Litigious madness

Oh what a jolly old time. Lets tangle up the courts wth a nonesense claim and force these Koreans to spend tens of thousands of dollars on some bullshit grandstanding exercise. And this is a judge? Surely he should be fined and fired. Death is too good for him.

[quote]Others urged to follow suit
The judge who sued his dry cleaning shop for $US54 million ($64.4 million) over a lost pair of trousers said as the trial wrapped up on Wednesday that he would use any winnings he might get to encourage others to follow suit.

Roy Pearson, an administrative judge for the District of Columbia, said he only needed $US2.5 million for himself to cover the emotional distress he suffered after Custom Cleaners misplaced a pair of pants he brought in for alteration.

The remainder, he said, would be used “as an incentive for other attorneys in private practice to take on these kinds of cases”.

District of Columbia Judge Judith Bartnoff said she would issue a written decision within a week in the case.

[b]Pearson’s lawsuit has drawn international ridicule. It also drew plenty of chuckles from spectators who crowded into the stuffy municipal courtroom.

Even Bartnoff had a hard time keeping a straight face as Pearson, wearing a grey pinstripe suit and a stained lavender tie, wielded a 15-centimetre thick binder of laws and court decisions that he said bolstered his case.[/b]

[b]Shop owner Soo Chung, an immigrant from South Korea, was not so amused.

“Economically, emotionally and health-wise as well, it’s been extremely hard for us,” Chung said through an interpreter as she broke down crying.[/b]

It has cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend against the lawsuit, with a quarter of that covered by donations, a spokeswoman said.

Pearson claims a “satisfaction guaranteed” sign at the dry cleaning shop violates a consumer-protection law because he was unsatisfied with the response of Chung and her husband and son when they misplaced his pants in 2005.

The Chungs say they located the pants a few days later, but Pearson said they were not his.

The trousers in question - grey, with cuffs - hung by the witness stand as the Chungs’ attorney questioned whether Pearson’s interpretation of the sign was reasonable.

"Does the sign read: ‘If you are not satisfied with our service, you the customer can ask for whatever you want, including $US67 million, and you will receive it?’ " attorney Chris Manning asked.

Pearson, who reduced an original demand for $US67 million to $US54 million last month, arrived at the figure based on fines accruing for the four years allowed under the statute of limitations and other costs, such as $15,000, to rent a car to use another dry cleaning shop.

Bartnoff seemed sceptical as well, poking holes in Pearson’s legal reasoning on many occasions.

“This is a very important statute to protect consumers of the District of Columbia. It’s also very important that statutes like this are not misused,” Bartnoff said.


Let this thread be a repository of all litigious madness and a reminder just how evil legal wankers can be.


Yeah, I’ve been following this one for a while. It’s truly bizarre, and I can’t believe he will possibly win it. Let’s hope not anyway.

In my dream republic, I have control over the law and medical schools, which I throw open to all and sundry and then flood the market with these leeches (apols good lawyers of Forumosa). I then smash their professional organisations (outrageously over powerfull trade unions in reality) that have monopolised the market and jacked prices. As wages are driven down to the commodity level of burger flipper, then, and only then, will those with an interest in law and medicine and not artificially over-inflated prestige and incomes bring their concerns to these shittily hijacked sectors.

It may require executing some of the old guard to get these reforms through, but you can’t make an omelette without crushing a few eggheads.

I’m deadly serious. Lawyers and doctors of the world, you are hereby put on notice. It is not at all in your interest to let me even sniff the levers of political power.


Lunatics file lawsuits like that all the time.

But in this case the lunatic/plaintiff is a judge. How bizarre. I would think he could be disciplined, disbarred or removed from the bench for that. In fact, I suspect he is mentally unsound and such actions against him are presently being investigated/initiated. There’s no excuse for his conduct.

Edit: Aiyaa, he’s totally nuts.

  • 3 years earlier they lost a pair of his pants and gave him $150 compensation.

  • To settle this suit the defendants kept raising their offers till they had offered him $12,000, but he refused it, preferring to fight.

  • He plans to call 63 witnesses in the trial.

  • He also wants $500,000 in emotional damages and $542, 500 in legal fees, even though he is representing himself in court, and $15,000 for 10 years’ worth of weekend car rentals as well.

  • He tried to expand it into a class action suit, but the judge angrily denied his request.

I seriously doubt he will get away with this without being seriously disciplined.

Ah, good to hear, Mother. Join us, we have much work to do and so little time to do it! :laughing:


My sister is studying medicine, and as I pointed out to her, that even her profession is not immune from the forces of globalisation.

Earlier, I came up with an idea to set up a company in which citizens from places like America could fly to countries such as Taiwan and receive dental and medical treatment for far less than the cost of getting it back home (due to skyrocketing legal claims).

However I’ve since been informed that such businesses have already started and is known as ‘medical tourism’.

Of course legal systems are more protected than medical because cases are heard in the country where the claims were made…c*nts.,_Jr.

Duh! The guy’s totally nuts. His lawsuit is the epitome of bad faith.

In addition to discipline, disbarment, and/or debenching from the regulatory authorities, get ready for Part II: the malicious prosecution action against the idiot plaintiff. Most states have laws prohibiting legal actions filed or prosecuted in bad faith. Perhaps the catch may be that the underlying action has to be unsuccessful, so if he wins $100 for the pants such actions may be barred. But I wouldn’t bet on that. His actions are so extreme, unreasonable and indicative of bad faith (consider that he turned down $12k to continue the action), that I’d put my money on the Koreans in the end.

How precisely would one gamble in a case like this? Is there a place where I can put down $12000 and pick up $54000000 if the judge loses? Or suitable portions thereof. That would be cool.

How precisely would one gamble in a case like this? Is there a place where I can put down $12000 and pick up $54000000 if the judge loses? Or suitable portions thereof. That would be cool.[/quote]

If you can find someone willing to place $12k on the judge. You better place your bet fast, though, as the case has just concluded and they’re now awaiting the judge’s decision. We may know by tomorrow.

Here’s something that may shed some light on the case:

[quote]Defense attorney Chris Manning portrayed Pearson as a bitter man with financial troubles stemming from a recent divorce who is taking out his anger on a hardworking family.

Manning went into the details of Pearson’s divorce on Wednesday. Under questioning, Pearson confirmed he had only $1,000 to $2,000 to his name when his problems with the dry cleaners started. Pearson said he did not have a job at the time and was collecting unemployment benefits.[/quote]

And this:

[quote]A judge had to leave the courtroom with tears running down his face Tuesday after recalling the lost pair of trousers that led to his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner.

Administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson had argued earlier in his opening statement that he is acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices. Defense attorneys called his claim “outlandish.”

. . . He said Soo Chung tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants. As Pearson explained that those weren’t the pants for the suit, he choked up and left the courtroom crying after asking Bartnoff for a break.[/quote]

Pearson should be ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs.

I’ve had it up to here with frivolous lawsuits.

How precisely would one gamble in a case like this? Is there a place where I can put down $12000 and pick up $54000000 if the judge loses? Or suitable portions thereof. That would be cool.[/quote]

If you can find someone willing to place $12k on the judge. [/quote]

I was thinking of risking maybe $12, with the chance of winning $54,000.

How precisely would one gamble in a case like this? Is there a place where I can put down $12000 and pick up $54000000 if the judge loses? Or suitable portions thereof. That would be cool.[/quote]

If you can find someone willing to place $12k on the judge. [/quote]

I was thinking of risking maybe $12, with the chance of winning $54,000.[/quote]

Heck you can do better than that. Today’s your lucky day. :slight_smile:

I recently met a guy whose father served as personal physician to the former king of Nigeria and Upper Swaziland. His father died late last year, a victim of malaria which has spread through the region due to the governmental ban on the import of DDT, leaving him with an inheritance of approximately US$832,791,256.17 in his account with the First Bank of Nigeria. Regrettably, to withdraw the funds, it will be necessary for him to pay a withdrawal fee which just happens to be in the amount of US$12. If you would be so kind as to front to him the funds necessary for payment of such fee, he would gladly share with you a 20% stake in the entire account balance as gratitude for your great kindness. Please contact me immediately for payment details, as he has been informed by the bank that should the funds not be withdrawn within a matter of days, they will be required to transfer them to the governmental authorities, pursuant to the Nigerian Safe Banking Act of 1997.

Yours Faithfully,

Nibeki Okum

Approximately. Heh. :laughing:

Husker Du’s Sorry somehow screeches into the brain.

[quote]Now I guess it’s your decision now you decide
Take me to the cleaners baby, take me for a ride
Who ever cares for your affairs will sort it out for you
Send me a subpoena baby tell me what to do.

Cause you make me, sorry, sorry somehow. [/quote]

I’ve had two shitty encounters with law folks.

The first was a drunken driving charge when I was 18.

I sat waiting in court for a morning watching the beak become increasingly infuriated by the lack of awareness of petty court etiquette by the likes of my good self. His anger rose as the morning moved on and I kept wishing I was next because his sentences were getting harsher and more unreasonable as the hours ticked by.

Eventually some poor sad, fat wop boy went up for driving a stolen car while under suspension. I dunno what the penalty for that usually is in Oz, but the audience, not least of all fat boy and his gormless supporters, and indeed the entire court, were stunned when he was angrily given three months in prison by the pillock in the horse hair wig.

The poor bastard let out a girly shriek and turned with his hands out stretched as if pleading to the audience for an explanation. His mates, in a touching gesture, rushed up and handed over all their cigs before he was whisked away.

I was stunned when the next person called up was me. I immediately forgot the etiquette I’d tried to watch and learn and sat straight down when I should have stood, I think, and was given a stern tongue lashing for my poor effort. I was blushing and grinning like an idiot out of nerves, which prompted the arsehole to advice me that riding a 900cc motorcycle when I only had a licence for a 250 while twice the blood alcohol level could attract a jail term. I nearly shat myself. I was nervy enough and certainly didn’t need this areshole upping the drama ante.

He then suggested that since I was potentially facing a year in prison that I seek legal aid, as I was at that point unrepresented in the court. Freakin’ arsehole!! That was as blatant a job for the boys racket to me at the time as it is now. My nervy turn shifted to pure rage. if I had half the chance, I would have killed him right there and then, but only after making this prick eat his own testicles.

Sure enough, I saw a lawyer, who asked me why I bothered, until I told him. He seemed to think the beak was messing me around to show me the court was a serious place. Wanker! I knew the court’s were serious places, I’d just seen what they did to wog boy! Next week, sat through the same horror show and as my lawyer guided me through the sit down stand up smile, bend over and take it routine - which I have to say I managed on cue - beak boy seemed pleased and gave me minimums on all fronts.

I later learnt through my father, who knew the judge’s cousin, that the fifty something year old beak lived with his mother, had never drunk alcohol, was not a smoker and had never had a driving licence. This seemed especially perverse to me for some reason.

Shitty encounter number two:

I’d separated from my Oz ex in my first year in Taiwan. We had a seven year old boy, a house, a car, and all the trappings. When we split, I handed everything over and vowed to pay a monthly sum to support her and the boy. I basically walked with my clothes and some books.

This worked well, as she didn’t have to work too much, thus allowing her time to look after the little fella in my absence. However, a few years later she wanted to clarify the position legally. Watching how disputes with money destroy relationships in a bust up, or become the focus point of so much pain, I agreed to whatever she wanted.

I, back in Oz to look after the lad for a few months as the ex set up a small business, and quite broke, headed into a lawyer’s office to have her sign the agreement put together by a lawyer representing my ex. Personally I thought it was a crock of shit because it wasn’t saying anything that we hadn’t already agreed to, but my ex is the tying off lose ends type and so I went. I was expecting two seconds. “Do you agree?” “Yep.” “Fine, sign here.”

Instead this farkin’ hound advised me that I was unnecessarily throwing away all my hard earned riches when I really had no need to. I was also told that since I was living in Taiwan I didn’t have to pay money each month and that she could factor in a way to get the money I had paid out of splitting the house and car, etc. She then told me that as my legal rep she refused to sign the form as it was clearly not in my best interest.

I was furious and savagely turned on the cow saying that it was obviously in my best interests to ensure my ex was looked after, because a happy mum was what was best for my son. I demanded she sign the frickin’ form. She refused. I stormed out. I refused the bill they sent, but then got a summons from the small claims court which as I was about to head back to Taiwan, I felt compelled to pay.

Upshot, I had to pay another lawyer, one who had prearranged to sign. Of course the ex had paid oodles of loot too. All too bizarre when you consider there was absolutely no disagreement, and that both me and the ex were on the bones of our arse

Damned leeches!


Its a strange world. There are some horrible cases that last on and on despite all common sense saying otherwise, but instead of citing to those I get those dumb chain emails that cite to urban myths (the sort that has debunked years ago) or that “infamous” McDonald’s coffee case in which all the key facts are conveniently left out (i.e., McDonald’s coffee was significantly hotter than anybody else’s, the old lady had originally only asked for medical bills, McDonald’s as a company knew that their super-heated coffee had caused something like 700 serious burns, etc.). Why make up a situation when real guys like Pearson exist?

Not only should they make him pay all the legal fees, he should also have to pay the wages lost while the Korean couple had to sit in court, his own medical fees for the mental institution he should be calling home for the next few months, and a very-much-needed dumb wanker tax of 40% of all the time he’s wasted for the judge and the defendants and their lawyer at the rate of $1000/hr.

:laughing: :bravo: Amen to that.

Hanging’s too good for him.

Well MT looks to have been on the money, as the suprisingly broke beak breaksdown.

But there’s another in.

[quote]Party Host Mom Set for Va. Jail Term
By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 9, 2007; Page A01

CHARLOTTESVILLE – Ryan Kenty, 20, and his brother Brandon, still a sophomore in high school, plan to drive their mother to jail Monday morning before heading back to her rented apartment to move the rest of her belongings into storage.

Their mom, Elisa Kelly, and her ex-husband, George Robinson, are paying the price for hosting Ryan’s 16th birthday party – more than two years in jail each. Ryan had asked his mother to buy his friends some beer and wine, as long as they all spent the night.

Brandon, left, and Ryan Kenty will drive their mother, Elisa Kelly, to jail Monday, when she is to start a 27-month sentence for providing alcohol at Ryan’s 16th birthday party in 2002.

“No one left the party,” said Kelly, 42, who collected car keys that night almost five years ago to prevent anyone from leaving. “No one was hurt. No one drove anywhere. I really don’t think I deserve to go to jail for this long.”

But Albemarle County Commonwealth’s Attorney James L. Camblos III, who prosecuted the parents, said it was the worst case of underage drinking he has had to deal with in 15 years. “Not only were they serving alcohol to 15- and 16-year-olds, they misled parents who called to ask about alcohol, and they tried to get the kids to cover it up after police got there,” Camblos said.

. . . Kelly and Robinson – the boys’ stepfather – were charged with nine misdemeanor counts each of contributing to the delinquency of a minor resulting from the August 2002 backyard birthday bash. Both were originally sentenced to eight years, but the sentences were reduced to 27 months. The case was appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently declined to hear it.

Robinson’s attorney, Jonathan Wren, called the jail time the “harshest sentence of its kind by a long shot.” Wren said his client declined to comment.[/quote]

Now it says here the the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. What of that much exulted democracy. . . comments about which appear now to have been given the undemocratic snip?


Here’s another example of the litigous happy society in the US:

Parents May Go To Jail For Kids Playing Too Loudly In Own Backyard

In short, parents may be fined and spend jail time each time their kids are caught playing too loudly in their own backyard. One of their neighbors filed the complaint with the town gov’t.