Remember the pants suit for ladies in the 1970s? It was just a femmed-up polyester suit in pink or a pastel color, usually with bell-bottom (or flared) slacks. The women's equivalent of the leisure suit.
Well, this article isn't about that kind of pants suit.
This is another article about Roy Pearson, who at the time of this writing still collects a sex-figure salary from the District of Columbia for his judgment skills.
Roy Pearson Appeals Custom Cleaners Decision
No End In Sight For the $54 Million Pants Suit?
(AP) The latest in the saga of Pearson v. Chung brings to mind that famous line from "Cool Hand Luke": "Some men you just can't reach."
Despite being offered an opportunity to stop the insanity, and save not just a modicum of dignity but perhaps his job, Roy Pearson has decided to continue with his claim, already once denied, for $54 million for a pair of pants. Pearson, an administrative law judge (at least for now) in D.C., filed an appeal yesterday of Judge Judith Bartnoff's decision in the infamous pants lawsuit.
The appeals process will move forward over the next three to four months. There is a chance the D.C. Court of Appeals will affirm the existing ruling, but if not, it will be another 12 to 18 months before this case is decided.
Jin and Soo Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners, "continue to be baffled by Mr. Pearson's actions," says their lawyer, Christopher C.S. Manning. They had dropped their motion to recover legal fees as an "olive branch" in the hopes of ending what they have called "a nightmare." Manning says they are very "disheartened" by the process and are even considering closing their business "just to be rid of the memory of this case." Manning said that with his appeal, Pearson has chosen "desperate irrationality over common sense."
Manning is not alone in his assessment. Pearson says he is fighting for all consumers, but few people I know see him as a defender of their rights.
Moreover, the commission that oversees administrative law judges in D.C. has sent Pearson a letter expressing doubts about reappointment. His original two-year term expired in April, and this letter is considered the first step toward stripping him of his judgeship. Had he accepted the Chung's offer, he may have won himself some sympathy on the panel, which meets next month. With his continued pursuit of his claim, however, he continues to bring public ridicule on the bench.
Has the line between persistence and insanity ever been so well defined? Not only has Pearson lost his pants and this lawsuit, but he may soon lose his judicial robe. And if the Chungs file to recoup their appellate legal costs, which Manning says is possible, Pearson could lose the shirt off his back -- all because of his belief that a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign entitles him to whatever he wants.
Some men, as they say, you just can't reach -- "which is the way he wants it.... Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men."
Above quoted article by Emil Fisher found in the Offbeat section at washingpost.com and reprinted without permission. Excellent piece Mr. Steiner.
When will Pearson cease and desist? This is now beyond absurd.
If he writes a book about it will you purchase the book? I won't. I won't even borrow it from the library. If this guy has a message more sophisticated than: "Roy Pearson is a jerk," then let him publish it as an op-ed piece or a letter to the editor! I certainly hope that nobody ever pays real money to read his crap!
I can't believe this continues!
Here is Mark Fisher's post about the appeal.
Dick Mac Recommends:
Best Lawyer Jokes Ever