This makes him just like everyone else in America.
He says they lost a pair of trousers from a brand new thousand dollar suit, and he demanded that they pay him a thousand dollars for his loss.
We all fantasize about making such demands. Sometimes the demands actually cross our lips. Eventually we see the folly of our ways and realize we will not be receiving the fantasized cash payout.
Eventually, and not very long after the 'loss,' the dry cleaners found his trousers.
This has happened to me: you send five pair of trousers to the dry cleaner and only four come back. I have always gotten the fifth pair within a reasonable amount on time. Once I got five pair of someone else's trousers and it took two days to get the mess sorted.
This happens. It is frustrating, inconvenient, and seemingly unnecessary; but, it happens.
Roy L. Pearson Jr. doesn't accept that life includes these little inconveniences and is filled with enough self-importance to sue the dry cleaner. He is angry. He is an angry man.
He is a powerful, privileged angry man. And he'll show you!
He has made it his mission to destroy the lives of the mom & pop dry cleaning shop that had the audacity, the blatant audacity, to misplace his brand new trousers. How dear these audacious immigrants impede the quality of his very important life. Don't they realize who he is?
He is Roy L. Pearson Jr., Administrative Law Judge for the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings, a graduate of Lake Forest College and Northwestern University School of Law, a board member of Columbia Heights Youth Club, the Fort Lincoln Civic Association, Inc., Black Seeds, Inc., the Washington Council of Lawyers, and the DC chapter of the National Council of Black Lawyers. He is important. And he has been inconvenienced. And he will show YOU!
He has sued the dry cleaners for sixty-five million dollars. That'll show 'em not to fuck with Roy L. Pearson Jr.!
Mr. Pearson has a history of unnecessary litigation; he is litigious by nature. After his divorce in Virginia was finalized, he appealed to the courts for many benefits no man with a spine, even a lawyer, would expect. He had wanted spousal support, even though perfectly capable of supporting himself; and he didn't want to pay his ex-wife's legal bills.
The judge in the appeal wrote:
Husband next contends the trial court erred in awarding legal fees of $12,000 to wife. We review an award of attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion. See Graves v. Graves, 4 Va. App. 326, 333, 357 S.E.2d 554, 558 (1987). The trial court found that husband was substantially responsible for "excessive driving up" of the legal costs by "threatening both wife and her lawyer with disbarment [sic]," and creating unnecessary litigation. Consequently, it awarded wife $12,000 in legal fees to be paid by husband.MEMORANDUM OPINION BY CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK (Record No. 0561-04-4)
Credible evidence supports the trial court's ruling. The trial court made specific findings concerning the award of attorney's fees, including that the litigation was disproportionately long despite the relative simplicity of the case and that husband "in good part is responsible for excessive driving up of everything that went on here including threatening both the wife and her lawyer with disbarment as a member of both the D.C. bar and Virginia bar," which created "unnecessary litigation." Accordingly, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to wife.
In the above case, he did not want to pay his ex-wife's $12,000 legal fees. He had battled tooth-and-nail against his wife's request for a no-fault divorce, and according to the appellate judge, he made a simple case complicated with his unnecessary legal wrangling. So, the judge refused his appeal to have the verdict changed. He has to pay the fees, because he (litigious by nature) used his knowledge of the legal system to interfere with his wife's simple desire to GET THE HELL AWAY FROM HIM!
This guy is a menace! And he is a judge!
Never have I seen a clearer case of a person who has to be removed from their position of power, reprimanded and punished, and maybe disbarred, then sent on their way to start over again someplace else. Maybe in Central Europe or China; certainly no place where he would have access to the American judiciary.
Here is a letter the American Tort Reform Association sent to Pearson's bosses calling for his removal from his appointment as a judge.
An article from washingtonpost.com: Lawyer's Price For Missing Pants: $65 Million
Customer Sues for $65 Million Over Pants
By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Published at SFGate.com
WASHINGTON, DC (AP) --
A missing pair of pants has led to one big suit.
A customer got so steamed when a dry cleaner lost his trousers that he sued for $65 million. Two years later, he is still pressing his suit.
The case has demoralized the South Korean immigrant owners of the mom-and-pop business and brought demands that the customer — an administrative law judge in Washington — be disbarred and removed from office for pursuing a frivolous and abusive claim.
Jin Nam Chung, Ki Chung and their son, Soo Chung, are considering moving back to Seoul, seven years after they opened their dry-cleaning business in the nation's capital, said their lawyer, Chris Manning.
"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," Manning said. "This has destroyed their lives."
The customer, Roy L. Pearson Jr., who has been representing himself, declined to comment.
According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.
Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.
But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants, and decided to take the Chungs to the cleaners and sue.
Manning said the cleaners have made three settlement offers to Pearson: $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000.
But Pearson was not satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants. Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, he asked in his lawsuit for $15,000 — the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.
Manning said Pearson somehow thinks he has the right to a dry cleaner within four blocks of his apartment.
The bulk of the $65 million demand comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of Washington consumer protection law, which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day. Pearson counted 12 violations over 1,200 days, then multiplied that by three defendants.
Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." He claims the signs amount to fraud.
The case is set for trial June 11.
Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, an organization that fights what it considers abusive lawsuits against small businesses, has asked that Pearson be denied a renewal this week of his 10-year appointment. The association has also offered to buy Pearson the suit of his choice.
Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment on Pearson's reappointment prospects.
Melvin Welles, former chief administrative law judge with the National Labor Relations Board, wrote to The Washington Post to say that if he were the judge in the case, he would throw out the lawsuit and order Pearson to pay the Chungs for their legal expenses and their mental suffering. He also called for Pearson's ouster and disbarment.
"The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation," Welles wrote.
To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found almost right away, and have been hanging in Manning's office for more than a year. Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red pinstripes.
But Manning said: "They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants matches his receipt."
The Custom Cleaners Defense Fund site is not yet operational, but can be found here.
Please consider contacting Mr. Pearson's employer, The District of Columbia's Office of Administrative Hearings, and asking them to remove him from his position as an Administrative Law Judge. No person who abuses the American legal system should hold this position.
Also, please note that his employer has removed Mr. Pearson's profile from its website. Are they trying to protect him? I hope it means they are firing him, because it is the rest of us who need protection from him. (Just ask his ex-wife and the dry cleaners!)
The case goes to trial June 11, 2007. Pay attention!
Dick Mac Recommends:
The Divine Comedy
Dante Alighieri
3 comments:
as I said to someone else, I hope those pants
have a large enough inseam to fit the giganticness
of his ass...
xo
M
AND the hugeness of those brass balls!
His Mama shoulda spanked him more when he was a kid, 'cause obviously he turned out to ba a big bully! I hope the judge wupps his butt next Monday!!!
K
Post a Comment