The Trousers Trial -- Judgment is now in...

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

What trial you ask? Why the trial brought by the federal judge seeking $54 million (previously $65 million) for his lost pants. Yes, that trial.

The fun part is that the judge is serving as his own lawyer -- and by all accounts, he's terrible.

** ACCOUNT CLOSED ** Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 766

This is so wrong on so many levels I have not found a single commentator who feels this asshat has a case.

Sure, he may technically bring the case, but it should have been dismissed as frivolous. It serves as a "posture-child" for tort-reform that makes my lawyer colleagues swear under their breaths.

--J.D.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Oh it's definitely a frivolous case -- however it was brought under a very protective and broad consumer protection statute which are notoriously difficult to dismiss out-of-hand due to their paternalistic origins of saving poor Joe Blue Collar from having no recourse against banks and corporations. It just so happens that the roles are reversed here and you have a federal (albeit administrative) judge suing a mom-and-pop dry cleaner.

One suspects that the (presiding) judge is giving the (plaintiff) judge his "day in court" so that the appellate avenues are reduced.

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:24 pm

I really feel sorry for the judge who has to sit through it and hear it all...

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:24 pm

If you cry in court over a damned part of pants and/or sue for that much money for a pair of pants, you should probably be summarily committed to a very tiny padded room for the safety of others.

Or taken to a public square and relentlessly heckled and pummelled with bad fruit. I'm not sure which.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

I'm leaning towards heckled and pummeled with bad fruit.....plus being forced to pay all of the drycleaners' legal costs.

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:30 pm

I think his issues have nothing to do with pants - but that is just a guess.

Also it sounds like the judge over the trial is just laugh her way through it before she tells the defendants they owe him the cost of the pants and that the plaintiff gets to pay for court costs. That is how I am guessing this is going to end.

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

That korean guy should countersue for 75 million.

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:39 pm

What's wrong with these judges? One sues for his pants, the other one is taking off his pants!? Shocked

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/United_Kingdom/10132068.html

Quote:

Published: 13/06/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)

Judge exposes underpants to court in indecency case
Reuters

London: One of Britain's most senior judges, accused of exposing himself to a woman on a packed commuter train, produced a pair of his underpants in court yesterday in an effort to prove his innocence.

Justice Stephen Richards, 56, from Wimbledon in southwest London, is alleged to have twice exposed his genitals to the woman on suburban London trains in October 2006.

To prove his client's innocence, Richards' lawyer David Fisher produced a pair of black Calvin Klein underpants which the judge said he usually wore.

Their design, Fisher argued, would have made it difficult for Richards, who denies the charges, to expose himself. "In order to remove your penis when you are wearing Calvin Klein briefs - is it necessary to use one or two hands?" Fisher asked. "If I have to pee, I will use two hands. I will always use two hands," Richards replied.

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:41 pm

If i were the judge, I would say that the Koreans now deserve a payment to make up for damaged image and lost time, of say about.....50 million? Very Happy

This is just like the microwave incident, where a woman succesfully was able to get money from the microwave producer for not stating in the manual that the microwave is not suitable to speed dry wet poodles!

I don't know if it is an urbal legend, but I have sometimes heard about those insane cases in USA where millions of dollars are involved, I just do not understand it.... Confused

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:59 pm

In those cases where millions of dollars are involved, those people are awarded that not because of their own case but because the company (usually a nationwide or multinational company) has shown a history of doing the same thing in the past, paying the small fines and continuing to not change. Thus the millions are awarded as a punishment. The most brought case of this is the lady that sued McDonald's because she split coffee in her lap and received 2nd degree burns. She was not the first person to sue McDonald's over this, that is why she received millions for it.

In this case, the judge that is sueing is the first to bring charges against this dry cleaner. The dry cleaner is not a large company and it cannot be proven that what they did is company wide policy. That is why this case is frivolous while the McDonald case, contrary to popular belief, was not.

The company wide policy at McDonald's was to not tell customers that the coffee was hot. Yes it seems like this is something obvious but it still was policy and they had been given a chance to change it before.

Hope this clarifies some.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

^^^Thank you for explaining that, Ook. Very Happy

It's still goofy, though. Companies shouldn't be penalized because some consumers of their products have the collective common sense of a stoned gnat.

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:22 pm

True TS which is why it has to be shown to be a known problem, even if it should be comon sense. Law is very logical much like programming computers. Even though you know that is how something should be you still have to be able to prove it. Just read some warnings on packages, they are on there because someone did that.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

However you should not confuse an injury case with a damaged pants case -- one is brought under common law negligence, the other under a consumer statute. The former is left up to a jury as to how bad the pain was and what the compensation should be in terms of renumeration and punitive (i.e. don't do that again McDonalds!) damages.

In this case, we have a consumer statute that will find liability for "deceptive practices" that harm the public. The statute provides for an amplification of actual damages (in this case next to nothing), and then a punitive aspect. The judge gets to his astronomical number by (among many other things) multiplying all the days he has to rent a car to drive to a different dry cleaner as he used to walk to the previous one. He is clearly not getting that.

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:03 pm

Wow.. I want to be in the crowd that throws the rotten vegetables...

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:08 pm

Yes good point JM. There is a big difference between injury and damage, I should have mentioned that. I used the McDonald's coffee case because it is one of the more famous ones.

I have not read a whole lot about this particular case, I am not a lawyer myself I just had to take enough business law classes and we discussed these types of cases in depth. I was wondering how he came up with that number. Clearly he is still upset about personal issues (divorce, bankruptcy, ect..) and has found away to divert his own feelings about these issues and concentrate on something that really has nothing to do with them at all. One of his friends or associates should have talked him out of this, but let the chap has his fifteen minutes, it only makes him look like a fool. I can only imagine his ex-wife is sitting there watching this going, "I am so glad I have nothing to do with him anymore."

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:45 pm

Very sad case. This asshat was given the pants but he says that they are not his. Must have shrunk. The owners have offered $12,000 to settle and the courts are clogged with real cases. The plaintiff figures he's special and is putting in for the time he's put in even though a pro se litigant cannot get attorney's fees. What do they say about pro se litigants?
Will the defendants turn around and sue the pants off his butt? I don't think so. These owners are thinking of going back to the charcoal pits from where they came.
Its also very sad that the court would tolerate people faking Asian accents. Its as pathetic as the Chinese mugus from Lagos.

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:15 pm

As I believe Oscar Wilde, the noted Irish wit, had it " the man who represents himself has a fool for a client" Very Happy

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:40 am

The "judge's" claim is that the cleaner violated the written contract in the store. The owners had a sign that said Satisfaction Guaranteed. He says he wasn't satisfied, so he wants the $54M USD. Rolling Eyes

(almost sounds like a lad 100% risky free... Shocked

)

He went through a messy divorce recently. Surprised

(I wonder why he was divorced... Wink

)

He is still a slime ball!! Evil or Very Mad

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:12 am

OK, so let's assume this idiot 'wins'. How the HELL are Mr & Mrs Korean Dry Cleaner going to find $54 million? Laughing

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

Why can't the judge throw the man out for being retarded?

If I ever go to the US i'll sue everyone and go home rich.

419Eater Admin Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 7469

Gnasher wrote:

How the HELL are Mr & Mrs Korean Dry Cleaner going to find $54 million?

Funny you should ask that. I received an email from a deposed Royal Family member today.....

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:34 pm

Quote:

After a five-minute break to dry his eyes, Roy Pearson came back to the courtroom. A hush came over the crowd, though it was probably due more to fatigue than to suspense.

When the trial resumed, Pearson continued to describe how this incident occurred. Then he began to break down again. Then he paused and collected himself. Then, clearly having difficulty speaking, he asked if he could submit this part in writing. Defense counsel objected, and the judge assured Pearson he was doing fine.

Pulling himself together, Pearson continued with his exhaustive description of how he -- or, in his telling, Custom Cleaners -- lost his pants.

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:40 pm

^^^^ Where didja get that??? I want to follow along!

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:43 pm

Hidden in JM's post

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/offbeat_politics/

The Trousers Trial -- Judgment is now in...	View next topic View previous topic