Apparently unable to live without being mocked daily, and desperate to not be reappointed as a D.C. administrative law judge, Roy Pearson has now asked Judge Judith Bartnoff to reconsider her dismissal of his $54-million-pants lawsuit. In his motion for reconsideration, which is comprised of no fewer than 35 pages (longer than most briefs and much too long for a virtually-always-futile motion for reconsideration), he accuses Judge Bartnoff of a "fundamental legal error":
The court effectively substituted a guarantee of satisfaction with "reasonable" limits and preconditions for the unconditional and unambiguous guarantee of satisfaction the defendant-merchant chose to advertise for seven years. That was a fundamental legal error.
How does somebody who can't understand that the statement "Satisfaction Guaranteed" should be interpreted "reasonably" by a court even get a driver's license, let alone an appointment to a judgeship? I guess if they unconditionally guaranteed his unreasonable satisfaction, they have to be his slaves for life, or until Roy Pearson feels satisfied, whichever comes first. Hard to argue with that logic. Roy, I know -- why don't you make them sew you the world's biggest pair of pants? Wouldn't that feel satisfying? Maybe your ego could wear them. Yes, have your new slaves make you the world's biggest pair of pants, and then have your ego stomp around in them with your slaves peeking out of the monstrous cuffs as it lays waste to the District of Columbia, in brutal revenge for the District's failure to recognize the legal genius of its master, Roy Pearson. Only then shall the wrong done you be truly avenged.
Roy hasn't thought of that yet, or at least it's not in his motion. What is in the motion, apparently as a reply to the cleaners' motion last week asking that Pearson pay the $83,000 legal fees they incurred because of his lawsuit, is this astonishing claim:
Plaintiff [Pearson] therefore seeks reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $425,000 for excellent legal work performed under extremely trying circumstances - including holding down a more than full time job.
A statement proving that (1) as noted above, Roy Pearson doesn't know what "reasonable" means, (2) he also doesn't know what "excellent" means, and (3) being a dummy of this caliber is not something you can achieve on a part-time basis. You have to be willing to work overtime.