May 10, 2007
$65 Million Pants Judge Could Still Keep His Job
The WaPo's Marc Fisher has the latest update on the saga of D.C. administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson and his $65 million lawsuit against local dry cleaners Custom Cleaners for misplacing his favorite pair of pants. We first told you about this story back in early April, and it has since gained worldwide attention from people who like to read about stories detailing acts of unbelievable arrogance and stupidity. Like us.
Fisher brings word that though at first it seemed as though Judge Pearson, whose 10-year appointment to the bench was up for renewal on May 1, would likely be losing his job over the lawsuit when his bio was removed from the city's Web site, he's actually still on the payroll for now. An unidentified senior city official told the columnist Pearson was currently "doing administrative work" and drawing a paycheck from the city. And he's likely to continue doing so.
There is good reason to believe that Pearson might win a new term. Before the pants suit became a worldwide story, the city's chief administrative law judge, Tyrone Butler, recommended approval of Pearson's application based on his job performance, said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson and three other sources with direct knowledge of the recommendation. Butler did not respond to a request for comment.
"Everyone agrees that to file a lawsuit asking for $65 million for a pair of pants is absolutely outrageous," the D.C. official said. "But we are trying to keep that out of the discussion about reappointment. I don't think it's appropriate not to reappoint someone just because they file a lawsuit. You can't retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional, First Amendment right to file a lawsuit to vindicate their rights."
First Amendment? Uhm ... we know that the continued employment/existence/gasification of Marion Barry may leave folks with the impression that acting like a damn fool is no impediment to holding high office in our fair city, but, with due respect to Mr. Unnamed D.C. Official: Sorry, nnnnnnoooooooooo. In fact, as Fisher found out, the commission that decides whether judges such as Pearson get reappointed is TOTALLY allowed to consider outside factors (like, say, an unmanageable sense of entitlement) when approving a position. That's because judges are generally supposed to be people the community can trust to apply good judgement.
If everyone knows a sitting judge to be a loose cannon, or worse a worldwide laughing stock, how can citizens have confidence in the legal process? Furthermore, judges are allowed to consider ethical considerations on the part of attorneys when determining whether a lawsuit is frivolous, so how could this sort of action even be suggested as being out of bounds for the commission who will determine Pearson's fate, given the nature of his position as a judge?
|
Sommer, this is not the first DC judge to file an outrageous suit but the others never we made public or discovered by you and others like you.
Some of these cases where outlandish demands were made involve divorce cases some judge had; Some involve one judge arrested for hitting his wife and the wild claims made thereafter but it sort of reminds one of the TV show "Night Court".
I am going to send all of my old pants to Judge Pearson, so that he will get over the loss of his former pants.
My opinion is that Boy Roy lost or has not a common sense and conscience as a human being.
So he must not be reappointed as an administrative lawyer or any public staff.
Sure it is. Conduct outside of one's position, especially a public one is always a cause for scrutiny at someone's job, especially for attorneys and judges. Some state Bar Associations and some voluntary Bar Associations would look at his conduct as being unacceptable and would take that into consideration when it comes to his membership within that bar. In fact, since Mr. Pearson is representing himself, he might find he'll have to retain outside attorney services if the DC bar decides to take action against his licensure.
Attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits can often find themselves in front of ethics committees. Worst of all, this lawsuit makes other more legitimate lawsuits look bad.
Are they magic pants?
"Judgment," not "Judgement." Pet peeve.
He really likes his pants, just like Montgomery Burns.
I'm shocked that the DC court panel is still considering reappointing Roy Pearson. It goes to show you that behind the illusion of justice and sound judgment is a shameful system of nepotism, corruption, and abuse. Sadly, character and ethics are not valued even in our judicial system.
Everyone here agrees that the suit is outlandish, but do we really want employers firing people for bringing suits that they determine to be outlandish? The guy has a right to file the suit and have a court determine whether it's outlandish. If the court decides that it's outlandish and imposes sanctions, or if ethics charges result, then DC will have cause to fire the guy. Let the case run its course. The only way this could be more outlandish is if this crazy judge files suit against the District for retaliatory firing and wins.
Bad service happens! When I don't like how I've been treated at a store, I no longer go there and take my money elsewhere. The fact that this Judge Pearson kept going back to the same cleaners after they had lost items before speaks volumes. Maybe if he decided to walk a little more to the next cleaners he would not have been so brash and his pants size would not have need to be expanded. Watch out KFC, you may be next on his list! I can see big warning labels: "Eating too much of this delicious fried chicken product may cause you to be overweight. We are not responsible for your fat rear-end or for necessary alterations in your pants size."
Frivolous?!! Not in my book. Not only did they lose the poor fellow's favorite pantaloons, he had to RENT a car so he could go to another dry cleaner! Can you imagine the agony, both mental and physical? I think $65 million is letting them off easy.
And people wonder why we can't get voting rights for the District... sheesh.
Would someone please provide a bio on Roy....it would be interesting to see where he got his legal training and look into the kinds and content of opinions he has been issuing.
i whole-heartedly agree. right on sommer. you're a-ok in my book.
Scoff:
This guy's employer isn't some random employer. This guy is a judge. He knows first hand the damage that frivilous and vindictive lawsuits do to the criminal justice system. And he actively engaged in the practice.
And his salary is paid by taxpayers. Who deserve better.
He's cost this small business tens of thousands of dollars for no reason.
He's an ass.
What a mad boy we have!
What a mad country we live in!
It's a very much shame on all Americans,especially black Americans!
this guy should never be allowed to practice law again. Sure it is our constitutional right to sue but 65 million for a pair of pants and a rental car is beyond reason!! They have to take his judgement in to consideration as well and his judgement is pure hate & greed to be using his power to push these people around like this.
I would hope he is not re-appointed. I hope someone can update us as to whether or not this happens, as I know the reviews were being conducted this month.
Reading the info. I kinder think that the Judge himself might have missplace the pants himself. I do feel that the Judge over extersise his power.I do think this case is a wast of tax payers money.And I feel that he should be removed from the bench.Also the laundry should counter sue [no jury in their right minds would ever convict the laundry for that amount]
Darn. The other day I went to McDonalds and I ordered Big N' Tasty with Cheese. But when I got home, it was Big N' Tasty but cheese was missing. I think I'm entitled to some cash. I also need gas money since I now have to drive to other Mcdonalds to ensure proper serving of Big N' Tasty with Cheese. Also I may need to be compensated further since lack of cheese made my calcium and protein level to drop, resulting in physical distress.
To andrew galasso: Unless you're like jeff (post 11)
"I don't think it's appropriate not to reappoint someone just because they file a lawsuit."
Yeah ummm here's a question.... Would you really want some one to judge your case, knowing they sued a fellow civilian for $54,000,000 over pants? Which by the way were found and he was offered $12,000 I wouldn't. Hmmm $12K, well that should cover the cost for a new pair of pants AND the car... Oh but wait he taking advantage of that customer protection law..... I would actually love to know how he got that number to start with. Looking to retire early there Roy?
Take a look at the McDonald's cases, first you had a lady sue over hot coffee (probably the start) then you had that family who sue, arguing that McDonald's made their kid fat, luckily they lost that. This is just the perfect example that "Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely". And another great example that lawyers screw us (especially when playing judge!)
There is only one simple comment for the 'Pants Judge'. He is a totaly nutcase and should never be reappointed as a judge. He is a disgrace to our judicial system.
I suppose the US Constitution gives one the right to be an IDIOT. The question for the DC official is do we want an IDIOT to be a Judge?
Vince G.
Montreal, Canada