Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

Pants Update: Trial Over, Verdict Next Week

The pants trial is over, and Judge Judith Bartnoff isn't ruling until next week--with a guy like Roy Pearson doing the suing, you don't want to rule verbally, but rather want to make certain that every I is dotted. But Bartnoff made her sense of the case quite clear in her final words from the bench tonight:

"It was a long two days," she said. Speaking of the D.C. consumer protection law that Pearson is relying on to argue that he deserves $54 million because Custom Cleaners allegedly lost a pair of his pants, Bartnoff said: "This is a very important statue to protect consumers. It's also very important that statutes like this are not misused."

Draw your own conclusions, but if I were Roy Pearson, I'd stop shopping for new pants and start searching instead for a new tailor.

More soon....

By Marc Fisher |  June 13, 2007; 5:48 PM ET
Previous: Pants Trial Day Two: We See The Pants | Next: Pants Extra: Inside the Courtroom

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



a ruling this simple is taking a week? someone's milking the publicity, methinks.

Posted by: geez | June 13, 2007 6:04 PM

Raw - your coverage sucked compared to yesterday's from your offbeat friend. No witty tags, too brief, just 2 updates?

Posted by: Joe Schmoe | June 13, 2007 6:07 PM

Pants versus Cleaners.
Testimony to sort.
"How does Pearson Pleat?"

Posted by: Pants Haiku-The Courts | June 13, 2007 6:09 PM

Who's going to dot a capital I?

Posted by: Darren | June 13, 2007 6:22 PM

i have to second joe schmoe's assessment. fisher was well placed to get the scoop for the WP, but failed. while the case is framed in many news orgs as a "quirky" item or as "offbeat" news (even by the WP), the international interest in this case points to the potentially larger seriousness of the outcome--further reinforced by the presiding judge's announcement that she will rule in writing next week. i bet lots of internet traffic went everywhere else when they couldn't get the goods here. WP, Marc: you missed the boat on this one.

Posted by: asha | June 13, 2007 6:30 PM

This coverage was truly horrible. Take a look at firedoglake.com and their coverage of the Scooter Libby trial as a blueprint the next time you want to live blog a trial.

Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2007 6:35 PM

Can we wait an entire week before our long national nightmare will be over?

But seriously: no one's milking the publicity. As Mr. Fisher pointed out, the judge's comments strongly suggest that the judge is going to write a thoroughly-researched opinion (i.e., a treatise on the history/purpose of the consumer-protection statute Mr. Pearson is suing under, and all the reasons Mr. Pearson doesn't/hasn't met its standards) in order to cut off all avenues of appeal, which will take some time (and I doubt this is the only case she's handling).

Posted by: daltongang13 | June 13, 2007 6:36 PM

Does anyone know whether Judge Pearson was recently extended in his job for 10 years? What irony here, and how sad for DC.

Posted by: Stacey | June 13, 2007 6:39 PM

Yesterday's coverage was indeed much better.

Posted by: GO-gurt | June 13, 2007 7:01 PM

Gotta agree. Your coverage is a waste of space. Have that style woman criticize their socks or something. That's all the Post is good for anymore.

Posted by: Crash | June 13, 2007 7:07 PM

Gotta agree. Your coverage is a waste of space. Have that style woman criticize their socks or something. That's all the Post is good for anymore.

Posted by: Crash | June 13, 2007 7:07 PM

Hey Joe.

Posted by: perhaps | June 13, 2007 7:07 PM

Does this mean I can sue every diner with a "World's Best Coffee" sign if I find another diner with better coffee somewhere in the world???

Posted by: Coffee Lover | June 13, 2007 7:14 PM

That's it. Didn't the defendants put on any witnesses at all? Yesterday had a fascinating description of the trial. Are we not to get similar detail about the defendants' case?

Posted by: photofan | June 13, 2007 7:21 PM

Perhaps and Joe, I love you both. Pants Haiku, too.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 7:27 PM

"Does anyone know whether Judge Pearson was recently extended in his job for 10 years? What irony here, and how sad for DC."

...how is this "sad"?

Look, he's getting exactly what the people in charge of DC want him to get. Regardless of the ridiculousness of his case, he's getting his day in court, regardless of the ridiculousness of the plaintiffs' claims, the defendant has to answer them, and to do so in a responsible manner, they have to pony up the legal fees and take time away from their business. This is exactly what they want, to show that the law comes first, last, and foremost, and that regardless of the shallowness of their claims, you had better take your customers seriously or they will sue you blind. I mean it does not hurt them at all that Pearson was able to act as his own lawyer and he is paid, basically, to prosecute this case. In the short term it's just another day at the office for him, the judge, the defense attorney...the only people who are getting screwed over by this are the Chungs. They are getting taken to the cleaners, but the cleaners are in DC Superior Court. That's how they want it to be and this is ultimately leaving so many people with a smile on their face for the wrong reasons. It's not *Pearson* that is the problem here, it's the court system, and Pearson is really just an icon for that problem. Take him away and there are a million other lawyers and judges just like him, in the system. Take this law away and ther are a million other arcane codes and the like, in the system. Takea way the lawsuit for $54M over a pair of pants and a "misleading sign" and you have an entire country where billions are spent each year arguing cases in court much like this over much more obscure points, and millions of people who make a living doing just this same thing.

Who pays for it all?

We all do.

But, again, that is the System in which we all live. You point your fingers at Pearson and say that he is the problem. He is just a cog in the machine. That same machine is what even enables you to even comment on this case. You might as well point your fingers at yourselves, for one, for simply pointing and laughing at this case, and doing nothing more about it.

It's not just this one case in this one court it is the hundreds of thousands of cases like this in the hundreds of courtrooms all across the US, every day. Or do you think they are all meaty criminal and civil cases with a clear bad and good side, that all deserve to be heard, in fact cry out for a trial? Hell, no. A lot of them turn on very arcane and twisted points of law, which have very dire consequences for the defendants...many of whom have already had to pony up for their legal defense. In other words they are on the plank ready to lose twice.


If there is anything that comes out of this story, it is a sign that regardless of particulars of the case, once it is filed, it must be taken seriously. And that in and of itself is essentially a punishment for at least the defendant, and often for the plaintiff as well. But otherwise we would not have the system by which we all live, right now.

I guess that in the long run what I am saying is that we simply cannot tolerate incompetent politicians who put incompetent judges on the bench, and write inane, nonsensical laws. But...drum roll, please...we've had 6+ years of that, just with this current President...and until that pattern changes, this will only get worse. This woman, is she incompetent for allowing this case to go on for so long? Or is it the law that is the problem? Or maybe both? But what if both are beyond reproach, what then? What if the guy actually has a case, under the law, but not necessarily a $54M case? What if it's a $54k case?

How many of you people are going to laugh at this if he wins a multi-thousand dollar decision, maybe a $20k decision? Then you will say that it is a shame that he had to spend so much of his time and energy to prepare his case? That he made a poor choice in bringing it to court simply because it wasn't worth much more than they offered to settle?

...forget the amount that he is asking for. Then, what?

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 7:33 PM

"Does this mean I can sue every diner with a "World's Best Coffee" sign if I find another diner with better coffee somewhere in the world???"

...I would guess that if you can conclusively prove that it is not the worlds' best coffee, yes.

And any business owner dumb enough to have that on a sign in their place of business, would deserve to be sued. What I don't get about this, so far, is why are they so eager to make excuses a businessman who does something like this? If someone has a sign in their store that says "same day service" then, to me, that means I will get same day service. Not, "it's available on request". If we have to argue about what that sign means, then it is no wonder that this case is even being taken seriously. How could they not take *any* case seriously? Someone could always misunderstand a sign. We really do need to resolve these issues in a court of law! :) Every possible interpretation of every possible sign needs to be dealt with in court!

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 7:41 PM

before everyone rips fisher a new one - off beat did cover the trial today. Go read it.

Posted by: Katie | June 13, 2007 7:45 PM

A poster was waiting for somebody to blame this lawsuit on Bush. Thank you CC. And that you for pointing out that frivolous lawsuits have only been going on for 6+ years...and that they're only going to get worse. Hahahaha. Now I can go home smiling! Thank you CC!!!

Posted by: To Much | June 13, 2007 7:51 PM

...I did not blame it on Bush, I blamed it on lousy politicians, in general. And the people who elect them. Since politicians like Bush both write the law and appoint the judges who decide cases. Likewise, I did not point out that frivolous lawsuits have only been going on for 6+ years...I said that we have had at least 6+ years of poor political work that lead to such lawsuits.

We've also had 6+ years of ridiculous commentary arising from poor reading comprehension coupled with the general desire to be heard above and beyond a persons' ability to formulate an intelligent comment.


Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 7:58 PM

...I mean, I hardly blamed this case on Bush, where did you get that from? Your entire comment was stupid.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 8:01 PM

...I just think that if you disregard the amount he is asking for, and disregard the personal behavior that he displayed in bringing the case, and focus on the merits of the case and on the law, you just might find that he actually has a decent case, well worth a hearing in court. For one thing, they didn't offer him $12k to settle it for no good reason. However if it is not a decent case then blame that on the the people who wrote the law and/or the people who appointed this judge to the bench. The guy might be a bad lawyer, but surely he knows the law. It is not wise to laugh at an administrative law judge, with regards to his feelings about whether a case is worthy of a trial, based on the law. If you think that his claim is ridiculous then you need to take a close look at the law, as well as the judges who decide on the law, and that again, comes down to the politicians who wrote the law, and who put this judge on the bench.
Politicians who were elected through a supposedly democratic process. If you feel that this case makes a mockery of the city, then realize that this case has come to be because of the American system as a whole and the voter plays a very large part in that system.

Supposedly.


Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 8:10 PM

*I guess that in the long run what I am saying is that we simply cannot tolerate incompetent politicians who put incompetent judges on the bench, and write inane, nonsensical laws. But...drum roll, please...we've had 6+ years of that, just with this current President...and until that pattern changes, this will only get worse. This woman, is she incompetent for allowing this case to go on for so long? Or is it the law that is the problem? Or maybe both? But what if both are beyond reproach, what then? What if the guy actually has a case, under the law, but not necessarily a $54M case? What if it's a $54k case?*

There hasn't been a decision handed down yet. Calm down buddy! Take deep slow breaths.

Posted by: Sue | June 13, 2007 8:11 PM

...to avoid further misinterpretation of my comments...either this case represents the public will, or it doesn't. But in either case it is possible that this could happen to you too, especially if you run a business in which you make promises that you can't or won't keep.

You, too, could find yourself getting sued...whether it is for a ridiculous,supposedly-unjustifiable amount of money, or not, is secondary. But the presumption is that if the suit makes it to the 2nd day of trial, certainly if it makes it to decision, it is not an unjustifiable suit. No pun intended.

So, somewhere between the law and the suit, the public will was either maintained, or lost...in the first case, the public apparently wants this sort of thing to happen, in this sort of situation, and in the second case, the guy is getting screwed over regardless of whether the public wants this or not. But in no case is all this harping on WP going to change either the law, or the judicial makeup of the courts. They're not going to deny this guy a second 10 year term because this case sounds ridiculous to the layman. And if it sounded ridiculous to the judge, she would have thrown it out. As a reader you should stop laughing at this case (or harping over the quality of the coverage) and take it very seriously.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 8:19 PM

A business owner "dumb enough" to hang a "World's Best Coffee" sign "deserves to be sued"? Are you kidding me? How about a consumer dumb enough to believe it actually is the world's best coffee? Can I sue them for being an idiot?

Now, I could understand this Pearson guy suing for the value of the pants. But $54 million dollars? Seriously? That's ridiculous. Maybe the law itself technically allows for this, but the guy's still a douchebag for abusing it and taking what could have been a meritorious claim and making a mockery out of the legal system. I hope he loses and I hope there's a way he can get stuck with the Chung's legal fees and court costs.

Posted by: doodoo76 | June 13, 2007 8:29 PM

...last but not least, all of these cases come down to the opinion of the judge. No matter what the case is, no matter what the evidence is, no matter what the law is. As long as they are the presiding judge, they can do whatever they want to do, they can decide it whatever way they want to decide. You don't like their decision, your legal options are very limited. If you lose a case and you want to appeal the judges' decision, you have to find a judge, with overriding authority, who will agree with you and not defer to them. And that is generally not likely to happen, and even if it is likely to happen, your appeal still has to be formulated and processed. Even if you are dead right and they are dead wrong, you still have to deal with their system in their way. A system which in general is quite biased towards judges.

The point being that this judge could be even kookier than the plaintiff, but that is the last thing they want to deal with, as defendants. Even if her decision is completely off the wall, the last thing they want to have to do is appeal.

They should have bought him out of the case if there was *any* chance that they would lose. Now they are going to pay the price for even letting it come to court. He may not get $54M, but if he has a case at all, they're going to get hosed. For the simple reason that if the guy is an administrative law judge and thinks that he has a case so much that he goes through all this effort to bring it, why would you assume that he is wrong? The smart thing to do would have been to settle the case before trial. He may not be entirely right about the law or the implications of the law (and that's a long shot) but he could still be *partially* right and if so they are going to get hosed. They would have to be entirely free of culpability before they will be able to walk out of that courtroom without owing any money. And that judge would have to be clinically insane to bring a civil case that is only worth anything near that $12k offer.

I doubt that he is clinically insane.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 8:34 PM

cc wrote at 8:10:

"For one thing, they didn't offer him $12k to settle it for no good reason."


They offered Pearson a $12,000 settlement for two reasons: (1) In the event that Pearson accepted the offer, this would allow the Chungs to avoid incurring any additional attorneys' fees and court costs (which must have already well in excess of $12,000 even before trial and the actual trial prep, judging from the voluminous amount of needless and irrelevant discovery that Roy Pearson propounded); and (2) In the event that Pearson declined the offer, this would allow the Chungs to recover their costs (and possibly attorneys' fees) if and when the Chungs won at trial or if and when Pearson won at trial...but got a judgment of less than $12,000.

Thus, it was a strategic move and a cost-saving move. The settlement offer had nothing to do with the ludicrous idea that Pearson's damage claim or case has any merit. Don't make the mistake of thinking differently.

Also don't forget, cc, the dry cleaning store FOUND the stupid pair of pants (which probably had a true fair market value of less than 100 dollars). The pants were offered to Pearson, but he didn't want them. He wanted to destroy the Chung family and their business forever. And he wanted $67 million. Being the generous, jolly guy that he is, Pearson later reduced his demand to "only" $54 million. What a joke.

Posted by: Roy Pearson Is An Idiot | June 13, 2007 8:43 PM

"A business owner "dumb enough" to hang a "World's Best Coffee" sign "deserves to be sued"? Are you kidding me? How about a consumer dumb enough to believe it actually is the world's best coffee? Can I sue them for being an idiot?"

...while to the average person it would be patently false advertising, if you were dumb enough to *believe* it, why should you be able to sue them for your stupidity?

You *could* sue them for a deceptive claim. Absolutely. And, like I said, no businessman with even half a brain would put that sign up in their store.

But stupid people do bring and win claims all the time, mainly in the case of negligence. Where they should pay the price for their own stupidity...actually they do, they just want to get reimbursed for it...but if someone is negligent and in being negligent creates a harmful condition which creates a situation that is likely to result in harm, given a little stupidity on the part of the victim, then yes, that person is liable for that negligence. It depends on what is considered to be a reasonable expectation for someone in that situation. In this case it would be whether or not it is reasonable for this businessman to actually have "the worlds' best coffee". If that is a plausible claim. Well, plausibility rests on a number of factors...one of which is a persons' willingness to believe. But if you sell a product based on that claim (or with that claim hovering around the sale), that is a clear case of fraud.

If they have that sign in their store, someone will walk in and see it and believe it, and someone will buy their coffee based on that claim. Even if it is stupid to believe that claim. The individual case of stupidity is one thing...the established pattern of deception is another.
The victim might have been stupid enough to believe the deceptive claim but that hardly absolves the claimant of responsibility for making the deceptive claim in the first place.

Just like how walking down a dark alley at night does not mean that you are responsible for getting mugged and the mugger is not responsible for mugging you.

Nigerian 419 scams are criminal offenses, for that same reason. Even if you *are* stupid enough to fall for one, you still have a legal right to be recompensated, and the scammers are still breaking the law.

That is what this case is all about.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 8:46 PM

"Thus, it was a strategic move and a cost-saving move."

...of course it was.
Likewise it would be a "strategic and cost-saving move" to break off negotiations with him if you really thought the case had no merit, regardless of whatever he brought up in "discovery".

Let him bring his case, ignoring anything else that he has to say, once you have made that determination.

...the point being that it is the correct determination...

...if it is not, then that would be a mistake, and if you are not sure, then you have no choice but to deal with him in court, or raise your settlement offer.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 8:51 PM

"Also don't forget, cc, the dry cleaning store FOUND the stupid pair of pants..."

The pants are not the foundation of the case, the claim "satisfaction guaranteed" and DC business law, combined, are the foundation of the case.

If it was only about a pair of pants then surely he would have accepted a suit or three as settlement. I don't see how you could even think for a moment that this case is about the pants.

Also it is clear that he is not the only customer that has a case against the Chungs. And that is going to increase his settlement when he wins. They will either bolster his credibility or bolster his claim for damages. If not both.

I can clearly see the guys' case. And I can also see why he is bringing it. I don't see why the defense thinks that they have a case, in defense. And I have no idea why they let this stupid little case go to trial. Except, as you say, to help drain the Chungs' bank account. He may not win any substantial amount but that would only be because the judge will cut them some slack. So to speak. They should have cooperated with him a long time ago.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 9:00 PM

"The settlement offer had nothing to do with the ludicrous idea that Pearson's damage claim or case has any merit."

...the case would not have made it to decision if it did not have any merit at all, or if it were trivial.

" Don't make the mistake of thinking differently."

It's not my mistake, bud.

She is not going to dismiss his claim, at this point. Every day this case went to trial, every moment, every motion to dismiss that was denied, moved them closer and closer to losing. At this point they have lost. The question is merely how much they will have to pay.

She will have to rule on the monetary value associated with their fraud, then decide how much he should get in compensation.

Again, I don't know why so many people think that this guy doesn't know what he is talking about. It may sound like a crazy claim, but this guy is almost certainly not crazy. He may not be completely right, but he is almost certainly not completely wrong.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 9:07 PM

Soon is when - a week from next Tuesday?

Posted by: Rob Iola | June 13, 2007 9:10 PM

"cc," you are obviously another incarnation of "RL." Please afford yourself a modicum of integrity (I know it's difficult at this point) and post under your real name: Roy L. Pearson.
And don't forget to sign in next week to lambast the judge's decision.

Posted by: tv | June 13, 2007 9:15 PM

" It took more than 10 minutes and numerous attempts by both Manning and Judge Judith Bartnoff to get Pearson to answer a question about whether anyone has the right to walk into any cleaners and claim $1,150 simply by saying that their suit had been lost. Finally, Pearson said that the law requires that "The merchant would have an obligation to honor their demand."

"So your answer is Yes?" Manning asked.

"Yes," Pearson said.

The courtroom, in which it's hard to discern any support for Pearson except from his mother and her friend, broke up in laughter. Derisive laughter."

See, but they are laughing in ignorance of the fact that fundamentally he is right. He is merely saying it in an incomplete way. A person in this situation would have to justify their claim, by presenting their ticket, and if they lost the clothing, the customer would indeed have a claim that should be honored.

...they may laugh about this, but he is entirely right.

The question is why would anyone in the audience think that this is laughable?

Because they think that he could or would be lying, in making that claim? Pearson isn't even thinking about making the claim under false pretenses.

I think they are more likely to laugh at it because they know the average person in DC would be laughed out of the store, if they did this. But that is exactly what the consumer protection law is for!

It's a simple issue. If they lose his pants or a major component of his suit, they owe him for it. If they persist in denying his claim when his claim is valid, he can then charge them for every day that they deny his claim. They can't just stonewall his claim. I don't know how it got to $54 million, but you know, there has to be a lot more than $12k at stake here.

The additional issue of the "satisfaction guaranteed" sign is just another problem that they will have to deal with, in the decision. It is a deceitful claim *unless* the judge says something like "no reasonable person would expect that it means they will be guaranteed any form of satisfaction that they desire". But, getting his pants back, I think that's a very reasonable form of "satisfaction" to expect. Not getting them back, getting stonewalled for returning them, and then finally only after he files a suit, do the pants show up? By then, the damage is done.

I think that he will get so much per day for every day the pants were missing up until the point where the Chungs located his pants and offered them back to him. Or, up until the day they offered to buy him a new suit. The point between when they lost his pants and when they decided to compensate him for the pants, they are going to pay for.

Then if they countersue, for a frivolous claim, that's a different story. But still again if his case is based on a misunderstanding of the law, he's safe from that. And again, he is an expert on this law!

If the case was appealed, he is the kind of judge that would hear the appeal!

It would be almost impossible to prove that it was a fraudulent claim brought knowingly before the court, especially after the court has taken it to decision.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 9:21 PM

cc,

I have a strong feeling that you are that RL character (who claimed to be a Harvard Law Grad. Evidently, you (or should I say RL Pearson?) are hoping against hope that Pearson gets lucky and receives a favorable ruling.

The likes of Pearson are not despicable but they "steal" from consumers. Ever wander why the costs of insurances, goods and other services are so exorbitant?

Posted by: a consumer | June 13, 2007 9:30 PM

If you leave your wallet on your desk at work, and some guy takes $5 from it, and you have incontrovertible proof that he took it, and you confront him and denies the theft and continues to deny it, how long does he get to keep on denying the theft before it is just too late for him to admit it and offer your $5 back?

This is not about the pants. It is about the fact that they did not offer to compensate him for the missing pants soon enough, with, unfortunately, the law backing him up. It got to the point where getting the pants back wasn't enough, where, as you say, a $12k settlement made sense. But that was, yet again, too little, too late. Plus I believe that he is also claiming that he had to find a new cleaners because he couldn't trust them anymore, and he is charging them for having to drive across town, out of his way, to a new cleaners...and the fact is, he's not the only one of their customers who had to do that.

And I mean, that also has some validity to it, because if you were getting screwed over by your neighborhood grocer partially because he knew that he was the only grocer around and you had to either do business with him or pay a lot of money to shop elsewhere or starve, wouldn't that increase his leverage?

That's a classic exploitation mechanism. Gas gouging, in general, would not be a problem if people could actually afford to shop around for gas. The free market would solve that. But when you are out of gas and you need gas, you don't have gas to go down the street or across town to another gas station with cheaper gas. Sure, some people do, but a lot don't. They're captive customers. Pearson is making this same claim.

This case is about a lot more than a pair of pants.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 9:34 PM

"The likes of Pearson are not despicable but they "steal" from consumers. Ever wander why the costs of insurances, goods and other services are so exorbitant?"

...because of lawyers.

But we would not have our current society without lawyers.

Because without lawyers we could not trust members of our society to obey the law, or to act in a civilly-responsible manner.

We all pay for that.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 9:37 PM

Keep hoping, cc (or should I say Pearson)! It looks like you are trying to convince yourself that the idiotic suit has hopes of winning.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 9:40 PM

Actually that's not true. I spoke too quickly.

It's as much of a product of our judicial system as anything else.

And this is a good example. Instead of settling the case, they both insisted, in their own way, that it come to court. At that point lawyers became indispensable. If they had both been smart, and if Pearson had anywhere near as much to lose as he was claiming, which would be the case if the law was appropriate for this case, they *would* have settled it out of court.

The problem being that the law is a punitive law as much as a defensive law, that is, in terms of its defense of the consumer. But knowing the law is the Chungs' responsibility and by operating a business in DC they have pledged to abide by DC law. They brought this on themselves, and Pearson has every right to make this claim, and, clearly, the claim is legitimate.

Now it's just a question of exactly what part of his claim is legitimate and how much it is worth.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 9:43 PM

cc, please look up "puffery" in any legal encyclopedia, or in Wikipedia, for that matter.

When an advertising claim is purely subjective and obviously impossible to verify -- "world's greatest ice cream", "the #1 widget dealer", etc. -- then it is puffery. "World's greatest" and "#1" are inherently vague, subjective terms; nobody would reasonably rely on a statement like that, at least not without asking more questions -- "world's greatest" according to whom? "#1" according to what criteria?

Puffery like this is almost never considered false or deceptive advertising. In order to be considered false or deceptive, a statement first has to have a specific enough meaning that it can actually be determined to be true or false -- "we sell more widgets than anyone else in the state", "rated the best ice cream by Consumer Review", etc.

"Satisfaction guaranteed", without more, is either puffery or very close to it. It can't possibly mean that everyone walking out the door of the business will be 100% satisfied with their purchase; any reasonable reader would know that that's impossible. "Satisfaction guaranteed" needs more information in order to become something that can be reasonably relied on -- namely, 'or else what?' "Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" is specific enough to be actionable. "Satisfaction guaranteed" alone is probably not -- or if it is, it would probably only impose an obligation to make a commercially reasonable effort to satisfy the customer. Offering to replace or repair the item would usually be commercially reasonable. Offering a $12000 settlement for a lost pair of pants would be _insanely_ reasonable.

Posted by: Phaedrus | June 13, 2007 9:45 PM

"Keep hoping, cc (or should I say Pearson)! It looks like you are trying to convince yourself that the idiotic suit has hopes of winning."

...you should consider the implications of the fact that a) the suit made it to decision and b) it is a civil suit not a criminal case. It's very unlikely that he will lose, at this point. The question is much more, how much will he win.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 9:46 PM

As an attorney myself, I am appalled that this lawsuit was ever brought in the first place (and by a person supposedly trained in the law and who has pledged at his admissio to honor the profession of law and the justice system we work in) and that anyone would possibly think he might prevail. The presiding judge in this case is showing respect by allowing him to make his case, but she also has an obligation to follow the law and to protect the integrity of our not-perfect, but ordinarily near-perfect justice system.

Fearless prediction: the Chungs will prevail, the plaintiff will answer for his abuse of the discovery process, and, if the Chungs' attorney made a request for attroneys fees, they will be ordered to be paid in whole or part.

Posted by: Steve | June 13, 2007 9:47 PM

cc says..because of lawyers

Right! So how do lawyers "rip" us off? By representing greedy and often vindictive morons like Roy Pearson! If we have fewer Roy Pearsons, we have fewer litigations...fewer lawyers...less expensive insurances.... Not too difficult to understand, is it?

Posted by: a consumer | June 13, 2007 9:52 PM

""Satisfaction guaranteed", without more, is either puffery or very close to it. It can't possibly mean that everyone walking out the door of the business will be 100% satisfied with their purchase;"

...of course not...

" ... "Satisfaction guaranteed" alone is probably not -- or if it is, it would probably only impose an obligation to make a commercially reasonable effort to satisfy the customer."

...yes, and then you would have to determine what is "commercially reasonable" in this case...according to DC law...

"... Offering to replace or repair the item would usually be commercially reasonable. Offering a $12000 settlement for a lost pair of pants would be _insanely_ reasonable."

Ok but why would you even think that it would be a good idea to offer a $12,000 settlement?

He has a case.

We're going to have to see how much the judge thinks that he deserves, and why. But he definitely has a case.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 9:52 PM

Why offer a $12000 settlement over a lost pair of pants? Because, as this case demonstrates, you don't have to be right, or even reasonable, to have your case heard in court. And if you don't have the advantage of being a lawyer, it can cost you tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend even a meritless case. (There's a reason why one of the most important clauses in any insurance policy is the clause that specifies exactly when the insurance company has a duty to defend you in court.) If it's going to cost you, say, $30000 in legal fees to defend against the claim (with very little chance of being able to recover those fees even if you win), then offering the other side $12000 to make the case go away may be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, even if the case is clearly meritless.

You seem to think that the fact that the case hasn't been thrown out means that it must be reasonable. In the vast majority of cases, that's not the way it works. As long as the complaint puts forward a set of facts that, if true, would state some legal claim, the case will be allowed to proceed -- even if the facts alleged in the complaint are utterly untrue, even if the damages asked for are laughable. That's why defendants make $12000 settlement offers over lost pairs of pants.

Posted by: Phaedrus | June 13, 2007 10:02 PM

"When an advertising claim is purely subjective and obviously impossible to verify "

...but how would you know this.

Either as a customer or a businessman or a lawyer.

You would ask an expert in the field. And it is very likely that an expert in the field would come up with a reasonable way by which your coffee could be reasonably determined to be "the worlds' best", or not. Or at least, pretty damm close to it, functionably indistinguishable from "the worlds' best" in terms of coffee quality.

It is not unreasonable for at least *one* customer to assume that you have done that, since you have that sign in your place of business.

Your point could be taken if it were OBVIOUS that it were IMPOSSIBLE to verify. Not just clearly very difficult, or clearly requiring some effort.

And any lawyer would tell you not to make such a claim in the first place, without qualifiers.

...otherwise the claim would be meaningless "puffery" as you say, and why even put it up in the first place? It would be like saying that a weight is so heavy that to even claim that you can lift it is obviously "puffery"...idle boasting, simply for show. Yet still make that claim. Why do this? It then becomes part of the sale that you are making. Even if it *is* "puffery".

...I don't see that as a legitimate defense. You're making a claim in your business, it's not true, you want to say that it is so obviously not true that you should not be held to it? Then why are you making that claim in the first place, except to foster an illusion of quality? I don't see how that is not deceptive. Just say that you have good coffee and be done with it. Even that would imply a responsibility, right? If you sold crap coffee, even if you didn't make any claims about it, wouldn't someone still have a legitimate claim that it should be drinkable?

I don't see how that could not be considered to be false advertising.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 10:03 PM

You know, I think most of us realize that if Mr. Pearson (and he's just Mr. Pearson, not Judge Pearson in my book) loses the case like public opinion says he should, he'll just appeal, tying up more time in court and draining more of the Chungs' resources. And why not? He wouldn't have anything to lose other than the filing fee for an appeal in the DC Courts (what is that like $100?).

So, I say Judge Bartnoff should decide in his favor and award him a symbolic $1 in damages (plus the pants should be returned, which the cleaners are ready to do anyway). Appealing a verdict in your favor is a lot tougher than appealing a verdict against you. A symbolic $1 in damages would be worse than losing. Kind of like when USFL won its antitrust lawsuit against the NFL, but was awarded only $3 in damages. There wasn't a damn thing they could do after that verdict.

Posted by: Give him a dollar | June 13, 2007 10:06 PM

Listen, cc (RL Pearson?). We know you desperately want to believe that nutty Pearson gonna win. Be realistic; prepare for the guillotine!

Posted by: a consumer | June 13, 2007 10:06 PM

""World's greatest" and "#1" are inherently vague, subjective terms; nobody would reasonably rely on a statement like that, at least not without asking more questions -- "world's greatest" according to whom? "#1" according to what criteria?"

I completely disagree with this.
First, I would never make a characterization, a generalization, about what "nobody" would or would not do, reasonably or unreasonably, in this case, in such an analysis...

that's the whole issue...what is reasonable to one person is unreasonable to someone else...

the bottom line is that if you make a claim, in your business, you should back up that claim. In a reasonable way, to a reasonable degree, of course, but still.

To just say "hey, it's "puffery", you can't expect me to actually live up to that", is an empty statement. You can say that it is "puffery" or not, I still expect you to live up to it, if you say it.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 10:10 PM

cc,

Keep hoping and ranting! We understand the hopelessness of your situation. You are totally overwhelmed by the monster (the suit) that you have created.

Posted by: a consumer | June 13, 2007 10:17 PM

"

cc says..because of lawyers
(and I amended that, to say the judicial system itself, but I will go with this...)

"Right! So how do lawyers "rip" us off? By representing greedy and often vindictive morons like Roy Pearson! If we have fewer Roy Pearsons, we have fewer litigations...fewer lawyers...less expensive insurances.... Not too difficult to understand, is it?"

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

You can have 5,000 cases that pay out $1k apiece or 500 cases that pay out $5M apiece. If it was just $1k that you were looking at, most people would ignore the suit and pay up or just keep filing motions to delay until the plaintiff gave up the case. That is partially what this case is about. What I read in all the coverage is that there is a daily penalty for not settling the case to the (reasonable) satisfaction of the consumer. Which I would guess means that they have to make a reasonable offer to settle, sooner rather than later. I see that as how this got to a $12k settlement in the first place. So the issue becomes what kind of settlement is reasonable according to the judge, how soon this "reasonable" settlement must be offered, and what sort of choice does the consumer have in determining what is a reasonable settlement and when?

The settlement offered not only has to make a judge happy, but it has to make the consumer happy, within reason. In a reasonable timeframe. I think the Chungs got this wrong, badly. Then tried to buy their way out of the case, as it got close to trial. And Pearson stuck to his guns. And now they are up the proverbial creek.

As far as "abusing the discovery process" if what he "discovered" brought significant information to the trial to make his case, it isn't going to be seen as "abuse". Again he's going to get a *lot* of leeway in this. He's a lawyer working on his own case...an administrative law judge. This is what he does. To say that it is "abusive", I think, is going to be a problem, and, again, they could have made this argument in court.

If he was simply harassing them with all these legal filings, they would have had every right to ask for dismissal.

If there is any legitimacy to what he has done, there is nothing that the judge can do about it, much less to punish him for doing it.

And the guy is not just a lawyer, he's a judge.


Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 10:19 PM

...to "give him a dollar", if he wins, the compensation has to be in line with the claim. If he appeals, the appeal will also be considered on its merits, just like this case.

The real issue here is that you can see the damage that a competent lawyer can do with a case with even a shred of validity, especially one who is paid by the DC government. This guy obviously can think of nothing better to do with his time.

The system is designed to allow plaintiffs unfettered access to the courts, as long as they have a legitimate claim. Even if they can't file the claim themselves, there are plenty of lawyers around who will prepare their claim for them, if there is any merit to their claim...and especially if there is any cash or credit in the case.

The legal system in this country will absolutely hose you over...because it does not want to have to deal with you or your case. They see it as all perfectly justified if you are in the wrong, in any way, shape or form, to any degree. Because so many people get away with so much crap, here, for so long, that they see it as payback for all or at least some that you have done wrong over your life. And judges see it that way, too. They see it as their one chance to "get" you, and they will hose you. And the Chungs are getting a very expensive lesson in the American Way.

They simply should have settled this case a long time ago.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 10:28 PM

cc,

In a number of your posts, you claimed the fact that the Chungs offered settlements is proof that Pearson has a case. And now you says some defendants will settle for reasons other than being guilty. You are certainly a good jumping jack! You have not credibility, dude!

Posted by: a consumer | June 13, 2007 10:28 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061302033.html

This was a nice cut-and-paste job by Marc Fisher. Your reporting and writing on this story was pathetic at best. Kudos WaPo.

Posted by: Copy editor please | June 13, 2007 10:36 PM

...the people who steal from consumers, are the ones who use the legal system like a weapon against consumers. Or at least, as one weapon against consumers. This guy is a flea on the elephant that is the American legal system. Imagine that you are Donald Trump, and you are, literally, bankrupt, and you owe, literally, millions of dollars. Because it will cost so much money to recover that money, and because the people who loaned it to you have so much to lose in trying to recover it, and because indeed their best bet to recover it is to let you continue doing the very business in which you lost so much money, and because you need to be "presented" as a "successful real-estate tycoon" in order to do that business, the banks themselves are forced to prop you up even though you owe them millions of dollars.

In other words you can't fail as long as there is a chance that you might succeed and they need you to succeed.

Imagine how many lawyers are making how much money off that simple fact that Donald Trump is one of the countrys' biggest deadbeats. A guy who earns a million for every million he loses in business. Who is paying for that, to sustain that lifestyle?

You are.

And so on, and so on, on down the road, until you get to the guy who can't afford a full-time lawyer on his staff. Then maybe you might get a decent, fair shot.

But it's not Pearson that's the problem. It's people like the Chungs. The people who can afford to offer a $12k settlement over a pair of pants. They may not be able to do it with a snap of their fingers, but you or I, could we even consider doing that? I don't think so.

I don't have any sympathy for them. They've been running a dry-cleaning business for 20 years, in DC? They should know the law by now. They'll know it after this case is over.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 10:40 PM

CC,

The Chungs TRIED to settle case a long time ago. They offered a refund, a brand new suit and much much more. But it seems like Mr. Pearson wanted nothing less than $67 million until he reduced it to to $54 million (what a prince).

Oh and the Chungs did "wrong" and got away with "so much crap"? Save your energy for the likes of Microsoft, Sallie Mae or President Bush. The Chungs going bankrupt, closing their store and going back to Korea, is that what you want? Get real.

Posted by: Umm... | June 13, 2007 10:40 PM

cc=Pearson

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 10:43 PM

cc=Pearson

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 10:43 PM

This seals it, Northwestern and Georgetown are TTT law schools.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 10:47 PM

Pearson alias cc,

You are hopeless, beyond reason. Your comments seem to indicate you have twisted, tormented mind that's completely out off touch with reality. For your sake as well as that of society, get help quick!

Posted by: pissed | June 13, 2007 10:52 PM

"cc,

In a number of your posts, you claimed the fact that the Chungs offered settlements is proof that Pearson has a case. And now you says some defendants will settle for reasons other than being guilty. You are certainly a good jumping jack! You have not credibility, dude"

...how could I state the truth yet not be credible?

There are numerous angles to this story that say that Pearson has a case. Even so, it is true that defendants can and are intimidated into copping a plea, even when they are not guilty. These things are both true. How does that make me "not credible"?

For one (taking a narrow look at this question) the Chungs are facing a civil suit and defendants will plea in a criminal case. Even so the standard of proof is much lower in a civil case than in a criminal case, so if a defendant is likely to plea to avoid a conviction on a more serious charge (and the likelihood of a stiffer sentence) then surely a civil defendant would be likely to settle to avoid a larger award.

Someone here said that the Chungs offered to settle because it was advantageous to settle in case they won. I said that if they thought that Pearson had no case, they had no reason to settle at all.

Then there is the additional point that if they think that the case is worth $12k to settle, they should have offered that a lot sooner and then he might have actually taken it. Of course he might not have taken it, but still. The sooner you make an offer to settle, the better, especially when every day is going to cost you money if you lose. You want to offer a settlement that is, as someone else said, clearly more than reasonable, given the situation. Again, that $12k settlement offer says a *lot* about this case.

It's not about the money and it's not about the pants. It's about what they should have done long ago but didn't, and how long they waited to even begin to settle it, and what kind of offer they came back with when they decided to take the guy seriously. It's like stopping a runaway freight train. The faster that train gets going, the harder it is to stop.

What Pearson is doing is saying that the train is hypersonic...in response people are saying that it is a toy train. Neither side is correct, but ultimately they are going to pay more than $12k.

It would have to be a *lot* more than $12k to justify this case. Orders of magnitude higher than $12k.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 10:54 PM

"

CC,

The Chungs TRIED to settle case a long time ago. They offered a refund, a brand new suit and much much more. But it seems like Mr. Pearson wanted nothing less than $67 million until he reduced it to to $54 million (what a prince)."

It totally depends on what time they made the offer. If they made a reasonable offer at a reasonable time, then the judge will probably work with that number, work around it. If they came up with it after he filed his suit, they're in trouble.

"Oh and the Chungs did "wrong" and got away with "so much crap"? Save your energy for the likes of Microsoft, Sallie Mae or President Bush. The Chungs going bankrupt, closing their store and going back to Korea, is that what you want? Get real."

That's not the issue here, and that's not the question. What *I* want is irrelevant, here. Not only that, but they are already swinging in the wind, do you see?
Besides if the Chungs were Microsoft and he tried to pull this crap on them, Microsoft would have stopped at nothing to have him disbarred. If not committed to an insane asylum. They would have had the law retroactively changed.

But then again, MS is not in the dry-cleaning business.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 10:59 PM

"Pearson alias cc,

You are hopeless, beyond reason. Your comments seem to indicate you have twisted, tormented mind that's completely out off touch with reality. For your sake as well as that of society, get help quick!"

If that is true then you have nothing to fear, for not only will I be ignored, but ridiculed as well, at best, and in the long run, I am doomed to suffer a cruel fate at my own hands, and the world will go on without me, laughing at my memory ;)

Indeed if that is true then exactly the opposite of what I say, will happen...and the Chungs have nothing to fear. Pearson will be laughed out of town, and indeed all of his decisions will be thrown out. And a good time will be had by all :)

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 11:03 PM

cc Pearson dude,

Clearly, you think you have an answer to everything (in your twisted way of reasoning ,off course). I have wasted enough time with you and after reading a number of your comments, you have utterly convinced me that you are a blind nut who only sees things the way you want to see them and no amount of reasoning by others will change your misguided view.

Cringe, Pearson! The guillotine awaits. You victimize one too many.

Posted by: a consumer | June 13, 2007 11:05 PM

cc=Pearson...your inability to seperate first and third person references give you away immediately. how does it feel to have the world hate you?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 11:08 PM

...you people all have to understand one thing. If he didn't have a case, if he didn't have a fairly legitimate claim for $65M or $54M or whatever, this would not even be in the news.

It would never have been accepted for civil hearing, it would never have been heard, it would never have made it to decision.

Each of those 3 steps validated his claim to at least *some* money. Some serious money. More than small-claims money.

Between $15M and $15k is a lot of zeros.

And the fact that he has brought all these other customers in as witnesses is going to weigh very heavily on their bank account. They are going to look at him well before the decision is actually issued and say "I wish that we had just handed you $10k the moment that you opened your mouth about those pants".

And that's exactly what the court wants.

They do not want to hear cases like this. And they are going to make sure that everyone who reads about this case remembers it.

Posted by: cc | June 13, 2007 11:14 PM

It's news-worthy because of its utter ridiculousness, not its "legitimacy." Catch a clue man.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 11:22 PM

Pearson, alias cc alias RL alias A##hole:

Get this into your mad mind - the main reasons why this case get some much coverage are
1. it's so ludicrous that people find it unbelievable and that makes good headlines
2. the amount is insane so people who or what Roy Pearson is.
3. special interest groups want to highlight how litigious our society is.

Don't falter yourself, Pearson, that this case has merit!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2007 11:24 PM

CC,

I'm not seeing your logic here at all...the Chungs did offer to settle a long time ago and they kept upping their settlement offer. Their larger and larger settlement offers are not necessarily indicative of them believing he had a case against them, it was a matter of paying the money to him or paying a lot more of it to their lawyers. It is for that reason that offers to settle a case are rarely admissible at trial because the legal system wants to encourage people to settle out of court, regardless of the cicrcumstances. Furthermore, are you even aware of the timing of the multiple settlement offers that were made? Because the Chungs were certainly being reasonable with him before he even filed a lawsuit. What's more, how could the Chungs control exactly when Pearson chose to file the suit? Doesn't really matter...I'm not going to convince you otherwise. I'm tired and I'm going to bed. I'll wait for the verdict next week. CC, I'll think of you the next time I get upset at my drycleaners or see a sign that says "satisfaction guaranteed." Maybe I can file a lawsuit and raise enough money to pay off my student loans or something.

Though you did stir things up on this board and make it a lot less one-sided. I commend you for that.

Posted by: Still not seeing your logic | June 13, 2007 11:26 PM

Roy Pearson (aka cc, aka RL) wrote:

"But it's not Pearson that's the problem. It's people like the Chungs. The people who can afford to offer a $12k settlement over a pair of pants. They may not be able to do it with a snap of their fingers, but you or I, could we even consider doing that? I don't think so."


Hey, Roy, last I checked online, your salary for being an ALJ was nearly 110K per year. And that's for being a government employee who no longer hears cases, but just does paperwork. Must be a nice life, getting a six-figure salary and clocking in at 9 a.m., making sure you take your full lunch breaks and mid-afternoon breaks, and then clocking out precisely at 5 p.m. (and not a minute more). Must give you a lot of time to think up mean and nasty things to do to immigrant families and small business owners for whom English is a second language.

So yes, based on your salary and the free time and energy you obviously have, I think you could probably cough up 12,000 dollars if you needed to. The Chungs, on the other hand, after you vindictively forced them to use up their entire life savings that they worked 70+ hours a week for on legal fees, probably would have to take out a loan on their business to pay you that $12,000 that you don't deserve. The Chungs aren't Microsoft. They aren't GE. They're not IBM or General Motors. They are a freaking blue-collar immigrant family that had the guts to move to a new country where they didn't know the language or the customs and through blood, sweat, and tears and incredibly hard work tried to make it into the middle class. You, Roy, being the small-minded, weak, insecure, mean-spirited bully that you are, took that away from them.

Have you ever shown one-tenth of the Chungs' courage, first in coming to America and building a business through hard work, and then in facing up to a bully like you who has obviously been trying to use his own familiarity with the weaknesses of the legal system to his advantage? Accusing your ex-wife and her lawyer of all sorts of unfounded misdeeds doesn't count as courage. Neither does beating up on immigrant small business owners who are a different race than you. Neither does persuading your own son to lie for you on the witness stand count as courage. And definitely, puffing up your damage claim, lying about the value of your pants, lying about whether the pants in the courtroom are actually yours, and lying about rental cars and the unavailability of any other dry cleaners in the area...none of that counts as courage, either.

Why are you doing this, Roy? Think about it. Why are you self-destrucing like this in front of the world? Do you think this proves your manhood? It doesn't. Do you realize what a complete insufferable, colossal jackass you look like all over a pair of used, old pants?

Roy, you are a disgrace to the judiciary, the legal system, your community, and your family, and what's more, deep down (or maybe not so deep down), you know it. You might refuse to admit it here, but the fact that you are so intent on justifying your actions to a bunch of strangers on this forum tells me that you know you're a disgrace and are trying to salvage any shred of dignity you have. But this isn't the way to do it.

You embarrassed yourself by even filing the lawsuit, and your pride wouldn't let you drop it. Then, the whole lawsuit blew up in your face and went completely out of control when the media got ahold of it. But that was your own doing with your fantastic allegations, ridiculous discovery requests, unreasonable witness lists, and stupid, stupid damage claim. You even put your son up to testifying and lying on the stand for you. That is low, low, low. You called witnesses who were obviously senile and/or overtly racist against Asians, and you offered no apologies. Unbelievable. You managed to take attention off of the Paris Hilton imprisonment, which is pretty amazing since even the resignation of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff couldn't knock her off the news. Your reputation is ruined, and you are the laughingstock of not only America, but the world. That must weigh heavily upon you, but you have only yourself to blame.

Even now, though, you can't let it go. You are a pathetic, sad man, still posting here trying fruitlessly to persuade people to your lost, pitiful cause, even though it's nearly midnight in your time zone after the close of trial. So sad. I hope no one I care about ever has to encounter someone as disgusting and contemptuous as you.

In the end, I am comforted knowing Judge Bartnoff is going to ream you, and the Chungs are going to get awarded their legal costs back. And with a little luck, you'll be disbarred (or at least suspended from the bar), and you'll lose your job and get no severance. We can only hope that such a righteous, perfect ending is in the cards. I hope you find some peace someday Roy, but really, I doubt that will ever happen.

Posted by: Roy Pearson Is An Idiot | June 13, 2007 11:36 PM

Roy Pearson Is An Idiot,

It goes without saying that most of us share your sentiment about the way Pearson has been abusing the Chungs. Hopefully, he puts his tail between his legs (after you set him straight) and he discontinues his smart-assed rambling here.

Posted by: disbar moron pearson | June 14, 2007 12:05 AM

"I'm not seeing your logic here at all...the Chungs did offer to settle a long time ago and they kept upping their settlement offer."

...the question is not how long ago they offered to settle. It is how much they offered to settle, and when they offered, combined.

It is one thing to say that they were trying to settle the case...the claim...another to say they were trying to settle the civil suit.

"Because the Chungs were certainly being reasonable with him before he even filed a lawsuit."

...there's no guarantee of that.

"What's more, how could the Chungs control exactly when Pearson chose to file the suit?"

Well, they could have settled his claim to his satisfaction before he chose to file a suit. Clearly they did not do that. But if they offered a reasonable settlement to the claim *before* he filed a suit, then surely the judge would take that into consideration. Like she said, the law wasn't written to give consumers a gun to hold to the heads of DC businessmen.

Of course they would have to have some kind of evidence, or enough credibility, to back up such a claim, to have made a reasonable offer to settle the claim. I mean if Pearson waited a long time to file his suit, that would be a factor, too.

But these are all going to affect the size of the monetary award, not the fact that there will be a monetary award.

Posted by: cc | June 14, 2007 12:13 AM

"Each of those 3 steps validated his claim to at least *some* money. Some serious money. More than small-claims money..."

Pearson alias cc,

YOU ARE FREAKIN MAD with GREED!! you need to be committed to a mad house. It's rare to see such an incredible lunatic in judiciary system. Get help.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 12:18 AM

"Hey, Roy, last I checked online, your salary for being an ALJ was nearly 110K per year"

...I'm not him.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an administrative law judge, and I certainly do not make $110k a year.

I'm also not an immigrant who runs a dry-cleaning business in DC.

I'm just an average guy who lives and works in the city. Someone who has seen the ups and downs of the DC government, for years. I can tell you one thing. The judge is going to rule whatever way she feels like ruling, and she is not going to let the fact that the Chungs are "hard-working blue-collar immigrants" affect her decision. She *will* let the fact that Pearson is a judge affect her decision. That he's an administrative law judge? Forget about it. She will bend over backwards to see his point of view, in this case.

Besides, the Chungs could have come here and gone to law school and, indeed, been in Pearsons' position right now. They chose to open a dry-cleaning business, and they chose to take his pants. And they lost them, and they screwed around and didn't settle the issue with him.

From there on, this case was a done deal.

Everything else that you have said, beyond that, and all that everyone else here has said, in attacking Roy Pearson personally, is totally irrelevant to this case. Except as to how it establishes the effect of their response to losing his pants, on Roy Pearson himself. He has as much right as anyone else does, to file this suit, and having filed it, they are obligated to give it a fair review. Since he is a law judge they are going to bend over backward to keep an open mind about what he is saying in this case.

They are not going to shunt aside a fellow judge. Much less an administrative law judge with a strong background in business law.

The Chungs will not get out from under this case unless they have no obligations to Pearson at all.

And if that was the case, this case would never have made it to decision.

So, stop whining, and wait and see what the award is, because really, there is no way they will not lose. They will at best owe him the value of the suit plus some compensation for his time spent on the case. The pants showed up way too late to be sufficient compensation alone. And you just have to realize this. This is not small-claims court. If it were a small-claims case, she would have thrown it back at him and told him to refile in small claims. If he had no claim, or if he had at best a small claim, she would have thrown it out directly.

She's not going to waste two days of her time writing up a decision for a small claim.

Posted by: cc | June 14, 2007 12:27 AM

"YOU ARE FREAKIN MAD with GREED!! "

...I am not Pearson...

...and this case is not about greed.

It's about business law, consumer-protection law. It's about principle.

I am sure that he is looking at the number as a reflection of the value of his claim. As someone here has said already, what is the chance that he would ever get $65M or even $54M from these people? Zero.

He'd probably rather win the case and then void the judgement than to not try the case and have the case remain unsettled or settle it for less than he thinks it's really worth. Especially not after putting all this time into the case.

Now, Fred Goldman, on the other hand, he is seriously trying to break OJ with his wrongful-death claim. And he has no chance of ever getting that $65M or whatever he won, not to mention interest on it. His aim is to make OJs life as miserable as possible, which he will never be able to do because OJ will always have the right to a comfortable living. Now *that* is an exercise in futility, in sheer vengefulness.

OJ Simpson, if he were smart, would never work again, and simply live off the interest of his assets, but he is not smart enough to do that...even so, if he ever can find work, he will have a certain room to work in, where Fred Goldman cannot touch his income. He's probably going to be able to earn a solid $100k, $200k a year before any claims can be made on his income. He will never admit that he did it, and Goldman will never break him. Nor will he ever get past that case as long as he keeps trying to hammer OJ.

I seriously doubt that Pearson has any real interest in breaking the Chungs. He is a judge, he is much more likely to say, "que sera, sera".

Posted by: cc | June 14, 2007 12:37 AM

cc,

man, you are one sicko. You lied just about everything including that you are NOT Roy Pearson.

What you will be getting is not money but so serious reaming from the judge, your peers (if you still have job after all this), and your community. The world sees you as a piece of despicable piece of garbage. Thanks to you arrogance, greedy, stupidity and vindictiveness.

If i were you. I would flee to Mars.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 12:38 AM

I think all the people commenting here against cc are getting caught up in the ridiculousness of the claim ($54M is nuts), the cartoonish nature of the trial and the possibility that cc might be The Crazy Judge.

Ignoring all this, there are some facts.

The cleaners lost his trousers.
This means that they are at fault.
I hope we can all agree on that.

There was a failure to reach a mutual agreement about this.
This is why the case has been brought.

The only way that the judge could lose is if it is ruled that the cleaners did not lose his trousers. This clearly can't happen.

The other facts of the case will simply determine what kind of award is appropriate.

Most likely is that he will have to take the trousers back, or be given the cost of a new suit. He won't get $54M. But he will win, because he has a claim against the cleaners.

Posted by: TDS | June 14, 2007 12:39 AM

ps for those of you who worry about the small businessman or the "hard working immigrant trying to make it in this country", realize that we are all supposed to obey the law. All of us. And receive equal protection under the law.

This is our legal system...this is how it works. Deal with it.

Or join La Raza and lobby for an exemption from American law, for "hard-working Chinese immigrants who run a dry-cleaners in DC".

Posted by: cc | June 14, 2007 12:42 AM

Pearson aka cc,

From your posts, you seem to get more insure by the min.. Not to worry, since you are already near bankrupt, a judgment against you (by the Chungs) is only gonna land you in bankruptcy a few months sooner than you would like.

Posted by: pissed | June 14, 2007 12:51 AM

"Most likely is that he will have to take the trousers back, or be given the cost of a new suit. He won't get $54M. But he will win, because he has a claim against the cleaners."

If this was brought in small claims you might have a point.

It wasn't brought in small claims.

It didn't go to decision in small claims.

I am not a lawyer much less a judge, and I have almost no experience with this sort of thing, but the experience that I do have says that she would have evaluated the potential judgment in this case long before she reached a point where she was ready to consider a decision, and said, "what is the potential upside here, in terms of a judgment?"

And if it was not clearly over $15k? She would have tossed the case, made him refile it in small-claims.

Someone can demonstrate that I am wrong on this, but I would bet that there is no way that she would sit through that case and then go to decision if she did not see a judgment for serious money.

Likewise, why would they ever offer a settlement for $12k?

I mean face it, the case had to go to court for her to even hear it, to do that he had to present his case, in a brief. It's been through weeks, months, of judicial review. She's not going to hand him a $1500 judgement.

And he would be a complete idiot to bring a case that was only worth $1500 or so, to civil court, and ask for $65M.

Again: the guy is an administrative law judge in very good standing. He is NOT a complete idiot. Over and over again he has passed that bar. Literally.

She might hand him a $15k judgment, since that is the small-claims cutoff. But it isn't going to be for some factor of 10 less than that. And if he wins, he has a legitimate claim for legal fees.

Posted by: cc | June 14, 2007 12:56 AM

"Pearson aka cc,

From your posts, you seem to get more insure by the min.. Not to worry, since you are already near bankrupt, a judgment against you (by the Chungs) is only gonna land you in bankruptcy a few months sooner than you would like."

...I am not Pearson...

and they would have to file a counter-suit to win a judgment against him, wouldn't they?

I really don't know.

But what are the odds that he can spend 2 days in court making his case, have the case actually go to decision, and then he is suddenly liable for their legal fees? Is that even possible?

Someone should know whether that is even possible or not.

I would guess, and again, this is just a guess. He would have to pursue a claim against them that is totally without merit. Second, it would have to actually get through the court, to a decision, and then this would have to be determined by decision but not before decision. I would think that that alone would make this outcome impossible.

...the rest is hypothetical because he might lose outright but still it would be a valid case and so he would not be liable for their legal fees. There is always the chance that it can go to decision and then his claim is rejected outright. But do you really think that he has no idea what he is talking about, no valid claim at all?

I wouldn't bet on it.

That would have to happen first.
Then it would have to be judged to be a malicious, or frivolous claim.

And then she might hit him with their legal fees.

Even then she would have to make a decision about how many hours he would be responsible for.

There are so many hoops that have to be jumped through for this to happen, I can't even see it.

Posted by: cc | June 14, 2007 1:04 AM

"And he would be a complete idiot to bring a case that was only worth $1500 or so, to civil court, and ask for $65M."

You are absolutely correct. Roy Pearson is a complete idiot. Thank you for finally saying something on point.

Posted by: Give it up, cc/RL/Roy Pearson | June 14, 2007 1:07 AM

cc aka pearson,

Obviously lying comes easy for you. Keep denying that you are not he.

Get this into your thick dumb skull - you ain't getting no lawyer fees; the only ones you are getting are those in your pathetic dreams. You probably are going to go berserk when the verdict is read next week - when the court rules against you.

Posted by: bewilded | June 14, 2007 1:08 AM

...you guys are missing one thing, really.

What if he does have a legitimate claim for $54M or even close to it, under the consumer-protection law?

Are you going to continue to give him a hard time for pursuing a claim in DC court for that much money?

Why?

If he has a legitimate claim under the law, why are you giving him such a hard time about it? It's not his fault, that's the law!

If he wins a large settlement, will you and 5,000 of your buddies give up a quarter of your salary to pay it? Say a thousand of you each cough up $25k to pay it. Plus you can write it off on your taxes. Why not?

Just think of all the free dry-cleaning you'll get :)

I agree with the last guy $54M is an outrageous number. But even more outrageous is letting this case get to this point.

And the guy is either crazy...or he knows the consumer-protection law a lot better than the Chungs do.

Posted by: cc | June 14, 2007 1:13 AM

"You probably are going to go berserk when the verdict is read next week - when the court rules against you."

The court isn't going to rule against him. He may not see a multi million-dollar judgment, but he will not lose the decision.

You have to understand. When a court gets into this position, where they have a decision to make on a case, they almost *have* to find in favor of the plaintiff. Otherwise you have this *massive* waste of time and energy, for nothing. They have to get screwed, somehow, because that justifies the whole process, it justifies the court hearing the case in the first place. There is almost no way that he is not going to win, due to simple inertia. It can't be a crapshoot, it can't be up to the mood of the judge on a given day...there has to be some science, some logic, to it. Some precedent that says that this makes sense, that it's a reasonable claim.

Something to the claim, itself, that justifies even issuing a decision on it.

The court has 7200 reasons to throw the suit out before issuing a decision. Only one reason to let it go to decision when there is no case. And that is to issue a decision in the defendants' favor, and get that on the books.

They will only do that to clarify a question of law.

But if they decide in the defendants' favor just to clarify a question of law, he's immediately going to appeal the decision. And then it will come back to the lower court anyway.

They will not get out from under this unless he has no case and if he had no case they would not be facing a decision. He will win some reasonable amount that satisfies the letter of the law given the facts of the case, that isn't high enough to justify an appeal by the defendant, but isn't low enough to justify an appeal by the plaintiff (though, who knows, with this guy).

If the defendants then challenge the judgment, they risk having it affirmed at a cost of double or triple what they have already paid in legal fees.

Enough said.

Watch the news next week. See if I'm right or wrong. Don't bother to argue with me, I'm done arguing here.

Posted by: cc | June 14, 2007 1:31 AM

Pearson aka cc,

By now you have thoroughly convinced me that you are a terribly sick individual. As one poster said, you lied easily and that's obvious. In your last few posts, you obviously intentionally tried desperately to misled readers into thinking that you are not Pearson.

Forget about any award; the only thing you will getis banishment from society, not to mention the ridicule that will follow you for the rest of your life.

Posted by: bewilded | June 14, 2007 1:37 AM

hey Pearson aka cc, here's an article for you. Read and weep.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282112,00.html

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 1:42 AM

cc aka Pearson, read and weep some more!

"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..."

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


http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/taken-to-the-cleaners/2007/06/14/1181414434183.html

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 2:07 AM

Let the ridicule continues...

"Pearson's closing argument was repeatedly interrupted by Superior Court Judith Bartnoff who asked Pearson's view of the term "Satisfaction Guaranteed" under DC law.

'Your claim is that the customer is always right, even when he's wrong?' she asked.

'Yes,' Pearson replied to laughter in the courtroom."

http://www.wusa9.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=59688&provider=gnews

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 2:23 AM

All these points have already been made and addressed. Just because he will not get $54M does not mean he will not win.

Banishment from society. You people are dumb as a sack of hammers.

I'll check back next week, and eat my words if you are right :)

Posted by: TDS | June 14, 2007 4:02 AM

"Watch the news next week. See if I'm right or wrong. Don't bother to argue with me, I'm done arguing here."


Hey, Roy/cc, I'm really happy that you are done arguing here, as it saves us from having to try to reason with an irrational, stubborn blockhead, but after the ruling comes out next week and you lose completely, will you promise to come back here on this board again so we can humiliate you some more? Please?? Will you also come back here when you are forced to file for bankruptcy next month and tell us about how the bankruptcy judge is going to rule in your favor against all your creditors because of some unintelligible nuances in the interpretation of some statute enacted in the year 1796? Thanks! LOL!

Posted by: Go to sleep, Roy! | June 14, 2007 4:20 AM

I nominate this Pearson guy to be the delgate if DC ever gets representation. At least until the SCOTUS shuts that down once and for all.

Posted by: Stick | June 14, 2007 6:58 AM

cc:

Stop commenting. You lose all the way. Pearson is going to lose. He's a loser himself, w/divorce, unemployment for 2 years (according to the WP). He's African-American, the Chungs are Korean. He's jealous that they have a successful business,(3 cleaners), he does not. He can't even succeed in a marriage. No work, no marriage, no nothing. He wants money so he does not have to/want to work -typical, early "retirement". Pearson probably has child support. He doesn't even own a car. He did not have to sue. The suit itself probably was bought at Mens Warehouse for $199.99. He wants revenge via money, honey, so he can buy a car, pay child support, if any, vacation, all the excellent things in life. Hopefully Judge Bartnoff will rule against Pearson and his $54M. If she does not, she needs to step down and out and retire.

Posted by: J | June 14, 2007 7:52 AM

cc:

Stop commenting. You lose all the way. Pearson is going to lose. He's a loser himself, w/divorce, unemployment for 2 years (according to the WP). He's African-American, the Chungs are Korean. He's jealous that they have a successful business,(3 cleaners), he does not. He can't even succeed in a marriage. No work, no marriage, no nothing. He wants money so he does not have to/want to work -typical, early "retirement". He doesn't even own a car. He did not have to sue. The suit itself probably was bought at Mens Warehouse for $199.99. He wants revenge via money, honey, so he can buy a car, vacation, all the excellent things in life. Hopefully Judge Bartnoff will rule against Pearson and his $54M. If she does not, she needs to step down and out and retire.

Posted by: J | June 14, 2007 7:54 AM

Man,

Everyone was so convinced this "CC" guy was the Judge. I think this guy was trying to say to everyone that, hey, like it or not, this is about the Law that was put on the books by Legislators and the judges are the ones hired by our politicians, so look at what our political system has wrought.

However, this has been going on for much longer than the 6+ years he accredited to Senior Bush. It's been going on with every President who has appointed Judges, so that's really a moot point, highlighting Bush alone.

The fact is that there are some ridiculous laws on the books and that we have here one pissed off judge that someone thought they could treat a little too casually. That was a mistake on the Chungs part, but they should not, fer Chrissakes, be punished that severely!

It makes me wonder, was Pearson ever bullied as a child? Were most Judges and lawyers bullied as children? See? It's all about Bullies in the schoolyard! Another problem with kids bullying people because the bullied kids grow up to be litigators. Heh.

Anyways, I hope and pray that the Chungs don't get too screwed over here. I hope that if Pearson wins (and I will NEVER call him a judge) that he gets such a damned minuscule amount with a whole heaping lot of ridicule that he will NEVER put people through this again.

Oh, and I hope he does not get another ten year term. THAT would be a travesty of justice....literally. But hoping and decency does not exist any longer in this country, except maybe in times of national disaster. Otherwise it's a sink or swim nation we live in now. Seriously, how many people know all the people on their block and can honestly say you REALLY know them? That's just another fact of our closed-in existence.

Gotta love the US of A.

Posted by: TheBloodletting | June 14, 2007 7:59 AM

cc wrote: "Don't bother to argue with me, I'm done arguing here."

Thank God!! This person needs to get a life. The continous ranting only proves that he/she cannot states their side of the case in a brief and succinent fashion.

Posted by: Bye cc! | June 14, 2007 8:20 AM

Why in the world didn't the Post leave the coverage of the Pants Suit with Steiner? WTOP's updates were livelier than this.

Posted by: chthonia | June 14, 2007 8:21 AM

Judge Judy should decide this case. She is a nononsense judge. My kind of judge.

Posted by: J | June 14, 2007 8:51 AM

I have to agree with some that Fisher's blog on this one is the worst. OFFBeat's was so much better.
In Blogging, you need to have that punch that attract readers during the event, if you couldn't generate that, just report at the end of the day.
Good thing you didn't advertise "Satisfaction Guaranteed".

Posted by: TheCanadian | June 14, 2007 9:32 AM

This case, together with cases like the woman who sued McDonalds for the hot coffee spill, is a damning indictment of the American judicial system which encourages the lazy and the plain greedy to sue over nothing. No wonder that, as the saying goes, "99% of all lawyers give the rest of them a bad name".

Posted by: MarkR | June 14, 2007 9:57 AM

This case, together with cases like the woman who sued McDonalds for the hot coffee spill, is a damning indictment of the American judicial system which encourages the lazy and the plain greedy to sue over nothing. No wonder that, as the saying goes, "99% of all lawyers give the rest of them a bad name".

Posted by: MarkR | June 14, 2007 9:57 AM

I went to Seattle's Best Coffee and it was NOT the best coffee in Seattle. I am suing for 95 million dollars. That includes the cost of renting a limo to the nearest Starbucks for the next 50 years, pain and suffering.

Posted by: Laura | June 14, 2007 10:25 AM

MarkR. I agree on its surface the McDonald's case seemed silly but the restaurant did indeed overheat the water used for the coffee. The woman's burns were severe and in a rather painful area. If you nutsack suffered those burns you would sue to. I used to work at a coffe place and you measured each cup with a thermometer, you kne exactly how hot each drink was before it left the door. Kids drinks were about 20 degrees colder than adults. The problem was she got way too much as a settlement. There has to be some logic to the amount settled for, not just some random number of millions.

Posted by: Jake | June 14, 2007 10:28 AM

cc = delusional

Posted by: Eric | June 14, 2007 10:34 AM

FYI, "statute" is misspelled in its first occurrence in your article:
"This is a very important statue to protect consumers."

Posted by: Allen | June 14, 2007 10:40 AM

is not ALJ Roy Pearson. I never even picked up on that similarity, and I hate to disappoint you, but I'm not him. For one, I would read a reasonableness standard into the satisfaction guaranteed sign (though that is a different point than the damages he is trying to collect under the DC law).

cc, I like where you are coming from, because it is much the same position as mine: you have to divorce the ersonality form the claim. Pearson has issues (I`m tickled when I read about how did he get his job -- have you EVER visited a DC govt. office? He`s probably highly qualified, relatively speaking), but the case is not about his personality, it is about whether the Chungs lost his pants and lied about it by trying to switch in another pair. People like to pile on Pearson because it is easy [he's disturbed and black and a lawyer] and they like to sympathize with the Chungs [they are hardworking immigrants, and neither they nor their lawyer is black]. What is hard is determining whether or not this hardworking couple are lying, to Mr. Pearson andnow to the court. But that is what will determine who will get what, not whether Mr. Pearson is kind to puppies.

When cc points out that cases are determined every day on arcane points of law that have little to do with the merits, you need to pay attention, because that is 100% right. Guilt in law is not guilt in fact and one has only a cursory relationship to the other.

BTW, that $12K figure is no accident. It is probably somewhat less than the Chungs are being charged to litigate this matter. Lawyers cost. Perhaps all you lawyer haters would prefer the private party method, where you and your boys settle your differences personally and immediately with your adversary. It seems to be earning kudos in PGC.

Posted by: RL | June 14, 2007 11:16 AM

TDS, props to you, you get it too.

TDS, cc, and I have all been trying to educate people who are clearly ignorant of the legal system as it exists in practice. That doesn't mean we endorse Mr. Pearson, it just means we have the abilty to separate the facts of his claim from his personality, just as you have to separate your sympathy for the Chungs from a hard-nosed inquiry into whether in fact they lost his pants. And it means we understand that cases are decided on points other than the merits of the claim. But -- no surprise -- many of you would rather rabble-rouse, as is the custom in internet postings. My mistake for thinking I could enlighten someone or raise the level of the discourse. But I will point out that in your shallowness and eagerness to lash out, you are like no one so much as the man you loath, Mr. Pearson himself.

Posted by: RL | June 14, 2007 11:25 AM

Pahedrus: I presume the Chungs filed motions for failure to state a claim before trial, which were denied. And the judge failed to dismiss the case after Pearson presented his case. Pearson, as a matter of law, HAS A CASE. Which is different from having a meritorious claim. If he didn`t have a case, the CHungs would not have had to offer $12K, because they could have gotten the case dismissedlong before it came to trial.

Posted by: RL | June 14, 2007 11:29 AM

``Satisfaction guaranteed`` is clearly different in nature than a claim to be world`s greatest, which is puffery. Promise in exchange for consideration is binding. Posted in one's store, it is a condition fo a contract just as much as ``goods disposed of after 30 days``.

[I'm going to stop now. I`m reading the posts from the bottom up, and it is beneath me to discuss fine points of contract law on the net topeople who demonstrably prefer to have their opinions unclouded by facts. And I never claimed to attend HLS. Matter of fact, I did not mention any law school in any of my posts regarding this matter. What matters is not where or whether I went to law school, but whether or not I am right.]

Posted by: RL | June 14, 2007 11:37 AM

Pearson aka RL aka cc aka tds,

You can keep changing your handle. You deceive no one but yourself. People laugh or smirk whenever Roy "no pants, morally and economically and socially bankrupt" Pearson is mentioned.

Instead of wasting our time here, go get the help to deal with a life-long ridicule that is yours to keep. Haha!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 11:40 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061302033.html

This is a man who, despite his soft voice and polite demeanor, told the court yesterday that "there is no case in the District of Columbia or in the United States that comes anywhere close to the outrageousness of the behavior of the defendants in this case."

Pearson, according to the Chungs' lawyer, Christopher Manning, is "a bitter man, emotionally distressed . . . who has irrationally and uncompromisingly pursued this litigation. He wanted the Chungs to suffer."

Bartnoff spent hours delving into the puzzle of Roy Pearson. Sometimes incredulous, sometimes gently joshing, she lured Pearson away from long monologues about the minutiae of D.C. consumer protection law, but she also let him spell out his odd notions of law. She gave him all the rope he needed.

If a customer demands $1,000 for a lost garment, Bartnoff said, and the merchant truly believes the customer is lying, does a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign require the shop owner to hand over a check?

"Yes," Pearson said. The courtroom broke into laughter.

How does such a case get to trial? How does one man get to make a laughingstock of the system? Judges chipped away at Pearson's case for two years, limiting the witnesses he could call, trimming his claims. But Pearson prevailed by burying the court in paperwork and bringing up arguments just plausible enough to allow him a hearing. Nobody wants to be on the wrong end of a Pearson lawsuit; that fear lets him charge ahead

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 11:54 AM

Strange, all of a sudden, Mad dog Pearson aka cc aka Rl aka TDS "vanish". He lost his courage? And hence his voice?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2007 12:11 PM

How can a man like Pearson, with his complete detachment from reason and reality be an administative judge? Aren't there mental requirements for that job? What Agency would hire this nut? It would behoove that Agency to take a second look at this guy.

Posted by: Robert C. Raczynski | June 14, 2007 4:35 PM

How can a man like Pearson, with his complete detachment from reason and reality be an administative judge? Aren't there mental requirements for that job? What Agency would hire this nut? It would behoove that Agency to take a second look at this guy.

Posted by: Robert C. Raczynski | June 14, 2007 4:35 PM

After the "McDonalds hot coffee lady" and the man who sued the occupants of the house he robbed Im on the verge of losing all faith in our judicial system. A person who even thinks of trying to get 54 million dollars because of a pair of pants deserves to burn in hell. Im sorry but he's just a horrible person. And if the jury could be persuaded into thinking he deserves the money then they have to be the most idiotic and simple people of all time. Ill just let God take care of it in the end. He'll get whats coming to him.

Posted by: Lee Mainwaring | June 17, 2007 2:35 AM

I am not your Pearson fellow. Or cc. Or do you assume that he is the only person who would think that the legal system is arranged in such a way as to allow Pearson a chance of winning, no matter how small the award?

I assure you I am myself alone. For starters I am English. You may notice this from my spelling of certain words and my use of trousers instead of 'pants'. Is the verdict out yet? How wrong am I? Or was whoever was asking where I was engaging in pre-post-trial euphoria?

I said I would come back and eat my words. This still stands, but in the meantime I have nothing to add to my calm and valid points :P

Posted by: TDS | June 18, 2007 7:42 PM

TDS aka cc aka Pearson:

If anything you deserve credit for stubborness (note I did not say perseverance) but you failed all else.

Would I be surprised that you deliberately disguised (such as spelling)your posts to throw off readers. No.

You are that clown Pearson.

BTW. your words are idiotic and hollow. You will eat them (as you promised I hope) but that gives us no satisfaction. However, be man enough to do one thing for us: come back when the verdict is announced so that we can humiliate.

Posted by: not foolled by tds | June 19, 2007 11:14 AM

TDS aka cc aka Pearson:

If anything you deserve credit for stubborness (note I did not say perseverance) but you failed all else.

Would I be surprised that you deliberately disguised (such as spelling)your posts to throw off readers. No.

You are that clown Pearson.

BTW. your words are idiotic and hollow. You will eat them (as you promised I hope) but that gives us no satisfaction. However, be man enough to do one thing for us: come back when the verdict is announced so that we can humiliate.

Posted by: not foolled by tds | June 19, 2007 11:18 AM

When is the verdict going to be read?

Posted by: DisbarPearson | June 19, 2007 4:01 PM

I am here. I am in London. How can I prove to you that I am not Pearson? Would you like a photo? If you name a phrase I will take a picture of my face and me holding the phrase. How would that be? Would you then be prepared to eat your words too?

Posted by: TDS | June 19, 2007 9:06 PM

P.S. I am willing to bet that you are more wrong about my identity than I am about the case :)

Posted by: TDS | June 19, 2007 9:08 PM

I have noticed that people who side with this blood sucking leech has in prior incident have had a run in with other Korean business person without "satisfaction". I have to wonder how racist one person has to be to keep a score of th behaviours of Koreans and other ethnicities on daily basis...and to be that upst to ruin a family's life to "satisfy" another's spite? I want to know where these guys live and pictures so that I can stay far away from I have to wonder what will this guy sue for if something truely bad happened to him?

Posted by: luke0701 | June 22, 2007 6:39 PM

Has the verdict been reached? What happened?

Also, yes, the evidence presented did seem to be on the racist side. Not a good thing at all.

Posted by: TDS | June 24, 2007 4:58 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company