Steely Dan Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 This guys needs to be institutionalized. Seriously. :w00t: Linkage The saga began in May 2005, when Pearson took several pairs of pants to Custom Cleaners for alteration as he prepared to start his new job as an administrative law judge. He alleged that among them was a pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit. When he came to collect his clothing, he said, the Chungs tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that were not his. During a two-day trial, Pearson, who represented himself, said that when he took the pants to the cleaners, his financial situation was precarious: He had just been ordered to pay $12,000 in attorney's fees to his ex-wife, and his credit cards were at their limit. He claimed millions of dollars in attorney fees and and millions more in punitive damages for what he called fraudulent advertising under the law. He also claimed that a sign in the store's window promising "satisfaction guaranteed" was an unconditional warranty that required the defendants to honor any claim by any customer without limitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 The saga began in May 2005, when Pearson took several pairs of pants to Custom Cleaners for alteration as he prepared to start his new job as an administrative law judge. He alleged that among them was a pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit. When he came to collect his clothing, he said, the Chungs tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that were not his. A blue and maroon suit? Maybe the Chungs were just trying to help him avoid looking like an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 18, 2008 Author Share Posted December 18, 2008 A blue and maroon suit? Maybe the Chungs were just trying to help him avoid looking like an idiot. You mean like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Yeah, like this guy's not going to appeal the decision.... Let's see - he sued for $54 million dollars over a pair of pants, thinks "satisfaction guaranteed" is without any limits, lost his job when people realized he was a nut, and now all of a sudden he's going to say enough is enough? This guy doesn't have an ounce of reason in him - he'll appeal to the Supreme Court and the go totally berzerk when the high court refuses to take a case of such Constitutional importance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 We've all encountered crazies in our lives.Sometimes at the worst times and places. Always best to stay the helL away from them.Do not pass go do not collect $100 stay the hEll away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 19, 2008 Author Share Posted December 19, 2008 Yeah, like this guy's not going to appeal the decision.... Let's see - he sued for $54 million dollars over a pair of pants, thinks "satisfaction guaranteed" is without any limits, lost his job when people realized he was a nut, and now all of a sudden he's going to say enough is enough? This guy doesn't have an ounce of reason in him - he'll appeal to the Supreme Court and the go totally berzerk when the high court refuses to take a case of such Constitutional importance... Why only sue for $54 million? He should have sued for infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Can't the owner of the store take the dude to a tailor and have the pants replicated to the exact specs of the item that is missing? That is "satisfaction", right? Of course they should of did this from the get-go... Just to stick it to the bastard. Then how can he argue the cleaners didn't try? The old trying to turn the tables and take the cleaners to the "cleaners." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Can't the owner of the store take the dude to a tailor and have the pants replicated to the exact specs of the item that is missing? That is "satisfaction", right? Of course they should of did this from the get-go... Just to stick it to the bastard. Then how can he argue the cleaners didn't try? The old trying to turn the tables and take the cleaners to the "cleaners." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Ya... It is a little extreme... But, the way he dragged it out... I betcha the cleaner is wishing they bought the dude a new pair of pants... How much can they be to be done with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 A blue and maroon suit? Maybe the Chungs were just trying to help him avoid looking like an idiot. Seriously, I don't see how you can call a suit an idiot. It's not like it's alive or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Ya... It is a little extreme... But, the way he dragged it out... I betcha the cleaner is wishing they bought the dude a new pair of pants... How much can they be to be done with it? From Wiki:Pearson rejected a later offer to settle the case for $12,000. Among his requests were $500,000 in attorney's fees, $2 million for "discomfort, inconvenience, and mental distress", and $15,000, which he claimed would be the cost to rent a car every weekend to drive to another dry cleaning service. Pearson broke down in tears during an explanation about his frustration after losing his pants, and a short recess had to be declared. The court took judicial notice of Pearson's divorce proceedings, where he was sanctioned $12,000 by the trial court for creating unnecessary litigation and threatening both [Rhonda] VanLowe and her lawyer with disbarment. the trial ended with District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruling in favor of the dry cleaners, and awarding them court costs pursuant to a motion which the Chungs later withdrew. The Chungs stated that they did so in the hopes of persuading Pearson to stop litigating. On May 2, 2008 Roy Pearson filed suit against Washington DC, claiming that he had been wrongfully dismissed for exposing corruption within the Office of Administrative Hearings. Pearson sought $1 million in compensation for lost wages and punitive damages as well as his job back. Please, no compassion for this nut job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Wow...this guy is a definite nut job. Gotta be a better way to deal with these kinds of cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 This wouldnt be a frivolous law'suit' would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 We've all encountered crazies in our lives.Sometimes at the worst times and places. Always best to stay the helL away from them.Do not pass go do not collect $100 stay the hEll away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So true. If Marv and Dick had just employed this "crazies" strategy when Bill Walsh called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellDressed Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 They fit rather well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 19, 2008 Author Share Posted December 19, 2008 Ya... It is a little extreme... But, the way he dragged it out... I betcha the cleaner is wishing they bought the dude a new pair of pants... How much can they be to be done with it? No, it wouldn't be done. He'd sue them for the time it took to get them done and he'd find a tiny flaw in them and keep asking them to make them over and over and over again. He'd sue them for the anguish he went through yada yada yada... Seriously, I don't see how you can call a suit an idiot. It's not like it's alive or something. Really, really bad you maroon! Please, no compassion for this nut job. Why not I've seen some here, not often, have compassion for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts