Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

Pants Plus: More DropTrou Moments from the $54 Million Pants Trial

More scenes from the trial of Roy Pearson v. Custom Cleaners, the $54 million pants suit, which concluded in D.C. Superior Court yesterday....

Pants, Pants, Pants

I think I've mentioned this fact before, but I just can't get over it: Roy Pearson testified that he owns 60 pairs of pants. Sixty! I checked my closet and found that I own 14 pairs of pants, and I'm no fashion plate, but 60 does strike me as quite a few. Am I wrong about this?

Soo Chung's Story

The Chung family, owners of Custom Cleaners, moved from South Korea to the United States in 1992 in search of "a little bit better life," as Soo Chung put it. Within three years of arriving here, they had opened their first business, Happy Cleaners. By 2004, they owned three cleaners, including the one near Roy Pearson's home.

Soo Chung does the alterations, mans the counter and bags clothes at Custom Cleaners. Her husband Jin does the dry cleaning and laundry, and their two sons work the counter and help their father with bagging and other tasks.

When disputes arise with customers, as they do in any shop, the Chungs' policy is to "do whatever is in our capacity to fix" the problem, Mrs. Chung told the court. "We will dry clean the clothes again." And if that doesn't do the trick, "We will compensate the customer for the value of their clothing."

Indeed, back in 2002, when there was a problem with one of Pearson's pants, Custom cut him a check for $150, the replacement value of the garment. The Chungs took Pearson at his word that that was what he would have to pay for new pants; he never produced a receipt for the replacement purchase, nor did the Chungs even ask him for one.

But the Chungs subsequently asked Pearson to take his business elsewhere; the encounter with the customer was difficult enough that the family decided to ask him to find another dry cleaners where he might be happier with the service. But Pearson protested, asking the family to let him return to the fold of customers at Custom, in part because it was so convenient to his house, but also because he had been a satisfied customer. The family relented, a decision they surely rue today.

To this day, Soo Chung remains certain that the pants that bear a tag with the same number that appears on Pearson's receipt are indeed the pants that he put in for alterations. And of course Pearson remains equally convinced that they are not his pants.

When Chung offered those pants to Pearson, she testified, "He didn't even look, he didn't compare them [to his suit jacket], he just said, 'These are not my pants.'" Chung took those pants and layed them on the counter over another pair of Pearson's pants that he had not picked up because his credit card had maxed out and he could not afford to pay for their alteration. Result: The pants appeared to be of the same size.

Whose Pants Are They, Anyway?

Once defense attorney Christopher Manning unveiled the pants that Custom Cleaners owners Soo and Jin Chung say belong to Roy Pearson, Pearson reiterated his argument that these are not his pants, but rather belong to some poor pantsless soul out there somewhere in Washington.

Manning suggested that perhaps Pearson was the one who had switched pants and had put in a different pair than he thought he had. Pearson summarily rejected that idea and insisted that his every demand, from his initial request for $1,150 (the cost of a new suit) to $67 million (his top calculation of the damages he could get via the District's consumer protection law) was reasonable.

Manning tried to act the reasonable man. "Does it make sense" to demand so much for a pair of pants?

"Of course," Pearson replied.

"Is it reasonable?"

"It is reasonable and honest."

Judge Judith Bartnoff then tried her hand at a similar point. Noting that Pearson's case rests on the notion that a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign means that any storekeeper must give any customer whatever they demand to make them a satisfied consumer, she asked:

"Should people interpret signage in a reasonable way?"

"No," Pearson replied.

Manning tried again: Would a reasonable person interpret such a sign to mean that the store will do its best and if there's a problem, will fix it, and if it can't, will compensate the customer?

"No," Pearson replied.

This, almost certainly, will make up the crux of Judge Bartnoff's written decision in the case, which she said she will issue before the end of next week. She gave every indication that she will rule that a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign in a store--or any sign--must be interpreted as any reasonable person would read it, not in the wildly literal sense that Pearson is relying on.

Pearson argued that "it is undisputed that they [Custom Cleaners] represented their services with a humongous sign" and that their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" promise "had no pre-conditions, no post-conditions, but was an absolute guarantee."

But Bartnoff showed how she's thinking when she threw out one small part of Pearson's case, involving the cleaners' "Same Day Service" sign. "It seems to me completely unreasonable to treat 'Same Day Service' to meant that same day service has to be honored when it's not requested," the judge said.

The Customer Is Always Right, Pearson Style

In the final moments of the trial, Judge Bartnoff sought to get it clear in her mind and on the record exactly what Roy Pearson's theory of the case is.

"Your argument is that the customer is always right whether or not the customer is right," she said.

"Yes, that's my view," Pearson replied. "One hundred percent customer-determined satisfaction."

By Marc Fisher |  June 14, 2007; 11:46 AM ET
Previous: Pants Extra: Inside the Courtroom | Next: Random Friday Question: How Much Noise Is Too Much?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Pearson is nut. He has a rubber butt. And just like Pinocchio's nose, Pearson's butt grows when he lies so now he cannot get his pants shut.

Posted by: King Tut | June 14, 2007 12:27 PM

Roy Pearson is a f**king nut job. How come there's never a drive-by when you need it?

Posted by: Stick | June 14, 2007 12:44 PM

From the Judge Roy Pearson idiocy file:

Organizers of an Olympics event were ordered to pay damages to a man who missed the event because of traffic.

A surfer sued another surfer for taking his wave.

A man who ate a lot of sugary snacks fell out of a tree and sued the snack food company for $100 million.

An inmate filed a $5 million lawsuit against himself because he says he violated his own civil rights by getting arrested.

A bank robber was arrested after a teller noticed the robber was hard of hearing and triggered an alarm. The robber is now suing the bank for "exploiting his disability."


Find more at http://www.realpolice.net/lawsuits.shtml

Posted by: SoMD | June 14, 2007 12:47 PM

Oh, the pant-emonium!!

Posted by: 22209 | June 14, 2007 12:53 PM

I bet Sharpton and Jackson are cringing right about now.

Posted by: No, No, Brotha | June 14, 2007 1:09 PM

Reading about this case makes me remember my time in customer service. It made me realize that there are two kinds of people: those who can be reasoned with, and those who can't. After a while I got good at avoid the second kind of people. This lawsuit is making me realize how glad I am to be out of the customer service field.

Posted by: michael | June 14, 2007 1:09 PM

This pearson guy should be forced to work at a dry cleaner as punishment for wasting everyone's time...And when this is all said and done, he will be so lucky to get any kind of a job...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 1:13 PM

In this society, you either know how to bark or you are rich and powerful and you can hire someone to bark for you, or you have been to the prison and have a gun in your hand and have nothing to lose, for the rest, you can only depend on the judges and juries with good conscience

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 1:17 PM

Who is picking up the tab for this farce? Wait.Let me guess. The taxpayers. Doesn't anyone have anyway to stop this travesty?

Posted by: mary carroll | June 14, 2007 1:24 PM

Where is the judicial review board in all of this? Clearly Pearson does not think rationally or reasonably as he has testified. So why should anyone expect rational and reasonable decisions to be handed down when he's presiding over court cases before him? This guy doesn't belong on the bench and should be removed.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 1:29 PM

Serious legal question, partially answered by the previous poster: Can this psycho be punished for this? The more I read about his behavior, and how he's not only clogging the courts, wasting the taxpayer's money, but also clearly freaking insane, isn't there someway to at least get him off the bench, and even better, have him somehow legally punished for wasting everybody's time an resources? I mean, I know we're the country of frivolous lawsuits, and we're all going to have to walk around in little plastic bubbles within ten years because of it, but good lord, there has to be a limit somewhere...

Posted by: Nate | June 14, 2007 1:35 PM

The Chung family should file a nuisance counter suite for emotional pain and suffering. They should argue legal abuse. Maybe they should should file a civil rights suite against the D.C. court system as well, for entertaining just a ridiculous case! Maybe they shoud ask the U.S. attorney for civil rights investigation.
Oh the need for tort reform!
No wonder buinsess does not like D.C!

Posted by: Peter Roach | June 14, 2007 1:45 PM

"Pearson reiterated his argument that these are not his pants, but rather belong to some poor pantsless soul out there somewhere in Washington." The "poor pantsless soul out there somewhere in Washington" is ROY PEARSON.

Posted by: J | June 14, 2007 1:51 PM

Wow, when the dry cleaners tried to give Pearson the wrong pants, it seems they almost got into fisticuffs!

Posted by: Kate | June 14, 2007 1:55 PM

Pearson should be locked up merely for being a moron. They should make HIM pay $54 million for being such a jerk. Geez.

Posted by: Frank | June 14, 2007 1:56 PM

It's pathetic how far some people will go to get their 15 minutes of fame.

Posted by: Doug | June 14, 2007 1:57 PM

Someone shold clue in Pearson's ex to sue him for at least $54 million because Pearson violated the implied Guarantee of Satisfaction in their marriage.

Posted by: Mister Methane | June 14, 2007 2:18 PM

I've worked in retail and other service positions, and here are some instances when the customer is wrong:

1. Presenting a receipt at return - for a $5 lotion, when she's returning a $100 gift set.

2. Getting into a fistfight over the last bottle of perfume in the store, then threatening me because we ran out on Christmas Eve.

3. Continually using the single-occupant bathroom in a restaurant with the door WIDE OPEN, then threatening to sue and unleashing a profanity-laced tirade when asked to close the door.

Those are just three I've run into personally. I'm sure we can come up with others.

In Mr. Pearson's world, I should have: knowingly given someone $100 back for trying to return a stolen gift set; accepted the punch on the jaw I was clearly due; and dealt with that man's privates being exposed to everyone in the restaurant without complaint. The customer is right, even when he's wrong? Delusional!

Posted by: bamagirlinVA | June 14, 2007 2:18 PM

Does anyone know Pearson's address? Wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of donating their unwanted pants to the Salvation Army, people instead sent them to Roy Pearson?

Posted by: Mister Methane | June 14, 2007 2:20 PM

It's not about Pants!
It IS about principle.
A Capitol gain.

Posted by: Pants Haiku | June 14, 2007 2:22 PM

If you have a problem with DC consumer law and the way it's written, you go to the authority that interprets and makes the law...hmmm, that would be through ADMINISTRATIVE procedures.

Posted by: JerZ | June 14, 2007 2:29 PM

If you have a problem with DC consumer law and the way it's written, you go to the authority that interprets and makes the law...hmmm, that would be through ADMINISTRATIVE procedures.

Posted by: JerZ | June 14, 2007 2:30 PM

Does someone have Pearson's picture. I want to see that jerk's face

Posted by: Billy | June 14, 2007 2:33 PM

In a way, such cases are cathartic, useful for society, because we all have a little Roy Pearson in us.

We should all learn from this gross magnification of the cruelty that overcomes people when they are dealing with trivialities, although I doubt that will happen.

Posted by: bkp | June 14, 2007 2:34 PM

This case should be about the PANT and NOT about race... but I cannot help but wonder where are the honorable Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to help the weaker side?

If this case is about a white customor to sue a black business, they will probably both showing up in front of the courthouse to proclaim how injustice had occurred. Same thing to racial comments recently. They stood up to racist comments from white journalists to black citizens but kept quiet when black radio jockeys made similar racial comments to Asian communities in New York.

The honorable Reverends, where are you now?

Posted by: Where are the Reverends? | June 14, 2007 2:43 PM

I agree with Mister Methane, we should all donate our pants to Pearson!

Posted by: What the heck?? | June 14, 2007 2:46 PM

I don't know where they are. Why don't you call the National Action Network and Operation PUSH and ask them?

Posted by: to 2:43 | June 14, 2007 2:47 PM

HA! Sharpton and Jackson will stay far, far away from this nutjob. Speaking of nutjobs, what ever happened to Keith Washington?

Posted by: curious | June 14, 2007 3:15 PM

I just called the Harlem office of National Action Network (Al Sharpton) at (212) 690-3070. The guy who answered the phone said Al has no reason to comment on this trial because it involves a private party. I reminded him that it involves a government employee expoiting the law. HE SAID NO MEDIA OUTLET HAS CONTACTED HIM FOR A COMMENT AND HE WOULD SURELY TAKE A STAND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER---so please---IF YOU REPORTERS DO READ THIS...CALL HIM OUT---let's see what he has to say...

Posted by: 333 | June 14, 2007 3:28 PM

If you want to see what this A-hole looks like, check out this link:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/nation_world/story.asp?ID=194781

It explains why Jesse "Hym!e Town" Jackson and Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton are nowhere to be found.

Posted by: Roy Pearson is a Freak | June 14, 2007 3:30 PM

curious, really? That didn't stop them from backing the Duke rape "victim." I knew she was wacko from the start...and Al and Jesse didn't apologize for what they did.

Posted by: al and jesse | June 14, 2007 3:38 PM

333 - I am panting in anticipation awaiting the good Reverend's comments.

Sorry.

Posted by: Sorry | June 14, 2007 3:39 PM

bkp. Roy Pearson is pure sociopath.

He is not a lesson for society, he is a maniac loose on the streets. I hope he doesn't own a gun.

Posted by: Bass Man | June 14, 2007 3:39 PM

This lawsuit has hit the media in the United Kingdom and they are laughing like hell.

Posted by: We're bozos | June 14, 2007 3:43 PM

I think in some really bizarre way, Pearson mistakenly thought people would rally around him as a hero for doing this. The events of the last few years have probably made him suicidal and mentally damaged in many ways. He thought this would be his moment of glory, not only making him rich but gaining the admiration of the community. It is evident that his mind is gone. I hope he ends up in jail or a mental hospital for his own safety. He is not fit to live with civilized people.

Posted by: Jonah | June 14, 2007 3:52 PM

We're bozos.

Yeah I imagine so.

They handle these cases very differently over there.

Posted by: Simon | June 14, 2007 3:54 PM

LOSER PAYS.

It works in Europe.

Wake up, America.

Posted by: Sanity | June 14, 2007 3:57 PM

Well, thanks to Pearson we're now going to have to sign waivers before we drop off dry cleaning. Actually for the Chungs, I would recommend that they have "problem customers" that they allow to return sign a waiver. Pearson's photo should go on a wall of shame in dry cleaners around the nation, and he should have to become familiar with that dryel home product.

By the way, I got caught in the rain tuesday night right after I'd picked up my dry cleaning. Despite the little plastic bags they got wet. I should demand a dozen free cleanings or replacement suits or sue, no? Oh wait, I'm always right, so I should also sue for the value of the suit I was wearing at the time. Because maybe I would've made it to the metro in time to miss the rain if I hadn't stopped to pick up my dry cleaning.

Posted by: eek | June 14, 2007 3:57 PM

Well, thanks to Pearson we're now going to have to sign waivers before we drop off dry cleaning. Actually for the Chungs, I would recommend that they have "problem customers" that they allow to return sign a waiver. Pearson's photo should go on a wall of shame in dry cleaners around the nation, and he should have to become familiar with that dryel home product.

By the way, I got caught in the rain tuesday night right after I'd picked up my dry cleaning. Despite the little plastic bags they got wet. I should demand a dozen free cleanings or replacement suits or sue, no? Oh wait, I'm always right, so I should also sue for the value of the suit I was wearing at the time. Because maybe I would've made it to the metro in time to miss the rain if I hadn't stopped to pick up my dry cleaning.

Posted by: eek | June 14, 2007 3:57 PM

We have become so accustomed to extortion through the legal system that we don't even realize it's extortion anymore. We've been numbed to the reality that these plaintiffs are just plain old crooks.

Posted by: Sandy | June 14, 2007 4:01 PM

I don't mean to pile on, but this case is asinine. I don't care whether Pearson technically has a colorable claim or whether there's some merit to his argument notiwthstanding the damages he seeks. He is clearly deranged, his alleged injury is specious at best, and he is grossly abusing the law to gain an unfair advantage over a relatively blameless defendant. The law is not being honored in this instance. No reasonable judge should have ever let this claim see the light of day - that's why we have judges, not automatons, managing our litigation. Why should the Chungs be forced to shoulder the burden of dealing with this man? That cost should be transferred to the court system, via appeals that can drag out for years at minimal cost to any institution besides the judiciary that allowed this case to proceed in the first place. The Chungs should not be martyred in some absurd deference to the "rule of law," when the rule of law is being so perverted here.

Posted by: Andy | June 14, 2007 4:15 PM

What an a**.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 4:34 PM

Is this address near Chungs dry cleaners?

Posted by: Question | June 14, 2007 4:39 PM

Look, the woman's name is Soo Chung. Pearson's so stupid, he probably thought it was a directive.

Posted by: Leedsichthys | June 14, 2007 4:42 PM

The only bench he should be sitting on is the one in county jail.

Posted by: Doug | June 14, 2007 5:28 PM

so lemme get this straight: Pearson had no job for 2 years and got unemployment payments, was so maxed out on his credit cards that the drycleaners couldn't even charge him, and yet he owns SIXTY pairs of pants?

Most likely these are all expensive designer pants as well.

Posted by: Pearson is a crook | June 14, 2007 6:22 PM

And, if he loses the suit (sorry, but no pun intended), can we expect he will appeal the decision and try to go to a higher court?

Posted by: Dungarees | June 14, 2007 7:54 PM

This story has now hit the South African media. No word on wether they or laughing or not. But, they probably are. Why do people like Pearson make us look so foolish? Better question is: Why do we allow people like Pearson to make us look foolish? TORT REFORM!!!!

Posted by: Ringmaster | June 14, 2007 8:31 PM

Any truth to this???
Little research on Pearson from the web reveals

http://www.shoutpost.com/read/witqueen/9684/suing-your-way-to-the-american-dream

Accusations of Corruption

In 2004 Mr. Pearson was accused of corruption for giving his son's girlfriend a city job - after which it was revealed Mr. Pearson was actually sleeping with his son's girlfriend on regular occasion. During his tenure as an administrative judge for Washington DC he was accused of smoking crack cocaine in the courthouse washroom, an accusation supported by camera video that later went "missing" from the evidence room Mr. Pearson had access to himself.


Posted by: hmmm | June 14, 2007 10:11 PM

DC Government employee. How surprising. DC Government- third world government.

Posted by: smokeclearing | June 14, 2007 10:34 PM

do you think he will now file for disability, emotional stress related. then he can continue to focus on finding his pants.

Posted by: show me the money | June 14, 2007 10:45 PM

do you think he will now file for disability, emotional stress related. then he can continue to focus on finding his pants.

Posted by: show me the money | June 14, 2007 10:45 PM

For anyone who's interested, you can help the Chungs offset some of their legal costs from this frivolous lawsuit:
http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/

Posted by: M | June 15, 2007 12:49 AM

I wonder if Pearson and Marion Barry buys from the same dealer.

Posted by: MD | June 15, 2007 8:03 AM

Someone previously wrote "I think in some really bizarre way, Pearson mistakenly thought people would rally around him as a hero for doing this..."

Nah. This guy is just an opportunist bully with a law degree, which is just about the most dangerous type of human being (and I use that term loosely) you can cross paths with in the U.S. I'm sure Mr. Pearson plans on losing until he wins by
1. Appealing every time he loses, thus bankrupting the Chung family one way or another. After all, he's representing himself, so he has no legal fees.
2. Counting on the fact that judges in D.C. (and Virginia from my experience) don't have the guts to throw a ridiculous case out of court.

Posted by: calvinnme | June 15, 2007 12:13 PM

cc aka rl aka TDS aka "a citizen" aka Pearson:

Where are you? Have you given up on trying to change the prevailing view of this forum (that you're a babbling, morally and financially bankrupt, abusive, arrogant piece of garbage)?

How does it feel to be on the receiving end? You set out to destroy a hard-working family and it ends with you being a world-wide laughing stock. Wait, it gets better. It's almost certain (according to news reports) you are about to be fired. There's more - there's an excellent chance that your ass gonna pay court cost (and possibly damages to the people you set out to destroy. Last but not least, you creditors are at your door step. Poetic justice that's what it is.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 15, 2007 2:34 PM

Posted by: calvinnme Right you are bud. He will appeal every decision and force this small company to retreat to China. He knows what he is doing I hope. This case reminds me of Mike Tyson and Robyn Givens. I beleive that there are few things worse than a cruel woman and perhaps Mr. Pearson would agree with me. Hopefully he will relent in his decision to pursue this lawsuit. However, he may not have a choice but to pursue this case and win it. It's either he wins and makes a name as a good trial lawyer or he loses and pursues another degree and career. Think about it, who wouldn't want Mr. Pearson to represent him/her if he wins a case like this. He will certainly be as famous as the late Johnnie Cochran.

Posted by: Fnkydawg | June 15, 2007 4:06 PM

Is it possible to sue Mr. Pearson in small claims court for emotional pain I have suffered from reading this article? I would gladly pay 65.00 to sue him.

Posted by: Hank | June 15, 2007 4:06 PM

Does the Washington Post carry any slogans or sayings geared towards the reader?

If so, I might like to sue them for $57 million in opposition to said slogan or saying. Please let me know.

Posted by: Phil of Playaz Ball | June 15, 2007 4:11 PM

If the Chungs keep the pants I hope they put them up on ebay. Now that would be a greta auction: Looney Toons Pantaloons --no reserve

Posted by: Anonymous | June 15, 2007 5:01 PM

Pearson's very whack,
He must be smoking crack,
He looks like clown,
And he's going down,
But most likey he will be back.

Posted by: 33 cent bullet | June 15, 2007 8:39 PM

Mr. Pearson, I bet you now that you exposed yourself to the world that no dry cleaner store will ever accept any pants from you because of how mean spirited, greedy, covetous, fraud you are. How can you sleep at night. I bet when you received the first $150 damage you received from Custom, you thought of getting easy money from Asians. You think, you get away with $150 the first time and since you are a judge, you thought you can get away with $54 million the second time. Eh, wrong, even if you have the all the money in the whole wide world, you still lose, because your soul will be separated from God. Vengeane is mine, say the Lord God Almighty. You better repent, learn to forgive and forget, so you can be forgiven too. It's a SHAME that you are judge. I hope all the voters in your city will file a petition or recall you and get you out of job, because you are a not a judge, you are problem and not a solution for this country.

Posted by: faith | June 16, 2007 1:39 AM

Mr. Pearson, I bet you now that you exposed yourself to the world that no dry cleaner store will ever accept any pants from you because of how mean spirited, greedy, covetous, fraud you are. How can you sleep at night. I bet when you received the first $150 damage you received from Custom, you thought of getting easy money from Asians. You think, you get away with $150 the first time and since you are a judge, you thought you can get away with $54 million the second time. Eh, wrong, even if you have all the money in the whole wide world, you still lose, because your soul will be separated from God. Vengeance is mine, say the Lord God Almighty. You better repent, learn to forgive and forget, so you can be forgiven too. It's a SHAME that you are judge. I hope all the voters in your city will file a petition or recall you and get you out of job, because you are a not a judge, you are problem and not a solution for this country.

Posted by: faith | June 16, 2007 1:41 AM

yeah, where IS cc? come back! he was really amusing...

Posted by: i'm sleepy | June 16, 2007 5:24 AM

some how the District has been hidden sa the laughing stock it is. The commission handling the hospitals was one fine example until now. when you have an overly self important Fool becoming more of a fool.
Too much to waste time on

Posted by: away from DC | June 16, 2007 9:15 AM

it is ludicrous that someone with this man's judgement is sitting on a bench. would you want this irrational person overseeing your trial? kick him off now. we are falling behind the rest of the world in manufacturing because we have too many lawyers creating stupid law suits so companies are leaving our country and who can really blame them with examples like this actually being heard in court.

Posted by: bob | June 16, 2007 10:57 AM

I would like to see Judge Bartnoff submit her own request to the bar association to investigate this man.

Posted by: Cass | June 16, 2007 1:56 PM

The voters in the city aren't going to file a petition. They're too lazy.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 16, 2007 5:44 PM

RE: The notion that "the customer is always right". The term "customer" is NOT a synonym for litigant, or any of the following which often claim customer status: Thieves, robbers, shop-lifters, vagrant loiterers, pan-handlers. The principle qualities of a customer is a person who "reasonably and CUSTOMARILY" interacts with the business in a professional exchange to mutual benefit. Clearly the plaintiff in this case doesn't meet that criteria.

Posted by: Kenneth Fisher | June 16, 2007 7:45 PM

Why did not the dry cleaner's lawyers file a simple motion VERY early on and have this dismissed? Surely this frivolity would have been, even in DC. To have let this go on and charge to defend is malpractice, if this is indeed what is afoot. Courts do not deal in trifles.

There's some hidden agenda here...possibly creation of more outrageous lore for the fabricated "tort crisis/need for reform" business financed spin doctors???? Follow the money.

Posted by: real lawyer | June 18, 2007 9:55 AM

I think 'real lawyer' may be onto something. I hope so, because I cannot wrap my mind around a legitimate judge allowing this to go to trial.

Who would have thought being an idiot would be a qay to prosper in America?

Posted by: Harris | June 18, 2007 5:37 PM

Got psych eval?
they make police take them, you'd think it was mandatory for a guy who will carry a gavel.

Posted by: Tio Sam | June 18, 2007 6:48 PM

It would be interesting to find out what type of treatment your readers experience when they visit, for example, Globe Cleaners on MLK Avenue, S.E. Some of the owners of the subject businesses have no respect at all for other people of color. They are insulting, and downright nasty. If they ruin your yellow clothing, by cleaning it with navy blue police uniforms, they blame you for the resulting stains.

Posted by: Savoy | June 19, 2007 12:40 PM

People like Pearson exist everywhere. They are there to exploit people who are naive about how the law works. Their decisionmaking process is not based on right or wrong, it is based on what what they think they can get.

Unfortunately, part of the Asian culture is about shame, and Pearson is one of many who gleefully plays into this. A question for the legal mavens that may read this: isn't there some sort of code of conduct that prevents such abuse? What does the ABA have to say about one of its members?

Posted by: Brian Hayashi | June 19, 2007 2:32 PM

The following link has a photo of R. Pearson


http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/06/roy_l_pearson_update.html

Posted by: Dave | June 19, 2007 9:01 PM

Your country is lost.
No Taliban could do as much damage to you as you do to yourself.
LOL for the rest of the world.
The never ending rednose day live in your living room.

Posted by: Jeroen, from the Netherlands | June 22, 2007 2:39 AM

Another good reason not to go the USA for a holiday.

Posted by: No name, The Netherlands | June 22, 2007 4:09 AM

well, where's the promised verdict? I believe the Washington Post is keeping it secret from us

Posted by: pentrix2 | June 23, 2007 7:59 AM

How hard is it to believe that Pearson may be making a calculated PR statement? The real point in this dialog should not be that Pearson is a pant-hugging maniac, but that previous to court, lawsuits should have a common-sense review process.

Pearson surely knew that the Chungs, would end up getting millions from the media, from good-hearted-people sending them money and from the forthcoming book rights. It's a rags-to-riches story that made headlines. The Chung's Custom Cleaners will be the most popular cleaners in Washington. Counter lawsuits have just begun.

As fun as it is to scapegoat him, Pearson isn't the REAL problem. He's just focused our attention on it. Although I too would love to hate him too, I applaud the new dialog he started.

Posted by: Charles Tackett | June 25, 2007 1:18 PM

I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS STORY SINCE IT HIT THE NEWS. I AM SO HAPPY FOR THE CHUNGS AND PLEASE , PLEASE SOMEONE WHO IS IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM INVESTIGATE MR PEARSON. HE REALLY MAKES JUDICIAL DECISIONS?? I HAVE BEEN IN CUSTOMER SERVICE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS AND NOTHING SURPRISES ME. I HAVE SEEN IT AND HEARD IT ALL. SOME PEOPLE SURE KNOW HOW TO WORK THE SYSTEM. CONGRATULATIONS MR AND MRS CHUNG.

Posted by: pat b | June 25, 2007 4:26 PM

I need an address for the Chung's legal defense fund. I hope some Washington DC attorney steps up and offers their services pro-bono so the Chungs can sue the pants off of Roy Boy.

Posted by: Charles Mohr | June 25, 2007 4:30 PM

Charles,

I fully agree that scumbag Pearson should be sued for the evil he perpetuated. Unfortunately, he is morally, socially and financially bankrupt. Even if the Chungs sue and prevail, it's almost certain they collect nothing.

He has nothing (but insanity); not even a touch of dignity and self-respect! What he has is greed, arrogance and self-destruct ways.

He will pay for the rest of his pitiful life, tho not financially. He will continue to be the subject of scorns and ridicules for years to come. Hey Prickson, what goes around comes around!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 8:16 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company