The pants will not be ignored
How many of you remember Roy Pearson, the (now former) DC judge who sued for $54 million over a pair of pants?
Well, it appears he’s way, WAY too stupid to know when to go away.
Roy Pearson has filed a petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals, requesting the case be reheard — this time by a nine-judge panel.
The guy lost his job because he pounded away at a lawsuit that would have made for great small-claims court fodder if not for the fact that ol’ Roy is apparently completely freaking insane.
Didn’t the Chung’s end up closing their place because of this judge?
And now a nine-judge panel will have to take the time to tell this guy to screw off.
There are days I hate the legal system…
Other posts on this subject from way-back (and on that “other” blog), can be found here and here.
Can this 9 judge panel put this wanker on the vexious litigants list and disbar him? Actually, send him to Gaza to get his pants pressed by an Israeli tank. Let’s see who he tries to sue.
On the East Coast you have Pearson. On the West Coast you have Newdow. Which is a bigger waste of the courts’ time?
Comment by PCD — 1/14/2009 @ 8:45 am
How long can it take to court to say no? I suppose they can’t say “F— no!”
I’d also want someone to keep an eye on this loon if I were members of the court…..
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 1/14/2009 @ 9:23 am
Another reason I believe we should institute public beatings. Actually, I thought the family emigrated back to their home country after the debacle. I’m far from sure about that, though.
Comment by Buzz Killington — 1/14/2009 @ 10:03 am
Buzz, Only if Levi and a few other trolls get the treatment, too, on Pay Per View. Maybe add in Joe Trippi and a few other far left nutcases?
Comment by PCD — 1/14/2009 @ 11:39 am
Had to laugh at this gem:
“There are days I hate the legal system…”
You know about the 99% of attorneys who give the rest a bad name..?
Comment by Chris — 1/14/2009 @ 12:52 pm
So stupid that not only should his appeal be rejected, his former decisions should be examined.
Comment by htom — 1/14/2009 @ 1:35 pm
Another case of 99% of lawyers giving the other 1% a good name.
Comment by Dr. K — 1/14/2009 @ 4:38 pm
He’s gonna start collecting contempt citations if he’s not careful.
Comment by Steven Den Beste — 1/14/2009 @ 6:46 pm
#8 – Careful?
Comment by Apogee — 1/14/2009 @ 8:24 pm
Well, he clearly is an awful man. His case was brought up in my Affirmative Action class, and it is hard to see why this guy is a judge (but I hate it when any jackass professional who is a minority is called an AA hire).
He did destroy a business. His claim was that ‘satisfaction guaranteed’ means he can ask for whatever amount would satisfy him… kinda like asking the genie for a million wishes. The business owners couldn’t afford representation without ending a location of their shop, but I sorely wish someone would help them sue this judge back (I guess he’s probably judgment proof).
Comment by Joco — 1/14/2009 @ 9:19 pm