of the same race, and that only seems to be the reason for backing him up, which is a great reason by the way.

I didn't say anything about crazy. The only crazy post I saw was the guy that was bi-polar, that was offended that we were calling him crazy.

Posted by: DT | August 3, 2007 2:34 PM

The man is unfit to judge. Removing him from the bench is obvious. Removing him from society even seems worth discussing.

Posted by: Shandooga | August 3, 2007 2:48 PM

As Pearson should be, Bethesda's most infamous loud-mouth-lawyer-turned-furniture-salesman, Robin Ficker, was disbarred not too long ago, wasn't he?

One is black; one is white, but both are stains on the human race.

Posted by: McKDarren | August 3, 2007 2:52 PM

did anyone see the similarity with pearson and what happened in the fictious film "Young guns" ? where the villain took a daughter in exchange for a ruined silk shirt ?
some people have too much power and ego
if he killed himself, I would not lose any sleep

Posted by: tubbyass | August 3, 2007 2:53 PM

Must..turn off..computer... But no. Hookay.

Okay, DT, I'm going to use small words:

Assuming the *only* reason the four posters I could find who supported Pearson did so is that they share the same race is racist. There was no other evidence in their posts about their race. You assumed they had race in common when they gave you other evidence of why they supported him. Then, when somebody made a sarcastic/toungue-in-cheek JOKE about race, you jumped on it as EVIDENCE that your assumption that only black people could be crazy enough to support him was true. Assuming that you can tell people's race through the computer screen is crazy. Crazy knows no color. I will not, therefore, try to guess whether you're a self-hating black crazy poster or a poster of a different race who believes crazy things about black people. Either one is Not Good.

Posted by: Advn2rgirl | August 3, 2007 2:55 PM

Being as how the families that lost loved ones in 9/11 got an average compensation of $2,000,000, I can 100% agree that this man's pants were more valuable. I mean they were pants, and he is an all important judge.

Posted by: TreebeardTheEnt | August 3, 2007 3:02 PM

"Look for him on a local steam grate in a year or two."
Naw. I'd check for him on talk radio. Probably with his own show.

Posted by: owlathome | August 3, 2007 3:15 PM

"Look for him on a local steam grate in a year or two."
Naw. I'd check for him on talk radio. Probably with his own show.

Posted by: owlathome | August 3, 2007 3:15 PM

To cc @ August 2, 2007 05:01 PM and tlawrenceva, try reading Thomas Paine's, Common Sense, http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/commonsense/index.htm
He did not use common sense. He use abusive power of the law. The Chung's are not sueing because they are not from a culture of sue anyone about anything society. They are using common sense.
Oh, BTW, he is not getting fire (technically. He's just not being reappointed. Go ask the Bush Admin. about that one. The only difference between the Bush's appointments is those judges were let go due to political reasons (illegal). If Pearson is not reappointed, it's due to common sense because of his lack of judgement (legal).

Posted by: raybeam | August 3, 2007 3:15 PM

He has an absolute right to sue for the loss of his pants, as does any citizen. Though, he should not have put his losses for the pants in the millions, it is ultimately for the judge or jury to decide. The suit is not frivolous. The money he is seeking is absurd, but that aspect of the suit is out of his control.

Posted by: mikemiller | August 3, 2007 3:39 PM

the judge hearing pearsons original case clearly stated that pearson failed to prove that the chungs deliberately misled him. nor could he conclusively prove that the pants the chungs had were not actually the pants he brought in. he brought in so many pairs of pants there, even after his initial dissatisfaction with them, i would be shocked that he knew what pants he actually brought in.

further records about him (namely based on his divorce proceedings) show that he is a man who is poor at managing his personal affairs. and while i would not say this would automatically make him unsuitable professionally, i feel he has crossed the line by taking a personal problem and misusing his professional skills to grossly exaggerate his actual loss. 3,000 maybe... but 54 million? no pair of pants is worth that much.

does he deserve to lose reappointment? objectively, i think it would depend on how he acted professionally. and whether his professional judgement showed sound logic or not. maybe this craziness is solely limited to his personal issues.

but the other consideration is, as a public servant, his continued employ with the government would certainly cause a sense of further questionability for a city government that is already under a lot of scrutiny. the publicity his personal actions have brought into his professional life is something that should not be ignored.

personally i don't want him reappointed. but reasonably - i'd need to know what he really did or didn't do professionally to really say whether he deserves to be fired. and whether this personal issue has affected his ability to be a professional.

Posted by: hksjjm | August 3, 2007 3:52 PM

bob was here '07

Posted by: thebob | August 3, 2007 4:00 PM

He deserves getting the boot. I think he should have to work at the cleaners for a specified amount of time. LOOSER!!

Posted by: Ray In redneckville | August 3, 2007 4:02 PM

I agree that DT is jumping to conclusions based on race. I am sure there are other people that support Pearson, that are not of the same race. It is ridiculous to assume that the only reason he would have supporters is based on color. Granted, I also agree that his actions were reprehensible and he should no longer have a seat on the bench, so to speak.

Posted by: C2 | August 3, 2007 4:03 PM

I'll contribute to a fund to hire someone to BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THAT ASSHAT.

Posted by: DAN | August 3, 2007 4:23 PM

I would not worry about the judge being able to pay fees... ETC. He will get another job. Hopefully not in the legal profession!

Posted by: Happy | August 3, 2007 4:41 PM

I think DT is spot on with his/her analysis. We are doing a much greater disservice to the general discourse if we pretend that in America today, all races are treated equally. To ignore the problem is the worst crime of all.

Pearson saw a couple of "mean gooks" who he thought the "hood" would support him in suing. The arrogant language he used, and his moral crusade were more than enough to prove that to me. More than a few people, I am certain, were surprised that Al Sharpton didn't jump in and emplore the hood to "buy black".

We should all treat each other as human beings, but to pretend that racial strife is a thing we left behind in the 20th century only compounds the problem.

Posted by: rhadams | August 3, 2007 6:34 PM

Moreover, even if 100% of the Chung's legal fees were covered by donations (which we don't know), there is still the extraordinary stress of the whole matter. To be bankrupted over a matter as trivial as an disgruntled customer! (this also assumes the Pearson was being truthful about his lost pants in the first place, which at this point, is unlikely).

If Pearson sued for the value of the pants, none of us would know who he, or the Chungs were. But he turned this into a circus. For the hassle, I think it would fair if all of Pearson's remaning assets were liquidated and given to the Chungs.

Posted by: rhadams | August 3, 2007 6:38 PM

"...For the hassle, I think it would fair if all of Pearson's remaning assets were liquidated and given to the Chungs."

No such luck, dude! peon pearson is morally and financially bankrupt now and his situation can only get worse. Crack is an expensive habit not to mention the damage it did to his mental state. If, by chance he does have assets, you can bet he will be hiding them.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 7:03 PM

The only bench that this clown should be sitting on is in the unemployment office.
Imagine all the cases that he decided that can now be appealed/overturned due to his actions.

Posted by: KJ | August 3, 2007 8:21 PM

We have a problem if justice is blind but can potentially bankrupt an innocent defendant. Perhaps our government should provide free legal representation to all citizens and then charge the expense to the plaintiff who fails to make his case.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 9:16 PM

Heck I've seen this nigga before and he don't ne usin' no spensive clothses.

Shoot he be buyin his duds at K-Mart and dats no lie.

Now what's all dis bidness about profeshnul izzims? Wher be dat ho wit my crack pipe?

Posted by: Marion Berry | August 3, 2007 9:28 PM

Taking you pants to the dry cleaner-$100
Drycleaners lose pants and you decide to sue for $56m- ~$100,000
Seeing the douche bag lose his job-priceless

Posted by: Mikael | August 3, 2007 9:37 PM

Posted by: templatestaff | August 3, 2007 10:21 PM

Yet another example of abuse of power...This is not about race, but of individuals who think they are "above the law" to waste taxpayer dollars on a BS case.

How about someone actually doing something about the corruption in DC..... the only city in america to re-elect an adulterer and known drug addict, and liar- another fine public official in Dc.

This is not about race. Respect is earned and so is power.........

The only difference between DC and Hollywood is that the scandal is by the politicians and those in office vs. the entertainers.....

Just another story about how money can buy one freedom and those with money never having enough... Money Cannot buy happiness---- when will they learn???????????

Posted by: out of dc | August 3, 2007 10:36 PM

I'm glad I live in the Rocky Mountains. Here, we would shoot the SOB judge, and go on about our business. That is why a new revolution is being forwarded at this time. Not to overthrow the government, but the fools within.

Posted by: friesbaconnekkid | August 3, 2007 10:45 PM

Maybe the Cochran Firm could take on Pearson's case. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

But really, a brotha needs to look out for anotha brotha. Al! Jesse! Where is you bros? My pants is missing. I'm azz out. I'z not going to have a job. ...(taking the metro to MoCo)....Bro, can you give me a job?

Posted by: I've been wronged! | August 3, 2007 11:17 PM

Upon abject analysis of the ideas espoused by both sides of this issue, and carefully weighing the pros and cons of each, I have reached the conclusion that this man has violated common decency in an extreme fashion. The simple solution to this entire fiasco could have been for this individual to have simply taken his business elsewhere. Unfortunately, it seems that he possessed ulterior motives which seem rather reminiscient of the power-hungry Nifong, the mendacious Duke of Monmouth, and perhaps Joeseph McCarthy. All were enamored with lust for wealth and power, and all were rendered incapacitated in different senses. The Duke of Monmouth was tried for grand treason in the attempt to overthrow the king and was executed, McCarthy enacted his own demise through his atrocious bullying and alienation of witnesses, and Nifong sought re-election through the persecutive prosecution of individuals who were totally innocent yet were essentially held under a perpetual siege wrought by Nifong's abuse of his authority. This man has conducted an incredible amount of transgressions pertaining to his actions. Race should not be a factor here, this man is responsible for his own affairs. He attempted to exort an atrocious sum of money for a rather petty inconvenience that could have been readily resolved. His actions are not only questionable but also reprehensible. No amount of compensation can ever equate the trauma these people have incurred at the hands of this fallacious judge. In essence, he has abused his authority, made a mockery of the civil system, and has violated public trust. He possesses much ineptitude not only pertaining to the duties of his supposed postion, but to that of common sense and sound judgement as well.

Posted by: BC | August 3, 2007 11:24 PM

Why is everyone supporting these Korean dry cleaners? How quickly we forget the VA Tech Shootings.

Well I have not forgotten. And it looks like someone is finally pursuing justice against Korea (legally rather than with guns), so why is everyone complaining?

Posted by: AC | August 4, 2007 12:16 AM

This guy got what he deserved, but where the hell is the judge who presided over this pants case? I know for a fact he has the power to deem something frivolous and throw it out. This is why people who lose frivolous lawsuits should have to pay for the other person's lawyer fees. That way it doesn't stop you from filing suit, but it's buyer beware.

Posted by: Mike | August 4, 2007 12:27 AM

It is high time that he lost his briefs instead of submittin them!

Posted by: Shortsentence | August 4, 2007 3:03 AM

AC,

Since when has this entire issue become a debate of race? The fact that you're prejudiced doesn't show good character. Bias is like cataracts, it blinds you. I remember the Tech shootings, I remember 9/11, I also remember Pearl Harbor, and I also remember the Oklahoma bombing. But if you're going to throw judge all Koreans as the same, you're clearly missing the point. Cho was a seriously disturbed individual who needed professional help but didn't get it. He was of Korean descent, but you can't just put all your eggs in one basket. You must also hate the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, or the Arabs for 9/11, the Germans for World War I and II, the British for the American Revolution, the French for the Quasi-Naval wars. How do you think the Native Americans felt when we invaded their land and massacred them, or when we invaded Panama, and other South American countries? Don't you think they would have felt the same way? This issue is not about race, it is about the fact that a judge abused his power, position, authority, and made a family's life a living hell. How would you like it if you owned a business and someone filed a lawsuit against you for some absurd reason? Race should no longer be a factor, nor should ethniticity or decent. This 'judge' is an abomination of a person who had the nerve to sue a business for a ridiculous amount of money for a frivilous reason. Then he dropped the main part of the suit, lost, and is actually trying to appeal his ludicrous litigation. Wake up, this is the United States of America, not some ultra-nationalist facist nation.

Posted by: Carnes | August 4, 2007 3:15 AM

I agree with Mike, in that the loser of any lawsuit should be required to cover all legal fees incurred by the "winner," that is, the one who is deemed NOT at fault. This is how it is done in the U.K., which is why there are virtually no frivolous lawsuits there, and most legitimate ones are quickly settled.

But that isn't very likely to happen any time soon, being that lawyers make plenty on these suits, and it's mainly lawyers who run this country. Birds, like a feather...

Posted by: Rosevilleboy | August 4, 2007 7:01 AM

Clearly this individual should not be sitting in judgment of anyone or of anything. It would be interesting to know something about Mr.Pearson's background to try and fathom how somebody so completely ill-suited to such an important position of responsibility is given it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2007 8:30 AM

I just KNOW we can find a Bush connection to Pearson!

Posted by: Derwin | August 4, 2007 9:27 AM

AC:

I'm curious, why don't you side towards the Chung's as you have to remember the DC snipers who were both Black. By your logic you should punishing Mr Pearson because he, like the snipers, were also Black. I also looked up murder rates in Washington DC which indicate that the murders committed by Blacks is basically 100 times higher than the murders committed by Asians. By your logic you should again side with Chungs. Of course this logic is specious as there is no indication that neither Mr Pearson or the Chungs have committed any crimes whatsoever in their past. If you're going to make these silly parallels, then at least be consistent when you make them. I have to add with all due respect that at best, you've been absolutely the dumbest person who has posted so far.

Posted by: Larry | August 4, 2007 9:48 AM

The issues around this for me hings on Mr. Pearson's character. I believe there are some blatant lies that are nothing short of abuse of process.

For instance at what point can he explain, rationally, the cost for renting a car at $15,000 each weekend. While he may be able to blackboard some fantastic explanation, at the root this is a blatant lie.

As for the rest of the supportive posters courts are supposed to be courts of equity, not compensation or profit. They are not supposed to be used to "get even" with a class of people, or to fixate attention of an entire class of people. this case belonged in small claims court, but that would not have given Mr. Pearson the chance of a wildly profitable day... on paper only.

The amount of the lawsuit was never serious as Chungs could never have paid it. The real issue is the fact that a judge would even attempt such an abuse of the system which we all paid for.

Justice demands economic and professional censure of Mr. Pearson. he is supposed to know that this kind of behavior is not allowed. At some level I have to believe he thought he could use his position to sweep aside the law of the land regarding such a mis-use of the courts. The people who support his action are just part of the problem.

BTW, if Chungs had bought even a little insurance (say a $100,000 liability limit) the defense of the suiit would have been entirely borne by the insurance company without any limit.

Posted by: CJT | August 4, 2007 10:05 AM

This judge needs to go. He was perfectly within his rights to file a suit against the Chungs. But by asking for 50+ MILLION, he showed that he's a greedy, stupid, incompetent loser.

Posted by: Nils | August 4, 2007 2:40 PM

There is something missing from this story....I dont know what it is. Please, can somebody tell me whats wrong. I read this story and it makes no sense.
Why would anybody sue over a pair of pants?
How could you sue this guy for 56 million.
And if this is true,what bizzar set of circumstances could have cause anybody to ever allow this type of mentality to represent our leagal system.

Posted by: Dave | August 4, 2007 3:09 PM

There is something missing from this story....I dont know what it is. Please, can somebody tell me whats wrong. I read this story and it makes no sense.
Why would anybody sue over a pair of pants?
How could you sue this guy for 56 million.
And if this is true,what bizzar set of circumstances could have cause anybody to ever allow this type of mentality to represent our leagal system.

Posted by: Dave | August 4, 2007 3:20 PM

Maybe Pearson could get a job defending Keith Washington.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2007 4:44 PM

pluck that jew from the system....they should remove his licsense....and send him to Korea...fuc...k these people tie up the courts with frivolous lawsuits....they should be casrated

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2007 6:13 PM

Constitution of the US of A does not say that a person cannot be stupid. Everyone has a right to be free etc etc and be stupid.

What is worrisome is the lack of " "Judicial Temperament" missing in a person appointed a Judge !

Posted by: maihar | August 4, 2007 7:07 PM

maihar, but Pearson was appointed a judge in the District of Columbia. DC is notorious for employing losers and incompetant people. We can all thank the Marion "crack-smoking, skirt-chasing" Barry for that stigma.

Posted by: Shamed | August 4, 2007 9:36 PM

Other countries don't have this problem as bad as the USA does. You can create a frivolous case against anyone over something as stupid that is preventable and get a ton of money that you don't deserve. Ever read an instruction manual and wonder why they tell you not to do something incredibly stupid that no smart person would do? Lawsuits like this are the reason!

Even if they lost his pants and didn't find them, how can you even justify $10,000? If more people had to pay the legal costs of a person whose case was found to be frivolous, there would be a lot less stupid lawsuits out there. I'm amazed that people still want to start businesses in this country with all these stupid lawsuits out there.

Posted by: daelin | August 4, 2007 10:36 PM

well what do you expect, he is black & I am not prejudice of any race but admit it most people in an authoritic position (white house, police, government agencies, e.t.c.) are majority whites & this crazy mentally ill tyfoon not only let the power go straight to his bald head but he is an extortioning bastard from hell. if this judge was white or indian or chinese or japanese or gold & silver, no matter what race he/she was, i would have the same feelings towards them as I do towards Pearson. He just was hoping to sue for a ridiculous amount & then sit on his ass forever & live high on the hoggy. HA it backfired on the extortioner. What comes around goes around baby!

Posted by: Kelli | August 5, 2007 12:45 AM

Finally some Justice!!!

Posted by: tree | August 5, 2007 12:50 PM

"well what do you expect, he is black & I am not prejudice of any race but admit it most people in an authoritic position (white house, police, government agencies, e.t.c.) are majority whites & this crazy mentally ill tyfoon not only let the power go straight to his bald head but he is an extortioning bastard from hell. if this "

This goes back to an argument I once had with a Jewish friend of mine that asked why we don't have Jewish displays around Hanukkah and why there are always Christian displays around Christmas. The answer is comparable to the question: "Why can't you find a Christmas tree in Israel?"

The country was founded by Anglos and Europeans with slaves brought over from Africa. We don't have slavery anymore, except for Hispanic slaves, which is progress, but yet not complete progress.

If he's trying to prove himself because he's black, this is not the way to do it. It's a pair of pants!

Posted by: Daelin | August 5, 2007 1:41 PM

He should be fired!!!

Posted by: SKIP | August 5, 2007 3:14 PM

IT IS AN OUTRIGHT SHAME WHEN SOMEONE (ESP A JUDGE) CAN BE ALLOWED TO ABUSE OUR JUDICIAL SYTEM IN SUCH A WAY THAT IS A WASTE OF TAYPAYERS MONEY AND ULTIMATELY DESTORY A SMALL BUSINESS AND THE LIVES OF HARDWORKING PEOPLE...

OH, BY THE WAY OF SHEER STUPIDITY.... I AM GOING TO SUE KFC BECAUSE I WAS ON MY WAY HOME AND STOPPED IN THE USE THE RESTROOM AND I ENDED UP USING IT ON MYSELF BECAUSE THE RESTROOM DOOR WAS LOCKED AND I MESSED UP MY 9.99 PAIR OF JEANS. I'M ASKING FOR 100 MILLION.

Posted by: GLORIAARTIST | August 5, 2007 11:02 PM

Just another example of TNB. There is no way you could defend this "judge" and not be an ignorant negro. Wake up Black America: as a group, you are shallow, stupid, ruthless, and worthless. Black men are not to be trusted. Given any small amount of power or money and they show their true colors. They just have no self control and are only happy when others are suffering. Blacks commit most of the crime, abuse animals, other people, and each other. Black culture breeds psychopathy. It's funny, you watch movies like Spiderman, and the criminals are always WHITE! It's absurd because we all know that IS NOT reality, but black Americans would whine about it if the criminals were black, because they can't handle the truth. The truth is, a good black person is unfortunately an exception to the rule. The truth hurts.

Posted by: TalcumX | August 6, 2007 2:30 AM

I own 2 dry-cleaning stores. Most drycleaners handle thousands of garments a week, once in a while one gets misplaced. No system is perfect, we are dealing with human error, there are no MBA's or engineer's working in the drycleaners. We hire the best help we can afford. The ratio of garments serviced to garments misplaced is miniscule. If a garment is lost, the cleaner should be responsible for the fair value of the garment, clothes depreciate just like anything else. At most the cost of the suit (since they were suit pants)less depreciation, and maybe some free cleaning for good will. These pants were found in one week. I can not even estimate the amount of time I spend looking for garments that were never even brought into my store. After spending valuable hours searching for a garment that never existed, because you don't want to lose a customer, you get the phone call, sorry I found my sweater, my daughter borrowed it. Who do I sue for all the time I waste? No one wants to wait for tickets, and the customer is always right. The vast majority of drycleaners are middle income hard working people, regardless of their race. Anyone who feels this man had any right to sue for this minor inconvenience is nuts.

Posted by: chasda | August 6, 2007 9:23 AM

It's incredble and unbelievable that he's still allowed to earn 105K/year doing "zippo" as a co-worker stated.

DC IS LEAD BY A BUNCH OF COMPLETE FOOLS TO ALLOW THIS GUY TO STILL BE PUBLICLY EMPLOYED BUT PEARSON FITS RIGHT INTO THIS CRACK SMOKING, UNETHICAL POLITICAL CULTURE.

Am I dreaming this up or is this really happening?


Posted by: Jon | August 6, 2007 6:47 PM

FYI, DC is not lead by a bunch of fools. It's led by a flock of scheming, brazen, con artists, not competent in anything but good at ripping off taxpayers. How? they band together put crooked politicians into offices and they in turn share in the plunders of public resources.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 8:48 PM

And Adrian Fenty is just fitting right into the old culture. In a progressive way, of course. He hired a token school superintendent.

Posted by: Thanks for the morsel | August 6, 2007 9:35 PM

The Chungs should now file a malicious prosecution lawsuit against Pearson...seize his assets, he has a house and a car. Better yet, file a complaint to the State Bar and have them revoke his license. And when he loses his job, no loss.....Wal-Mart is always hiring. He can always spend his breaks looking for new pants in the Mens section...even put them on lay-a-way.

Posted by: Joe | August 7, 2007 12:16 PM

Roy is just another jive turkey in DC "public service" cashing in to get his own like many others round here and we should be tired of it.

Posted by: Ronald | August 7, 2007 6:25 PM

Advn2rgirl,
C'mon now. Look at all the old blog comments. Your arguments are worthless. When people are posting on how others are picking on Pearson because of his color, it's pretty much a given who that person is. My point before and still is... the few people that are backing Pearson, are backing him solely on the race card. If you're too stupid to realize that from the beginning... well that's not my fault.

Posted by: DT | August 8, 2007 2:19 PM

Advn2rgirl,
C'mon now. Look at all the old blog comments. Your arguments are worthless. When people are posting on how others are picking on Pearson because of his color, it's pretty much a given who that person is. My point before and still is... the few people that are backing Pearson, are backing him solely on the race card. If you're too stupid to realize that from the beginning... well that's not my fault.

Posted by: DT | August 8, 2007 2:20 PM

I question the sense of "justice" that allows a supposedly mature professional to try to destroy someones life over a pair of pants. I wonder what corruption an investigation of his cases would find??
The only people supporting this man are Black bigots who hate orientals. Shame on you for becoming just like the "crackers" who used to step on your people.

Posted by: SR | August 8, 2007 5:33 PM

Follow the Missouri system of appointing judges. They are appointed by the Gov (DC=Mayor) and at the end of their term they are kept in office by a vote of the people in their district. Most judges are kept in office unless they do something stupid.

Posted by: Pat | August 8, 2007 8:20 PM

"...at the end of their term they are kept in office by a vote of the people in their district. Most judges are kept in office unless they do something stupid."

Pat, this system guarantees failure in DC. Many DC residents seem love to elect politicians who will help them ripping off tax payers money. How else can Marion "crackhead, tax evasion" Barry got re-elected time and again?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2007 8:34 PM

This judge should be on the 'Supreme' Court. The sleazy court that 'appointed' Bush as president, made up bogus rules to do this while at least two and possibly three of the judges should have been seclued from even voting on this made up issue, that supports the ideology of, and interests, of powerful corporations, that would reverse Rowe vs. Wade if it could, that probably would support Bush and Chaney if impeachment ever was to happen, and on and on. Scalia is a nasty born-again zealot who would replace Democracy with Theocracy if he could, Thomas a Judas to his own race, Alito and Roberts flunkies of Bush and Co..etc. This guy would somehow fit in nicely...corrupt, stupid, mean-spirited. A man well suited for the sick and corrupt times of the Bush years.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2007 8:43 PM

This judge should be on the 'Supreme' Court. The sleazy court that 'appointed' Bush as president, made up bogus rules to do this while at least two and possibly three of the judges should have been seclued from even voting on this made up issue, that supports the ideology of, and interests, of powerful corporations, that would reverse Rowe vs. Wade if it could, that probably would support Bush and Chaney if impeachment ever was to happen, and on and on. Scalia is a nasty born-again zealot who would replace Democracy with Theocracy if he could, Thomas a Judas to his own race, Alito and Roberts flunkies of Bush and Co..etc. This guy would somehow fit in nicely...corrupt, stupid, mean-spirited. A man well suited for the sick and corrupt times of the Bush years.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2007 8:43 PM

This judge should be on the 'Supreme' Court. The sleazy court that 'appointed' Bush as president, made up bogus rules to do this while at least two and possibly three of the judges should have been seclued from even voting on this made up issue, that supports the ideology of, and interests, of powerful corporations, that would reverse Rowe vs. Wade if it could, that probably would support Bush and Chaney if impeachment ever was to happen, and on and on. Scalia is a nasty born-again zealot who would replace Democracy with Theocracy if he could, Thomas a Judas to his own race, Alito and Roberts flunkies of Bush and Co..etc. This guy would somehow fit in nicely...corrupt, stupid, mean-spirited. A man well suited for the sick and corrupt times of the Bush years.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2007 8:43 PM

I am not bi-polar.

Posted by: Outraged | August 9, 2007 4:10 PM

The jurist mentioned is an embarrasment to
the American judicial system as one who is
so engrained in it. He definately shows
judgement issues that questions competency.
He still is in denial of the courts ruling.
He won't get reappointed because of his
own stupidity. The cleaners did offer him
12 thou to settle and he still rejected
them so something is wrong in his cerebral
hemisphere.

Posted by: ZXE | August 10, 2007 2:37 AM

Anyone has any clue that where did he receive his degree and what was his background.

Posted by: E Sterling | August 11, 2007 8:44 AM

To say pearson is an imbecille or has a screw loose or belongs in the nut house is a deep insult to the imbecilles and nut cases of this country. I don't care if he is stupid or crazy. The point is that this man has an evil heart.
The Chungs declined to countersue for court costs, effectively turning the other cheek. A truly noble act. For this evil being to appeal the ruling and pursue is a mark of a deeper evil.
I found it truly distressing that a good immigrant working on the American dream has met up with such an evil snake. I am ashamed of even sharing the country with pearson. Hope he winds up in the prison laundry and has to satisfy his "customers" for a few years.
I hope the appeal is ruled swiftly and brutally against this evil person.

Posted by: John in Gretna | August 14, 2007 8:10 PM

Uh oh. He's appealing the case. Looks like dry cleaner malpractice insurance is going to go up.

Posted by: JB | August 15, 2007 2:08 PM

To me the big story isn't Pearson, it's Butler.

It should be clear enough to most people that Pearson was unfit (sure he needs help, but he sure doesn't need more power!).

So it's surprising it wasn't clear enough to Butler, or if it was it meant Butler didn't care till Pearson started insulting him.

Either way it makes me wonder about Butler...

Posted by: Interesting | August 18, 2007 12:35 PM

An interesting footnote, I do recall reading somewhere about complaints about how he handles cases, as a judge. It was some time ago since I read that... but the complaint seems, well, pretty parallel with his lawsuit right now

Posted by: Dan | August 19, 2007 11:48 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company