1 pair of Pants = $65 million (Or another reason why all lawyers shot)

[4_2_it]

Background Story

[ QUOTE ]
According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.

Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.

But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants, and decided to take the Chungs to the cleaners and sue.

Manning said the cleaners have made three settlement offers to Pearson: $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000.

But Pearson was not satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants. Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, he asked in his lawsuit for $15,000 -- the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.

Manning said Pearson somehow thinks he has the right to a dry cleaner within four blocks of his apartment.

The bulk of the $65 million demand comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of Washington consumer protection law, which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day. Pearson counted 12 violations over 1,200 days, then multiplied that by three defendants.

Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." He claims the signs amount to fraud.


[/ QUOTE ]

And yet lawyers will still wonder why they rank near the bottom of every public opinion poll.

[JinX11]

I've said this for a long time and still think that there is an easy way to end this garbage.

New law: you can still sue anyone for anything, just as you can today. However, if the judge deems your lawsuit retarded (and the definition of "retarded" is subjective, totally up to the judge presiding), in addition to paying all related court costs for all involved parties, the judge can hold you in contempt of court and subject you to a fine and/or imprisonment. The severity of the fine/imprisonment would be directly related to the retardation of the frivolous lawsuit.

Problem solved. This guy would get life in prison.

[shaniac]

The guy filing this suit is a judge himself.

[polkaface]

The sad thing is this guy is a judge himself and is still doing this. You would have to think his co-horts would have tried to talk some sense into him. He should have taken the first settlement and been done with it.

[JinX11]

Ok....judges would not above this law, just like they are not above other laws....

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[delta k]

Sounds like fraud to me, what's the issue?

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like fraud to me, what's the issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
To the Chungs and their attorney, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case is their claim that Pearson's gray pants were found almost right away, and have been hanging in Manning's office for more than a year. Pearson claims in court documents that his pants had blue and red pinstripes.

But Manning said: "They match his inseam measurements. The ticket on the pants matches his receipt."


[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is a 1st class douchenozzle.

[ThreeMartini]

I don't think the judge in question got reappointed.

Doesn't this nut-job have friends that will give him a "Dude...WTF are you doing" talkin' to.

[capone0]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10144317

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok....judges would not above this law, just like they are not above other laws....

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that when the judiciary itself has irrational desires, how the hell do you expect sensible laws to be passed. And, yeah, are you saying that judges and other powerful people aren't essentially "above the law?" Because, in this country, they sort of are.