Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the dry cleaners . . .

You guessed it: Roy Pearson is back in the news and back in court.

Pearson is the Washington, D.C., attorney who sued a local dry cleaner for $67,000,000 (later reduced to $54,000,000) because they "lost his pants." The pants were never lost, were returned to Pearson, but he plodded on with his case, which was summarily dismissed after weeks (months?) of media attention.

Pearson was an administrative law judge for the District of Columbia and by showing such poor judgment with his lawsuit, his contract as a judge was not renewed. He lost his job. I guess there is somebody in Washington, D.C. that believes a judge should show good judgment and that Pearson lacked that characteristic. So he lost his job.

This, of course, was grounds for the litigious-by-nature Pearson to do what he does best: sue!

Pearson is suing for "wrongful dismissal." He says he was terminated because he was exposing corruption within the Office of Administrative Hearings, not because of his inability to show good judgment.

Read about it at the examiner.com site:

Former judge from ‘pants suit’ sues for $1 million, old job back

I have written about Pearson:

Jerk Lawyer Abuses Citizens

Roy Pearson Administrative Jerk Update

The Pearson v. Dry Cleaners Trial Starts Today

The Pearson v. Dry Cleaners Trial Starts Today

Pearson v. Custom Cleaners - Day One Wrap

Pearson v. Custom Cleaners - Trial Over, Verdict Pending

Verdict Reached in Roy Pearson v. Custom Cleaners Trial

Can Roy Pearson, Jr., Really Lose His Job? I Hope So!

Roy Pearson Files Appeal In Pants Suit

Pearson Wins An Evil Victory

Oh, And By The Way . . . Roy Pearson Lost His Job

Oh, And By The Way . . . Roy Pearson Lost His Job

I have been remiss in reporting that Roy L. Pearson, the Washington, D.C. administrative law judge who sued his local dry cleaner for losing his pants, has not only lost that case, but also lost his job.

In a response to a Freedom Of Information Act request by Associated Press, Lisa Coleman, the District of Columbia's general counsel, wrote last week that Pearson's term as an administrative law judge expired on May 2, 2007, and that the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges voted not to reappoint him.

So, there is someone paying attention in the District of Columbia!

Pearson showed a real lack of judgment -- in fact he proved himself to be an ass -- by filing a $67,000,000 lawsuit against his local dry cleaners because they lost his pants and breached the contract implied by the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign hanging in the establishment. His lawsuit refused to acknowledge that they found his pants and returned them to him.

Pearson was mildly ridiculed by the judge at the trial, too mildly for my liking, and has been dragged through the press much more gingerly than he deserved.

Justice, however, has been served, and it will be amusing, sadly amusing, to watch this man's career take the downturn it so richly deserves. Disbarment is too good for him, and we can only hope that he will never be involved in any job that requires him to help turn the wheels of jurisprudence.

But I hold out no hope.

After all, Clarence Thomas made it to the Supreme Court having never argued any case at any time in any courtroom in all of his career, so there might be hope for Roy Pearson. Maybe he can take the black seat on the Supreme Court when Thomas dies, resigns, or is impeached for stupidity. They're sort of peas in a pod, the two! Stupid men of color wielding power they never deserved and were unqualified to possess.

Here's the AP story at Yahoo.


Dick Mac Recommends:

A People's History of the United States
Howard Zinn

Can Roy Pearson, Jr., Really Lose His Job? I Hope So!

Remember Roy Pearson, Jr.?

Brendan Smith, at Legal Times, with help from intern Jared Culver, has published a wonderful follow-up story that is totally worth the read.

It seems Pearson could actually be out out of a job this week. His hearing for reappointment as an Administrative Law Judge was scheduled for yesterday, 06 AUG 07. I can find no results of that hearing at this time.

But, over at Legal Times, Smith has done some old-fashioned reporting and gotten some great quotes from those intimately involved in the process.

One gem in the article is:

"Pearson’s demeanor, analysis and the quality of his written decisions demonstrate that he lacks the necessary skills for this position," stated the Dec. 5 letter from Christine Davis, the department’s general counsel. One public works inspector described Pearson as "condescending and unwilling to listen to litigants," while another inspector said Pearson was "often argumentative and hostile," according to the letter.

and it goes on!

In an interview last week with Legal Times, [Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone] Butler said that Pearson "is an annoyance like a mosquito bite."

"The pants lawsuit was actually not unexpected, knowing the personality. Up to that time, I was still pretty sure he was not going to make a good judge," Butler says. "That’s almost like another straw added to the others."

If this is how his boss is talking about him in the media, I can't imagine he will keep his job!

This might be a reason to celebrate! Our country might actually still have some chance of surviving. Butler has changed his position on Pearson three times, but that means there is hope! Maybe the Bushies and Reaganites didn't fill all the positions in America with idiots! Perhaps Tyrone Butler is an old-fashioned American who believes in the success of our nation and will actually take a position that will be good for the people instead of just thinking about himself.

I said maybe! I don't get my hopes too high.

But, if you read the article by following the link below (free registration required), I think you will be amused.

News Watch
Poster-Boy Judge Could Be Out a Pair of Pants and His Job Soon

New York Lawyer
August 6, 2007

By Brendan Smith
Legal Times

Roy Pearson Jr. became the poster boy for frivolous lawsuits with his unsuccessful $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner over a lost pair of pants. But questions about his temperament and demeanor as an administrative law judge had surfaced long before a media firestorm engulfed him this year.

Since his initial two-year term expired in May, Pearson has been sidelined from the bench and is still earning his $100,512 salary working as an attorney adviser at the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings. A commission that reappoints administrative law judges at the OAH is expected to vote on Aug. 6 on the first step toward denying his appointment to a full 10-year term. . . . Read more . . .

Also see, lawfuel.com

Also see other articles I have written about Pearson:

Jerk Lawyer Abuses Citizens

Roy Pearson Administrative Jerk Update

Roy Pearson Affiliations



Dick Mac Recommends:

America Alone
Stefan Halper, Jonathan Clarke

Verdict Reached in Roy Pearson v. Custom Cleaners Trial

Judge Judith Bartnoff has ruled in a 23-page opinion that Roy Pearson

is not entitled to any relief whatsoever on his claims under the CPPA, Counts One and Four of his Amended Complaint.

Hooray! This means that Pearson gets nothing! NOTHING!

The ruling goes on to say

The Court's analysis of the plaintiff's CPPA claims applies as well to his claims of common law fraud in Count Two of the Amended Complaint. The plaintiff acknowledges that he is required to prove those claims by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. He has not proven those claims by a preponderance of the evidence, let alone by that higher standard. Judgment therefore will be awarded to the defendants, as well as their costs.

Justice!

Not only does Pearson get nothing, he must pay the defendants' costs!

I have not yet learned what is happening with Count Three, and I do not know the specifics of that count. If newsworthy, however, I will follow-up!

This is a real victory for jurisprudence.

Read Marc Fisher's article here. Fisher is the washingtonpost.com writer who broke the case in the media.

This is the AP article (reprinted without permission):

Verdict Reached in $54 Million Pants Suit
June 25, 2007 - 11:54am

WASHINGTON - A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.

The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to give him a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims.

Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The Chungs said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd and overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to give him a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims.

Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The Chungs said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd and overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Thank you Judge Bartnoff for restoring my faith in our judicial system.

I hope the supervisor of Administrative Law Judges in the District of Columbia will now grow a testicle and terminate the employment of Pearson on the grounds that he is unable to use common sense when interpreting the law and is unfit to dispense any level of justice in the United States.


Dick Mac Recommends:

The Divine Comedy
Dante Alighieri

Roy Pearson Affiliations

Roy Pearson, the Administrative Law Judge from the District of Columbia who has sued his local dry cleaner for millions of dollars, has managed to weasel his way into some respectable positions.

The verdict in Pearson's suit against his local dry cleaner has yet to come in; but, I would hate to see him drop off the Internet radar.

According to the Pearson entry in Wikipedia, he has been on the board, or served as counsel for numerous Washington D.C. community organizations, including: Columbia Heights Youth Club, Fort Lincoln Civic Association, Black Seeds, Inc., the Washington Council of Lawyers, and the National Council of Black Lawyers.

Columbia Heights Youth Club does not list Pearson as a member of its board.

The Common Denominator, a local newspaper in Washington, D.C., published this article about Pearson's work on behalf of the Fort Lincoln Civic Association. In this instance, Pearson seems to have found real fraud, but he didn't sue the developer for fifty million dollars. If the allegations of fraud by the developer of New Town, made by the Association and Pearson are true, this is the place where Pearson should be suing for millions!

I can find no quick reference to Black Seeds, Inc. on the Internet.

The Washington Council of Lawyers website makes no reference to Pearson that I can find.

The National Council of Black Lawyers has no website that I can find. Pearson is a black lawyer, so he could be the only member! I can only assume that this organization is for lawyers of African heritage, as opposed to lawyers who have blackened the reputation of the society they are sworn to serve.

If you know anyone in these organizations, please ask them if Pearson is associated with them. If he is, you might consider telling these people of Pearson's embarrassing, unethical, immoral, insane behavior as a litigant. It'd be interesting to hear if anyone defends his actions.



Dick Mac Recommends:

The Divine Comedy
Dante Alighieri

Pearson v. Custom Cleaners - Trial Over, Verdict Pending

"It was a long two days," Judge Judith Bartnoff said.

And it seems the speculation, buzz and banter about the Pearson v. Custom Cleaners lawsuit was more exciting than the actual trial.

Marc Fisher, the washingtonpost.com writer who first brought this story to my attention, covered the second and final day of the trial at his blog.

The judge showed the type of prudence and restraint you would expect in a judge, which was highlighted in this exchange between judge and plaintiff (Pearson):

"Your position," Bartnoff said to Pearson this morning, "is that 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' means they have to satisfy whatever you demand, with no limitations, absolutely unconditionally?"

"That's correct," Pearson replied.

"I have grave doubts about that," said the judge.

See, this entry in Fisher's blog here.

I particularly like that Judge Bartnoff told Pearson to stop using the word "we."

"You are not a we, you are an I," Judge Bartnoff told Pearson. "You are seeking damages on your own behalf, and that is all."

Pearson has been trying to turn this into a class-action style lawsuit all along.

And, yeah, sure, I hate the business practices of the Korean dry cleaner in my neighborhood, too; and I dislike it when he pretends that he doesn't understand English and can't negotiate a conflict or confusion. I wish the Korean mafia that runs New York's dry cleaning cosa nostra would switch to an industry I don't use. None of their actions, however, are actionable! I am not going to sue the guy because my trousers are misplaced for a week! I've had English, Irish, Italian and Latina dry cleaners in four states and two countries misplace my clothes over the years and they eventually come back.

One time a shirt never re-appeared and I received a check for forty-six dollars, which I thought was the fair price for a used dress shirt. I probably could have gotten the entire $92.00 the shirt originally cost, but I thought I would be equitable, and since the shirt was two years old, I asked for half its cost. It took over a month for the check to arrive. I didn't think to sue for fifteen hundred bucks a day! Stupid me!

Pearson might win his case about the signs "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service" misleading him.

But, I hope he doesn't.

I hope he loses and is forced to pay the dry cleaners' legal fees.

We will know next week.

The New York Times has a good story: Judge Tries Suing Pants Off Dry Cleaners.



Dick Mac Recommends:

The Divine Comedy
Dante Alighieri

Pearson v. Custom Cleaners - Day One Wrap

Emil Steiner, a blogger at washingtonpost.com, presents a real-time blog of the case and his wit and intelligence shine through each dispatch. I create this synopsis based on his writings.

It takes all parties involved over forty minutes to agree whether the case is about trousers or signs. Eventually they agree that this claim is about the sign; but, Pearson wants to present evidence about the trousers. In fact, he has added so many complicated motions that it it seems a guarantee that he will discuss his trousers at length throughout the hearing. Eventually, the judge refers to his eloquence as excruciating.

Pearson's circus continues with witnesses: others who have been dissatisfied with the service at the dry cleaner (including one who spoke in a mock "asian" accent), his son who testifies that daddy is opposed to litigation (in stark contrast to reality), a nattily attired salesman from Nordstrom's, and a subordinate who was distressed that his mentor was unable to pay much attention to his work because he has had to spend so many hours on this case.

Then Pearson took the stand and got emotional, had to ask for a recess, and when he tried to pull the break-down-and-cry maneuver again, the judge explained that he was doing just fine and could continue.

In this courtroom sketch, Judge Roy Pearson, left, who is suing Jin Nam Chung, seated at center right, and his wife Ki, seated 2nd right, for $54 million for what he calls "misleading signage" at their dry cleaning business, speaks at DC Superior Court in Washington, D.C. Tuesday, June 12, 2007. (Courtroom sketch by AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren - reprinted without permission.)

Wednesday will see the defense attorney cross-examine Pearson. I sure wish I could see it live!

Steiner generously recaps by saying that "Pearson is a fastidious litigator, and Judith Bartnoff is a patient judge."

The latter is patently obvious, the former is far more generous than Pearson deserves.

Follow all the action at Steiner's blog OFF/beat.

And stay tuned for all the action!

Also see, New York Times coverage: Judge Tries Suing Pants Off Dry Cleaners

Also see AP article at Boston Globe: Judge suing dry cleaner cries over pants



Dick Mac Recommends:

The Divine Comedy
Dante Alighieri

The Pearson v. Dry Cleaners Trial Starts Today

Roy L. Pearson, Jr., is the Administrative Law Judge in the District of Columbia who is suing his local dry cleaner for millions and millions of dollars because (1) he was dissatisfied with their service after they guaranteed his satisfaction; and (2) his same-day service was not realized when his trousers went temporarily missing.

It is quite possible that Mr. Pearson will win: the signs posted in the dry cleaner were false advertising, so technically he is correct and therefore deserves to win the case. I certainly hope, as would any decent human being, that the judge will not award this asshole the tens of millions of dollars he is seeking in damages.

Let's give the devil his due: Pearson is trying to make a point. His point is that he is dissatisfied with the service provided and they did not deliver same day service. He is correct and will probably win on those technical points.

I suspect the upshot of Mr. Pearson's actions will be that the District of Columbia will begin to gut their consumer protection laws to prevent this sort of abuse.

So, the dry cleaners may not suffer any monetary loss, and Mr. Pearson will live the rest of his life being "right," and reasonable citizens will lose their ability to go after companies that really abuse consumers.

I will be following the news, and I hope you will post anything you hear about the case in the comments section below.

You can read my previous articles about Pearson here:

Jerk Lawyer Abuses Citizens

Roy Pearson Administrative Jerk Update



Dick Mac Recommends:

The Divine Comedy
Dante Alighieri

Roy Pearson Administrative Jerk Update

Roy L. Pearson, Jr., is a lawyer and the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking sixty-odd million dollars as compensation for bad service and dissatisfaction with the result of business he did with a local dry cleaner.

If you don't know the story, I have written about it previously.

Pearson represents what is wrong with many Americans: avarice, litigiousness, self-centeredness, self-importance, self-righteousness, delusions of grandeur.

Pearson has worked as an administrative law judge in the District of Columbia. The title of the job is much more impressive than the actual position itself; he's not really a judge. It's a job often enjoyed by a political lackey who is unable to make it as a lawyer in the often cut-throat, highly competitive legal industry. Often men and women who cannot make partner in a prestigious firm, or do not possess the skills to succeed in private practice or electoral politics. Not all administrative law judges are losers, only some of them. Well, maybe a lot of them. They are, no matter their skill set, political appointees, often referred to in the vernacular as hacks.

I am having trouble avoiding calling this man names and diminishing his role as a public servant, because he disgusts me so much that my stomach rumbles when I type anything about him.

In an email with washingtonpost.com columnist, Marc Fisher, Pearson says:

that his $65 million claim "has little to do with lost suit pants." Rather, he wrote, his case focuses on the signs posted at the cleaners: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service," promises that he says were misleading.

"I hope you will attend the trial and see how little of the damages sought and awarded there have anything to do with suit pants," Pearson wrote.

I don't think anyone disputes that Pearson is dissatisfied and that the dry cleaner failed to deliver same-day service. What disgusts me is what and how he believes he should be compensated for their failure to deliver, to satisfy him as a consumer.

What is he entitled to? A refund. A full refund. And the right to use a different dry cleaner. He is entitled to nothing else.

That he continues to justify his lawsuit with this jargon proves that he is unfit to be involved in the legal system in any role other than as a defendant.

And the fact that he is cloaking himself in the notion of consumer protection is the most revolting, because he was protected. The dry cleaner did hem his pants and after misplacing them, found them and returned his pants. When he said he was dissatisfied, they offered him THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS as compensation.

This wasn't enough for this administrative law judge. He wanted more.

It gets better!

Pearson's ten-year term as an administrative law judge is up for renewal. Many members of the legal industry have expressed concern that a man such as Pearson is unfit to hold the position. However, according to Marc Fisher's column, the District of Columbia's chief administrative law judge, Tyrone Butler, has recommended approval of Pearson's application based on his job performance!

That's right! Roy Pearson's boss thinks that Roy Pearson does a good job and should retain his position as an administrative law judge.

So, even though this guy is abusing the judicial system in hopes of huge monetary gain, making a mockery of his city's consumer protection laws, and destroying a family over a pair of trousers and a couple of signs hanging in a store, Tyrone Butler thinks he should continue in a position of authority because of his job performance!

I think the District of Columbia is in bigger trouble than any of us suspected, because it is now clear that Roy Pearson's boss should also be removed from his position, because he doesn't think a person who behaves like an idiot should be removed from the bench.

Roy Pearson is not fit to participate in our legal system as a professional, never mind as a pretend-judge. And if Tyrone Butler thinks Pearson should be re-appointed because of his job performance but not disqualified for his lack of good judgment, then the entire District of Columbia's administrative law judge department needs to be investigated and revamped.

Judge in $65 Million Suit Might Keep Seat on Bench
washingtonpost.com
by Marc Fisher
Thursday, May 10, 2007

Around the D.C. government and around the world, Roy Pearson -- the man who sued his neighborhood dry cleaner for $65 million in a dispute over a missing pair of pants -- has become a laughingstock, a symbol of a legal system gone wild, another blot on the image of the District.

So last week, when the order came from managers of the city's Web site to remove Pearson's biography from the page about his job as an administrative law judge, a cheer went up among the techies in the office. Word spread like wildfire: Finally, the city had acted to salvage its reputation.

It's true that Pearson's term as a judge expired last week, his bio was taken down from the Web site and, for now, he is no longer hearing cases.

But he remains on the D.C. payroll, "doing administrative work," said a senior city official who declined to be named because he was discussing a personnel matter. Pearson will be in paid limbo for weeks while a commission decides whether to reappoint him for a 10-year term to handle disputes with city agencies.

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."

The lawsuit against the Chung family, the owners of Custom Cleaners on Bladensburg Road NE, where Pearson took his pants for a $10.50 alteration, is scheduled for trial June 11. Court records show that Pearson has turned down a $12,000 settlement offer from the Chungs and refused a Superior Court judge's offer of mediation.

Pearson's lawsuit has united both sides of the eternal battle over our easily abused legal system, with the American Tort Reform Association and the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers' lobby, calling the suit ridiculous and offensive and urging their members to contribute to a defense fund for the Chung family.

Pearson's case has become fodder for ridicule on Howard Stern's radio show, TV networks' morning news programs and countless blogs. Since I wrote about it two weeks ago, I've been invited to appear on broadcasts in five countries. Astrologers and handwriting analysts have claimed to have insights into Pearson's actions. Asian Americans have worried that the lawsuit expresses ethnic animosity.

But the overwhelming question that readers want answered is this: How could such a person still be a judge?

The commission that decides whether judges such as Pearson get reappointed "is entitled to consider things that happen outside the walls of the courthouse," said Robert Spagnoletti, former D.C. attorney general and a partner at the Schertler & Onorato law firm.

"What's tied them in a bind is that the chief judge recommended him for reappointment," Spagnoletti said. "My personal view is that when you put somebody on the bench, the public needs to have confidence in their abilities. A lot of people think this is off the hook. You can't go anywhere without people saying, 'How can this guy be a judge?'"

The commission, which is short one of its three voting members because his term expired, might wait to decide Pearson's fate until the trial is completed or Mayor Adrian Fenty appoints someone to fill the vacancy; Fenty sent a letter yesterday saying he plans to do that soon.

This isn't the first time Pearson has represented himself aggressively. A 2005 Virginia Court of Appeals decision notes that the judge handling Pearson's divorce found him "responsible for excessive driving up of everything that went on here, including threatening both the wife and her lawyer with disbarment."

Even if D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff rules against Pearson next month, both sides generally must pay their own legal fees. But lawyers around town are hoping Bartnoff will conclude that Pearson acted in bad faith, which would open the door to making him pay the Chungs' legal bills.

Pearson declined to be interviewed for my columns on the suit suit. But in e-mails responding to my last column, he said that his $65 million claim "has little to do with lost suit pants." Rather, he wrote, his case focuses on the signs posted at the cleaners: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service," promises that he says were misleading.

"I hope you will attend the trial and see how little of the damages sought and awarded there have anything to do with suit pants," Pearson wrote.

Read that again. The man expects to win.

This from overlawyered.com says:

Contrary to what we had speculated, it appears that Pants Judge Roy Pearson still has a job and may continue to do so. According to an unnamed D.C. official, and exemplifying the attitude with which the tort reform movement is fighting, "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." (No, but you can retaliate against someone for filing a frivolous lawsuit.) Meanwhile, as a face-saving publicity stunt, the American Trial Lawyers Association filed an ethics complaint against Pearson; really, Pearson isn't doing anything that ATLA doesn't endorse in other situations.

That's another thing! An unnamed official from the District of Columbia says that Roy Pearson has the First Amendment right to file a lawsuit. Who is running Washington, D.C.? I used to support the notion that D.C. should have more autonomy from the federal government, but it is obvious that there are only idiots running that city!

OK! For a moment I will agree that Pearson has the right to file a lawsuit -- that his First Amendment rights protect him. With this logic, Pearson would be protected in his job if he exercised his First Amendment right to use racist, sexist, or homophobic epithets. Would Roy Pearson keep his job if he used the "N-word" to describe Tyrone Butler? No! He would be fired! Why? Not because he exercised his First Amendment rights to use the N-word, but because using the N-word to describe your boss shows your lack of judgment.

Hiding behind the First Amendment is always the sign of someone who is wrong. If your only argument is that you have a Constitutional right to carry-on with your behavior, then others should look very closely at your actions.

Roy Pearson's constitutional right to file a lawsuit is not in question. What is in question is his judgment, his ability to know right from wrong and make good decisions based on that ability to discern right from wrong.

I now think we should ask the same question about any supervisor who would recommend an employee based on his job performance, even if that employee shows that his ability to discern right from wrong is in question.

As soon as Roy Pearson's future as an administrative law judge is determined, I think the citizenry should work towards removing Tyrone Butler from his position.

Here's an opinion piece by Mary Lou Kelsey that you might enjoy.


Dick Mac Recommends:

Best Lawyer Jokes Ever

Just So You Know What He Looks Like

Here is a screen grab of Roy L. Pearson Jr. from a youtube.com video:




In case you weren't sure if an asshole had a face . . . this is the face of an asshole!

Mr. Pearson is very important. A dry cleaner temporarily misplaced a pair of his trousers and it made him angry. So angry that he refused to accept his trousers when they were found. So angry that he has rejected every gesture of apology and every attempt to placate him. He is so angry that he filed a sixty-five million dollar lawsuit against the local dry cleaner who temporarily misplaced the trousers.

The entire world is talking about Mr. Pearson. I am happy to be part of the dialogue.

Please continue reading about Mr. Pearson in the article I wrote about this incident.

Jerk Lawyer Abuses Citizens

Roy L. Pearson Jr., an Administrative Law Judge, in the District of Columbia has had a frustrating experience with a dry cleaner.

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.

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.

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK (Record No. 0561-04-4)

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