digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Judge sues dry cleaner for $67,000,000 for LOST PAIR OF PANTS

abcnews.go.com — Let's give this judge some attention as he makes a mockery of the very justice system he claims to represent and protect.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Speaking, on 10/12/2007, -6/+222Not being able to post the numbers sucks, but remember who causes the fear of lawsuits... ***** lawyers, lets get this guy disbarred.
    • KMye, on 10/12/2007, -57/+16At the very least, I hope they can counter-sue for legal fees and pain and suffering of their own. You never know, maybe all of this Korean family are a bunch of dicks; it sounds like perhaps they weren't willing to replace what the suit was worth at first. But getting this vengeful about sticking it to them has to qualify as psychotic, and shouldn't be legal.
    • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38It is important to remember that this suit will most likely not prevail. Even if it were, many jurisdictions allow for appellate courts to reduce the amount of damages if they seem completely crazy.

      As the judge in the case said, FTA:"The Court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith and with an intent to delay the proceedings," the judge wrote in court papers. "Indeed, it is difficult to draw any other conclusion, given the plaintiff's lengthy delay in seeking to expand the scope of the case, the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion he seeks, his failure to present any evidence in support of the thousands of claims he says he wishes to add, and his misrepresentation concerning the scope of his first amended complaint."

      This suit (har har har) is ripe for a Rule 11 motion. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm


    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -17/+85Didn't you read the article? They LOST his PANTS!
    • Azimuth1, on 10/12/2007, -58/+10He's a judge. The case should go like this.

      "I hereby order the defendant to pay the plaintiff, me, the sum of $67,000,000.

      Case dismissed."
    • coolian, on 10/12/2007, -10/+87Ah...I've finally found what ??? is supposed to mean:

      1. Wear (under)pants
      2. Sue the bastard who lost your pants into oblivion
      3. Profit!
    • msjo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Too bad, this sounds like it could be an episode of The People's Court!
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40I can think of a fitting top to go with those pants -- long white sleeves that wrap around the back, padlock _not_ optional.
    • meltingrobot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38I hope the judge doesn't use the famous Chewbacca defense.
    • fuzzYogHurt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+88Don't judges still wear robes? He didn't even need pants!
    • deviouskoopa, on 10/12/2007, -9/+99"The ABC News Law & Justice Unit has calculated that for $67 million Pearson could buy 84,115 new pairs of pants at the $800 value he placed on the missing trousers in court documents. If you stacked those pants up, they would be taller than eight Mount Everests. If you laid them side by side, they would stretch for 48 miles."

      Is this paragraph in any way necessary? The ABC News L&J Unit sure has proven it's value in this investigation...
    • Eivo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Retarded.
    • jhbarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+59@washingtonydc

      Evidently, he did this to his ex-wife during their divorce and ended up having to pay lawyer's fees.

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=va&vol=0561044&invol=1
    • MacGyver2210, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I wonder if I could do the same thing with a laundromat with those signs in the window because their dryers always seem to eat one of my socks...
    • bdpf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Wants to wear pants on the first day on the bench. It should have been his first and last day in any cort.
      Pull his papers and let him earn a honest livening. Head legal thief.
    • jeremy66158, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Maybe the power has gone to his head?
    • AJH16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41@KMye

      They offered him over $1500 for what he claimed were $800 pants.
    • meetthescott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+77"The business owners claim they have his pants, but he's pressing ahead with his suit. "
      ...pun overload...
    • fotd42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+61This douchebag certainly is taking a gamble. If he wins, he'll most likely (hopefully) get disbarred but he will also have $67 million to retire with. If he loses (which will make me realize there is a god and bad things in actuality DO happen to bad people) he gets disbarred and ends up slobbing knobs for coke in alleyways.

      If an American judge can sue an immigrant family for $67 million for an $800 pair of pants, the terrorists have finally won.

    • HullCrushDepth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If he wins then the case is considered automatically to be non-frivolous so there would be no grounds for disbarment. Also ALG Judges don't need to be bar members.
    • rebopper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I always go back to my dream of being a sniper when I hear of nonsensical people like this.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7People who make those insane law suits don't usually get what they sue for. Contrary to popular belief, the lady who sued McDonalds for coffee on her lap did not get the millions the news said she got. And yes i got that info from an earlier Digg.
    • devoss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18"The ABC News Law & Justice Unit has calculated that for $67 million Pearson could buy 84,115 new pairs of pants at the $800 value he placed on the missing trousers in court documents. If you stacked those pants up, they would be taller than eight Mount Everests. If you laid them side by side, they would stretch for 48 miles."

      That's 36" wide, or a 72" waist line. That's one FAT judge!
    • MercedRocks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Do a good deed for the day and call him and leave a message on his answering machine telling him what a jerk he is.
      http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Call_the_Judge_suing_for_69_million_dollars_for_a_lost_pair_of_pants
    • bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Hm... I didn't know they allowed 6 year-old judges to be lawyers. Well, I guess this explains a lot.
    • Sippi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2counter-sue…
    • Veritate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@fotd42

      "If he wins, he'll most likely (hopefully) get disbarred but he will also have $67 million to retire with."
      As pointed out, he not only will not get disbarred (where'd you get that idea anyway???) he won't have $67 million unless these dry cleaners are really much better off than the article indicates. How are they going to pay it? Or did you think they have $67 million worth of insurance for loss, or that they aren't incorporated and couldn't go into bankruptcy?

      "If he loses (which will make me realize there is a god and bad things in actuality DO happen to bad people) he gets disbarred and ends up slobbing knobs for coke in alleyways."

      Where'd you get the idea the penalty for losing a case was disbarrment? Even if it was found frivolous, it would be a reprimand maybe, a suspension at absolute worst.

      "If an American judge can sue an immigrant family for $67 million for an $800 pair of pants, the terrorists have finally won."

      Lesson 1: In America, anyone can sue anyone for anything (for any amount). It's winning that's the hard part.
    • TheMidnight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16This lends new meaning to the phrase "sue someone's pants off."
    • gxcdesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This Judge can very much lose his license for doing this...and I sure hope so
    • LMaxey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Must be a damn good pair of pants
    • rgodfrey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's a lawsuit about a law suit!
    • Djchicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The stat bonuses on those pants must've been awesome!
    • Sethiuss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0are you serious? We cant post the number to his office? damnit.
    • vidar808, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can find his contact information in the comments section here:
      http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/05/dc_judge_wants_65_million_for.html

      Also send emails or contact these people:
      Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone Butler
      D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings
      825 N. Capitol Street, NE
      Washington, D.C., 20002

      Commissioner Robert Rigsby
      Commissioner Henry Levine
      Commissioner Peter Wilner
      Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges
      441 Fourth Street NW
      Suite 540 S
      Washington, D.C. 20001
  • n0xz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+103What has the American Justice system came through ? This ***** is unfit to be a judge.
    • griz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+155Of course he isn't, he has no pants.
    • GasPoweredGnome, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8I guess we'll find who wears the pants in D.C.

      What a lame judge. Get that man some kleenex.
    • 1021, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8"What has the American Justice system came through"
      Ask yourself this first, what has your grammar come to?
    • asaturn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25First ask yourself this question: is our children learning?
    • MacGyver2210, on 10/12/2007, -31/+3"First ask yourself this question: is our children learning?"

      I really hope they ARE not learning from you...
    • teaguehopkins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@macgyver2210 (#6470616)
      It's an allusion. Look it up.
    • MercedRocks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Whats sucks is all the money this poor Korean immigrant family has had to spend because some jerkoff fatass doesnt have the time to iron his own godam pants yet has plenty of time to sue somebody for not doing it exactly to his desire.
    • hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"unfit"

      "It was May 2005 and Pearson was about to begin his new job as an administrative judge. Naturally, he wanted to wear a nice outfit to his first day of work. He said in court papers that he tried on five Hickey Freeman suits from his closet, but found them all to be "too tight," according to the Washington Post."

      Yep, he's a fat ass.
    • jiggawoot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't know what the big deal is. Tomorrow is International No Pants day anyways.


      www.nopantsday.com
  • xmetal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+95I sincerely hope that this asshat is completely ruined by his frivolous case and ends up homeless and starving in a box somewhere. Truly unfit to be human, let alone a judge.
    • jhbarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26He will hopefully be disbarred or at least lose his job as a judge. Complaints are already being made..

      http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/05/the_65_million_pants_judge_roy.html

    • tomtucker378, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6well, they found his pants, so he could at least use them as a pillow!
    • d3c0yn4m3l355, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11or they could use his pants to hang him with it. Then atleast they are useful for once. This is really beyond believe, imagine being the Chungs, for sure you are in an awkward position. You don't understand the language, whats going on nor how to solve it. Also at the end that the Chongs offered him big money to solve the problems, and still considering to turn it down. I hope he gets disbarred, thrown into jail and hangs himself there.
    • OpenFuture, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If anything the nice people that own the dry cleaning place should sue him for damages. Theres no way that the ***** judge can win hes just being a bully and abusing the legal system.
  • jacinth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32I don't understand the reasoning of this judge. Did he not have any clue that people would look at this with utter disdain and contempt? That people would ridicule him for trying to take advantage of the legal system? Or is he that egotistical that he had no doubt that he could win?

    Even if the suit is thrown out (as it should be), who knows what the legal fees are that the defendants have to pay? Even if they then countersue the judge, that still drags out this entire debacle - leading to more lawyer fees.

    Basically, the only winners here are the lawyers, no matter what happens.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4He's no better than the ambulance chasing lawyers that advertise on daytime and overnight TV.

      "Did someone steal your pants? I can get you MILLIONS OF DOLLARS is something I'd like to say, but I can't legally tell you that I WILL GET YOU MILLIONS OF DOLLARS."
    • JohnSteel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16It isn't about winning the lawsuit or about getting money. It's about harassment.
    • dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"It isn't about winning the lawsuit or about getting money. It's about harassment."

      The thing is, this guy is not harassing for a settlement, like a sane (but still asshat) person. He turned down $12,000 already. He's doing it for the fun of it. This guy is a sociopath and has no place being a judge.
    • screamthenrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the guy should actually be tried for perjury... he was offered his pants back, but he said that they werent his... and he proceeded with the lawsuit anyways...
  • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Yet one more reason for tort reform. Too bad it would never pass. The trial lawyers have the Dems in their back pockets.
    • stonerider, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6actually, most members of US Congress were/are lawyers, both Dems and Repubs. They are ALL in trial lawyers' frontpocket.
  • Wonkanobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19That must be one amazing pair of slacks!!!
    • linuxdaemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Those pants really tied the outfit together.
  • thorlax, on 10/12/2007, -97/+1209-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0 lol
    • diggEntertainer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29Please go back to MySpace. Thanks.
    • dixta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Dear May 1st,

      HEYA!!!!11!!109 f9

      Regards,
      May 2nd
  • bluechips23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I hope they burn his underwear next time.
  • mphree, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Must have been a really nice pair of pants...
  • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39Maybe he had $67Million in his pants pocket?

    Or maybe he's just an asshat?
    • griz, on 10/12/2007, -26/+1Or maybe if you read the article you would see the reason for the $67mil...

      "He's suing for 10 years of weekend car rentals so he can transport his dry cleaning to another store."

    • feb420, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I don't think that costs 67 million dollars...
    • BradMW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Or maybe if YOU read the REST of the article, you would realize that's just one silly part of it.
    • HomerS1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3meh
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's also worth noting that suing for 10 years of car rentals to go to a different dry cleaner is absurd.

      You don't have a right to dry cleaning. If you don't like the closest dry cleaner's service, they don't have to pay you to drive to another one.
  • digginant23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+55This judge needs to be disbarred. Someone should sue him for making a mockery of the legal system.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10You can't mock an already ridiculus system as it would be nothing but the truth...
    • Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I sincerely hope that he's doing this just to prove a point of how screwed up the system is if he can actually get the case into court.

      But, I also doubt it. Especially by how much the intent could backfire if it DOES get a court date.
    • CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not only that, can you imagine if he was presiding over a different case where someone else was suing for $67M for their lost pants? He as a judge might actually see that case through?!
  • trer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Good job making lawyers look bad. With idiots like this guy and Jack Thompson, how will lawyers ever improve the reputation of their chosen field?
    • BobsYourUncle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Like politicians, there is no way to improve the perception of their chosen field. The good ones toil in obscurity, and bad ones get the headlines. We hate all of them as a group. Not to imply there are good politicians. There are none.
  • griz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32Judges don't need pants, that's what they have robes for.
    • HullCrushDepth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Indeed, he should just take after the honorable Donald Thompson.
  • BOFH2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4griz beat me to it!!!!
  • fant0m, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Is he the Anna Nicole judge? If so, I don't doubt this at all!
  • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28"It was May 2005 and Pearson was about to begin his new job as an administrative judge. Naturally, he wanted to wear a nice outfit to his first day of work. He said in court papers that he tried on five Hickey Freeman suits from his closet, but found them all to be "too tight," according to the Washington Post."

    How about you get some exercise and quit stuffing your face, ya ***** fat ass.
  • zephris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14This isn't a lawsuit. It's revenge. That store isn't worth that much money so it'll have to close and the owners will go to jail since it's not a Corporate Entity or an LLC. This judge is an ***** and needs to taken down.
    • judolphin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The judge is a sociopath... absolutely despicable.

      On another note: The owners would go to jail if they lost the lawsuit? WTF are you talking about? You can't go to jail because of inability to pay a debt... There haven't been debtors' prisons in the U.S. for quite a while.
  • GQCarrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Did he have a winning lottery ticket in there or what? What an idiot. Yes it sucks the guy lost your pants but quit your whining like a little girl.
  • griz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"The ABC News Law & Justice Unit has calculated that for $67 million Pearson could buy 84,115 new pairs of pants at the $800 value he placed on the missing trousers in court documents. If you stacked those pants up, they would be taller than eight Mount Everests. If you laid them side by side, they would stretch for 48 miles."

    The ABC News Law & Justice Unit???
    • carbonetc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Law & Order: ABC

      Coming this fall to NBC.
    • MacGyver2210, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yes, they're the department of ABC that does statistics on the thickness, width, and span of countless pairs of pants...

      Wait, what?
    • kefler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19"In the criminal justice system, cases are solved by three separate yet equally important groups: The detectives who investigate crimes, the district attorneys who prosecute them, and the ABC Law and Justice team who measures their pants and calculates distances based on them. These are their stories."
    • carbonetc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DUN DUN
  • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Take note that the $67mil is for "ten years of car rentals so he can take his cleaning to another store." The article states that he valued the pants at $800.

    Seriously? You really think there are any pants worth $800?
    • zephris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Valued that much or not, it's not the business's responsibility to pay him to go to another store. Can't wait until the judge for this case ridicules him into oblivion. He's the right kind of person for Bush to nominate somewhere
    • stonerider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I once had a business suit custom made, costing me about $2000 (that was ten years ago, so with inflation, it will be about $3000 today's dollar???). So, yeah, there are pants worth over $800.
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@zephris (#6469905)
      Ah actually on later pages of the article, there's a whole laundry list of things which add up to $67mil, not *just* the car rental thing. That part is $15K.
    • zephris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The only thing the store is liable for is the replacement of the pants as there are other dry cleaners in the area (within his reach) and he can go to Wal-Mart like the rest of the US impoverished and buy a dry cleaning kit. This man is a perfect example of the pussification of the US culture: they can't handle the risks of doing anything.
    • jhuebel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"pussification"-- I learned a new and useful word for my daily life in America. Thanks! :-)
  • AToMusK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2pfft i'd sue them too for $67 mil if they lost my epic trousers armor
  • insanenoodle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That's ridiculous. The dry cleaners found his pants. And usually in this type of case, the cleaners offer to buy you a replacement pair. Just ridiculous.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16And they did. They even offered to give him $4400 for the pants at one point. And within a week, found the pants! He's just being a ***** *****.

      There's a list of people who need to DIAF. He is one of them.
  • dissurmom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Cry more n00b

    i hate emo judges
    • Zzyw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah you go and live without pants for the rest of your life. See how that makes YOU feel.
    • CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know if it would be all that bad?

      They did go with robes and togas for a few hundred years. I think it's rather liberating and comfortable to go without pants.

      Think about it, taking a piss, no more zippers to catch your junk in. Taking a dump, your pants don't sit on the dirty floor. Picking what to wear for the day would take only half the time, increasing your efficiency by 100%.

      On hot days, no more ball sweat with the added circulation.

      Actually.. I've convinced myself!
  • Diggnified, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2yeah remember 95% of the judges were all defense attorneys at one time or another.

    The subtitle says it all "Let's give this judge some attention as he makes a mockery of the very justice system he claims to represent and protect."
  • plaing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1plato had some interesting things to say about the problems of frivolous litigation. he said any damages awarded should be sacrificed to the gods.
  • Netbert, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9He's taking the cleaners to the cleaners!
  • stimpack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Why does the US let him do this? why not disbar him? why not prevent stupid lawsuits, why let lawsuits depend on who has the most money, you have ***** up law there.
  • bastardo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Wow, the US legal system seems more ***** up every day.
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can sue for anything. That doesn't mean that your suit won't get thrown out with prejudice, though.

      If this suit actually makes it to trial, then *that* would be ***** up.
    • crimson117, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not the US Legal system. It's one ***** judge.
  • eyesicksun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1If I thought about it long and hard enough, I definitely think I'd see where the judge is coming from. But as of right now, big douche.
  • Atertract, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This guy needs to eat some kimchi and relax. Oh, and also go straight to hell.
  • twsjon, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1It was a lawyer, not a judge, to u2wedge and those of you who have not actually read the article. Also, the Korean family offered higher and higher amounts to settle the case, up to $12,000, contrary to kMye's claim. They actually offered, at first, a reasonable amount for the cost to replace the pair of pants. It was the failure to fulfill the "satisfaction guaranteed" that the lawyer is trying to sue for, which in my opinion would be the same as if I were to sue fast food restaurants for false advertisement just because the depiction of their product differ (IMO significantly) from the actual product sold on location (as an article that hit front page a few weeks ago pointed out). I would like to remind everyone the importance of actually reading the article before digging and commenting.
    • dissurmom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Get off your high horse twisjon...
    • 1021, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5go really read the article twsjon, it was a lawyer about to become a judge... and is now a judge. I present to you the second paragraph of the article:
      "Plaintiff Roy Pearson, a judge in Washington, D.C., says in court papers that he's been through the ringer over a lost pair of prized pants he wanted to wear on his first day on the bench."

      Try actually reading past the title of the article on the linked page and the first line of the story before you try to say something like RTFA... btw, does your name start with Roy and end with Pearson, cause that would explain why you're acting like such a jerk.

      Now, if I may, I would like to remind YOU the importance of clearly reading the article before making degrading remarks about others who don't read it at all.
  • pammeh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LMAO what is this world coming to lol what wouldn't some people do for money ?
  • techsyslonghorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1what a tool....
  • stklaw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Were his pants made from 24k gold or something?

    uh...
    sorry, gold doesn't worth that much.
  • eyesicksun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5*****, what if he sues us all for libel?
  • ELee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36Take a look at this letter to the editor of the Washington Post.

    The Travesty of the Trousers Case
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901149_2.html

    As a lawyer and former administrative law judge, I am particularly aggrieved by District administrative law judge Roy Pearson's $65 million lawsuit against Custom Cleaners after the neighborhood dry cleaner misplaced one pair of his pants. The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation.

    If I were adjudicating the case, I would not only grant a motion to dismiss it but would also order Mr. Pearson to reimburse the owners of Custom Cleaners for all their expenses in defending it and to pay them several million dollars for their "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."

    I would also direct any bar to which Mr. Pearson belongs to immediately disbar him and the District to remove him from his position as an administrative law judge. Perhaps a class action by the D.C. Bar Association for the damage he has done to the legal profession might also be appropriate.

    MELVIN WELLES
    Alexandria
    • u2wedge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1we heard it from you first. Nice call.
  • keyguy242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4the pants cant rent a car and drive to another dry cleaners!! ~in your best chris griffin voice~
    THATS JUST SILLY!!!
  • bstolzberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
    If someone finds the telephone # to Pearsons office or anything please post it up so we can tell them what we think. Thanks!
  • ljpj707, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This 'Judge' isn't fit to sit on the bench. Ne needs to chill and leave these people alone. They screwed up, offered fair settlement then this idiot sues them for 67 million?? What a waste of oxygen.
  • chicoer2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Time to throw him off the bench
  • wiirdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2He's suing because he has to walk around in his boxer with ***** stains on them.
  • holymonke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The civil trial, set for June, has the scope of a John Grisham courtroom thriller and the societal importance of a traffic ticket."

    Possibly the best thing ever said? This whole ordeal is lame. This Judge should be removed like everyone has said. His exsistence is futile.

    Oh and here's a link to his bio, feel free to spam them anytime!
    http://oah.dc.gov/oah/cwp/view,A,3,Q,604474.asp
    • MacGyver2210, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Don't forget someone actually won millions of dollars from mcdonalds or something for spilling their hot coffee on their junk because it didn't say 'Hot' on the cup...
    • MadMaxx426, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Don't forget someone actually won millions of dollars from mcdonalds or something for spilling their hot coffee on their junk because it didn't say 'Hot' on the cup..."

      That older lady had coffee, which was boiling, spilled on her producing 3rd degree burns on her crotch and thighs. All she wanted from McD's was to HELP with her medical bills (not even pay for all of it), something like 500$. They refused, so when they finally went to court to get the medical bills (all they were seeking) covered, the jury told the big arches to get ***** and gave her millions.

      I love it when people use that comment like it's supposed to show weakness in the system. If anything, it shows that big companies don't give a *****, but juries can sure lay the smack down.

      Oh, and this guys suit (ha) is ***** all around.
    • clickbam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was trying to find a form to contact the jugde from his bio...couldn't, but they do have a form to contact the mayor. http://dc.gov/contact/index.shtm
    • andwoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1madmaxx:

      Thank you for bringing context to that lawsuit. Too many people have no idea about what actually happened with it. In addition, on appeal, the woman's damages were reduced as well. So yeah, McDonald's coffee was too hot at that time, and it caused this woman a significant amount of damage, she wasn't just burned a little bit that went away in a few minutes. And yeah, this lawyer is an ass that deserves to be disbarred. He's a joke. I can't imagine anyone in the legal profession standing up for him. There are morons in every profession.
  • Loyaleagle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Forget DRM, let's set Digg on this guy....man, what a whiner. I mean it's one thing to get ripped off by a dry cleaner and get mad but it's another to try to bankrupt them over one or two altercations....
  • Grumby24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This guy must have been a Bush recess appointee.
  • agentblack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are two things I have to say about this:

    1. Abuse of the legal system (How do car rentals even tie into this argument? And suing someone for $67mil for a pair of $800 pants. Sue them for something more reasonable, like $1000. $800 for the pants, $200 for the inconvenience.)

    2. It's a pair of pants. I don't care how much they cost. They are pants. I've gone to work plenty of days with coffee or hot chocolate spilled on my pants and none of my coworkers thought any less of me. It's not how you look, it's how well you do your job. If I can save the world in a big bird costume, would you mind me saving your life?
    • CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would beg to differ on point #2, saying that if you had a big seeping ***** stain on the back of your pants from not wiping completely would TOTALLY affect the people around you, and that at that point, it would be because of the pants your wore!
  • northjersey78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They need Judge Judy to settle this mess!
    • CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1She can be such a bitch at times, but at least she backs up that bitchiness with sound logic. I approve of that.
  • hifistyle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And this guy is going to serve up justice?
    Let's hope he's kicked out before he starts putting people in jail for looking at him funny!
    ( by the way, what kind of ego maniac pays $800 for a pair of pants?)
  • BlueIndependent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not sure which is more absurd: the judge claiming emotional damage over a pair of freaking pants and wanting an indescribably large restitution for it, or the fact that an otherwise meaningless news story about a crazy stupid lawsuit took four pages to explain.

    This judge has already miscarried on the system and he's barely started, so I say oust the bastard, find someone else, and move on.
  • d03boy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Can anyone get me his name/address/phone number, etc. I would like to harass him a bit.
    • MacGyver2210, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Careful, he may sue you for $100 Million if you ACTUALLY do something wrong...
    • rouslan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@macgyver2210

      There are plenty of ways to do it anonymously.
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dumb Ass
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.