3 posts tagged “roy pearson”

View other items tagged “roy pearson:” Photos, Audio, Videos, Books or Links. View “roy pearson” on Vox.

The justice system works: Roy Pearson loses

Jun 26, 2007
6 comments

[Cross-posted] Our long, international nightmare is (nearly) over. The US justice system works. Judge Judith Bartnoff found today that Roy L. Pearson is not entitled to any of the damages he sought against a hard-working Korean family operating Custom Cleaners, a small dry-cleaning outﬁt in Washington, DC.
Essentially, Judge Bartnoff, even applying a lower evidentiary standard, could not ﬁnd that Judge Pearson had discharged the burden of proof and that consumer law, as I noted, is to be interpreted in the eyes of the reasonable consumer.
She has not yet worked out the defendants’ claim about Pearson’s mala ﬁdes and vexatious litigation, but the Chungs were awarded judgement and costs.
The Washington Post has a copy of the PDF judgement here. I don’t think you need to be a lawyer or law student to read this judgement: it’s clear-cut and the case is, despite Judge Pearson’s claims, really simple. It also outlines all the facts, including what the media rightly had to miss in order to make the story easier to follow.
Consumer law classes will be interesting next semester.
But, more importantly, Judge Bartnoff has shown the world that the American stereotype of the litigious society does not really work in real life, something that Judge Pearson appears disconnected from. She may well have discouraged similar cases and has done the right thing not just as an ofﬁcer of the court, but as an American.

Throw the judge down the well

Jun 14, 2007
2 comments

The Washington Post knows a good blogging story when it sees one. Marc Fisher has updated his blog after the second day of the crazy judge and the missing pants saga.
I’m sure it has crossed more than a few minds: a future where all news articles come via blogs. Scary. Though at least there are some professional journos making a good job of it.
But it sounds like Christopher Manning, representing Custom Cleaners, is on the right track. As Mr Fisher reports:

Pearson told the defense lawyer that if the tables were turned and he were in the place of the Chung family, the owners of the Northeast Washington cleaners who purportedly lost Pearson's pants, he would have immediately written a check for $1,150—the replacement value of the Hickey Freeman suit to which the pants belonged—to provide the satisfaction that the store's “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign promised.
   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.
   Manning pushed ahead: Does Pearson believe that people should interpret signs “in a reasonable way?”
   “Depends on the circumstances,” Pearson said.
   Asked to answer yes or no, Pearson said, “No.”

I have to agree with Mr Fisher’s thoughts about the presiding judge: ‘This is known as giving someone all the rope they need to hang themselves.’

It’s the wrong trousers, Gromit, help!

Jun 13, 2007
Post a comment

Just to show how distraught he is at having the wrong trousers which necessitated him to sue a hard-working Korean couple for $54 million, Judge Roy Pearson burst into tears in court today.
   Ah, so he’s not just a vindictive prick: I happen to share the Chungs’ attorney’s viewpoint here.
   My opinion: what a goddamn phoney. It’s not like the trousers were being controlled by an evil penguin or rooster or something.
   I hope that all dry-cleaners in the Chungs’ region have little signs of Judge Pearson in their shops with, ‘Do not serve this vindictive bastard’.
   The Judge may find, to his surprise, that signs in consumer law are to be interpreted through the eyes of the reasonable person, not unreasonable, over-the-top, over-the-hill, overreacting morons, and that the quantum of damages is likely limited by that.
   Not everyone is as vindictive as he is, certainly not his colleagues on the bench who will feel this man has made a mockery of everything the US justice system is meant to stand for.