Lowering the Bar

Judge Who Lost Pants Wants Job Back

In what is certainly welcome news for amateur legal humorists everywhere, Roy Pearson has filed another lawsuit.  As you may recall (see, e.g., "Judge Drops Pants; Suit Still On," Lowering the Bar (June 6, 2007)), Pearson was formerly Judge Pearson, but ultimately lost his job after adverse publicity due to a lawsuit he filed demanding millions in compensation for a pair of lost pants.  A D.C. judge dismissed Pearson's claims after a trial in which, among other things, Pearson wept on the stand when describing how his dry cleaners had allegedly mistreated him.

In the new lawsuit, filed this time in federal court, Pearson alleges that he was actually fired for exposing corruption within the department where he worked.  He says he was a protected whistleblower and that the media circus in which the pants occupied the center ring was just the city's pretext for getting rid of him.

Pearson now wants his job back.  He is also seeking $1 million in damages, or approximately $64 million less than he sought for the loss of the treasured pants.

Link: Washington Post

Florida Attorney Sanctioned for Insulting Court with "Children's Picture Book"

On Friday, March 7, Bonnie Goldstein of Slate.com wrote about a furious battle going on between a Florida attorney on one side and the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court on the other.

Any bets on how this one comes out?

The attorney is Jack Thompson, who has a long history of trying to police violent and sexual content in the media.  You can reasonably take the position that at least some examples of that are a problem, but Thompson's thinking has evolved way beyond reasonable positions.

According to the Wikipedia article on Thompson, which is heavily documented (132 footnotes), Thompson has been involved in decency crusades since the 1980s, pushing for boycotts of, among others, 2 Live Crew, N.W.A., and Madonna.  Eventually, he took on video games, claiming for example that vibrating PlayStation 2 controllers are designed to encourage violence because the "pleasurable buzz [delivered] with each kill" is a form of behavior-modification conditioning.

Last April, he claimed the Virginia Tech killer had been driven to kill, and trained to do so, by playing the game "Counter-Strike."  "[T]his is not rocket science," Thompson said.  "When a kid who has never killed anyone in his life goes on a rampage . . . he's a video gamer."  That does seem pretty conclusive, although the official report on the Virginia Tech shooting found that none of the games the shooter played "were war games or had violent themes," although he did play "Sonic the Hedgehog."

There is no evidence that any rocket scientists contributed to that report, however.

Thompson has also taken on the Florida Bar, saying that ethics complaints against him are frivolous.  Some of the complaints involve attacks Thompson has made on other attorneys and judges in Florida, and that's what got Thompson in trouble recently.  In what he said was an effort to prove that an opposing attorney's website contains links to pornographic images, Thompson filed pleadings in federal court that included the same images he said he was complaining about.  The court was not amused.

In February, the Florida Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why Thompson should not be sanctioned.  That was prompted by a pleading Thompson filed that he described as a "children's picture book for adults," which he said was necessary because the court couldn't seem to understand his arguments without pictures.  The pictures included swastikas, cartoon squirrels, a judge with the head of a donkey, and an album cover used to argue that the validity of Thompson's position "should now be so clear with this filing that even could see it."

On March 20 -- after Thompson filed a response that called the order "bizarre" and "idiotic" and asking the court to "make [his] day" -- the court sanctioned him.  As a result, Thompson cannot file any more pleadings unless they are "signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar other than himself."  Further insulting pleadings, which are almost certainly forthcoming, may lead to contempt charges.

Link: Slate Magazine
Link: Wikipedia article on Thompson

Man Who Told Sentencing Judge He Was "Bored" Will Spend Seven Exciting Years in Jail

Lance Majors of Poughkeepsie, New York, the new poster boy for Not Giving A Damn, will have several years to think about whether telling the judge you're bored during your sentencing hearing is a good idea.

Majors, who was being sentenced today for a felony DWI conviction, has made the most of his 38 years on this planet, compiling an impressive list of screwups:

• robbery;
• drug possession;
• drug dealing;
• driving while intoxicated;
• driving while intoxicated again;
• driving while intoxicated three more times;
• driving while intoxicated again, and in this incident he
• was clocked at 107 mph
• with his 11-year-old daughter in the car
• after his license had been revoked;
• he represented himself at trial; and
• then told the judge, "Just speed it up because you are really boring me."

Judge Frank LaBuda sentenced Majors to a possible seven years in prison for the six counts related to the most recent DWI, plus another 15 days for contempt of court.

Link: Times Herald-Record

Motion to Recuse Based on "Prior Relationship" With Judge Is Denied

Lowering the Bar had this item last week but has been sitting on it until it was (a) confirmed (as having actually been filed, that is, not as relating true events) and (b) made public by someone else first, and now it appears both of those conditions have been met.

A Mr. Robert Seitz, acting pro se, recently filed a motion to recuse a judge in Florida on grounds that I would guess are very rare, if not unprecedented.  Seitz alleged that the judge was biased because of two, um, encounters they allegedly had while students at the University of Miami almost 25 years ago.  He did not really explain why these incidents would justify his supposed "grave concern" about her impartiality, even if they were true.

The "legal tabloid" Above the Law was one of the first to post the story, as far as I can tell, and I will let them host the documents as well.

In a recent order, the judge denied Seitz's motion to recuse, denied his allegations, and (remarkably, I thought) denied the other side's motion for sanctions against Seitz.  Seitz has a history of doing this kind of thing -- a published Florida opinion notes that he pleaded no contest in 2001 to five counts of battery, stalking, and harassment, including publishing what he claimed were his victim's pharmaceutical records.  Seitz was given probation on those charges, but violated it, and ended up spending four years in jail.

The 2004 order against Seitz I will publish myself.

Link: Above the Law

Tool Sued

The New Orleans bureau has alerted me to a new lawsuit against the rock band Tool, filed in federal court in Louisiana.  Tool, whose music is described as "heavy metal," "alternative metal," "art rock," "art metal," "progressive rock," "progressive metal," "post-metal," and "genre-transgressing" in their extremely detailed Wikipedia article, was founded in 1990 and remains active today.  The band is also known for its creativity and elaborate stage shows and even packaging (Tool's album 10,000 Days won the 2006 Grammy for "Best Recording Package").

Turns out, all this time Tool has been exploiting Jason Crowley from Shreveport.

Crowley sued the band (named in the suit only as "Tool") on September 5, alleging that Tool had used him "to base their music on."  Crowley alleges that Tool uses his name in their music and has used his "likeness in video on screens on stage in live performances."  (Maybe this is the guy in the video for "Sober.")

More troubling is the allegation that Tool "managed to get into my apartment and place a ring, that you would wear on your hand, inside."  Crowley claims to have recently found a picture of said ring in a CD booklet insert.  He does not explain what Tool's motive might have been for breaking into his apartment and planting a ring (the hand kind) inside.  According to the complaint, Crowley has been trying to get the Shreveport Police Department interested in Tool (or at least the ring story) since 2003, but they accepted his report only in May of this year.

Crowley demands ten million dollars for "invasion of privacy, the use of my name, the images, and the trespassing."

Link:  Crowley v. Tool, Case No. 5:07cv1475 (W.D. La. filed Sept. 5, 2007) (PDF).
Link:  Justia Docket Search

"American National" Sues All Nine Supreme Court Justices

Brave American citizen Jerry Brumbaugh struck a blow for freedom or something on Friday when he sued the nine current members of the United States Supreme Court for making rulings that have violated his constitutional rights.  Specifically, all of them (all the rulings and all the rights).

In the lawsuit, filed in the Springfield division of the Western District of Missouri, Brumbaugh takes issue with the Court's rulings that have "violated my constitutional rights . . . in all manners, ways, and areas of law."  These include:

• "Violation of civil liberties by allowing a granted clause of the Constitution to violate my rights in many manners and ways,"
• "Failing to correct violations of the Constitution which it is the duty of the Court to do," and
• "Allowing unlawfully the loss of civil liberties by contractual means into the sphere of the 14th Amendment."

We would probably all agree that there are lots of "violations of the Constitution" that the Court has been failing to correct, although we would probably all disagree about exactly what those violations are.  Perhaps hoping to save space, Brumbaugh does not allege any facts supporting his own personal claim.  It is refreshing to see a complaint limited to three pages (especially after last week's titanic 239-page "brief" on behalf of Jeff Skilling), but this one probably needed a little more detail.  And a little more research -- I know the liberal wing of the Court is in the minority these days, but it would still be polite to spell Justice Breyer's name correctly.

On the other hand, Brumbaugh's complaint is consistent with his position that, since he is "an American national citizen," those pesky Federal Rules of Procedure do not apply to him.  The argument seems to be that the Bill of Rights amended "every preceeding [sic] clause" of the Constitution, so that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause applies directly to the action, authorizing Jerry D. Brumbaugh to do whatever he wants: "Plaintiff hereby asserts that the rules may not be used to interfere with this case . . . nor its continuance before the courts."

That argument didn't fly in a previous case, Brumbaugh v. Tandy, to which Brumbaugh refers in this complaint in support of his request that counsel be appointed for him.  (In both cases, he has specifically requested Gerry Spence.)  The complaint in that case elaborated a bit on Brumbaugh's arguments, and made some more creative ones, such as the argument that the Privileges & Immunities Clause grants a "right to protection by the government," and "to allow a pro se litigant to flounder is a horrid violation of the right to protection."  Maybe so, but it can also be very entertaining.  I hereby assert the right to deny Mr. Brumbaugh counsel, as to appoint one would infringe upon my pursuit of happiness.

In Brumbaugh v. Thomas, et al., of course, plaintiff has taken a more direct approach, as his certificate of service indicates: "YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT YOU NINE JUSTICES ARE BEING SUED FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION."  Should he prevail, he requests "a ruling that the judges [sic] of the U.S. Supreme Court have violated the Constitution," and as damages "the net worth of each justice as payment for their deriliction [sic] of duty."  You nine justices should take note.

Link:  Brumbaugh v. Thomas, et al., Case No. 07-CV-3295 (W.D. Mo. filed Sept. 7, 2007) (PDF).
Link: The Supreme Court (for now) of the United States

Judge Pearson Ignores Standing Eight-Count, Staggers Back Into Ring

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.

Link: Washington Post (Marc Fisher)
Link: CBS News

Judge Who Lost Pants Loses Case

Wasting no time this morning, Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled in favor of Custom Cleaners, saying they had not violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Act by failing to satisfy Judge Roy Pearson as to the whereabouts of his pants, despite having posted a sign reading "Satisfaction Guaranteed."  Pearson will receive approximately zero of the 65 million dollars he originally claimed.

According to Post reporter Marc Fisher, Judge Bartoff's ruling (which I haven't personally read yet) is "extremely cautious and detailed," spanning some 23 pages.  While she seems to have been very restrained and not particularly critical of Judge Pearson, she did award the defendants their costs in the case and will decide later whether to award them their attorney fees, which seem to have been considerable.

Basically, Judge Bartoff ruled that "Satisfaction Guaranteed" does not create an absolute, unconditional guarantee.  Instead, she held, any unfair-trade-practice claim alleging a failure to meet expectations is measured by the expectations of a reasonable person.  Her rejection of the proposed whatever-it-takes-to-satisfy-Roy-Pearson legal standard is something of a setback for Roy Pearson, but a step forward for common sense.

Link: CBS News
Link: Washington Post (with link to decision)
Link: Marc Fisher (Washington Post)

Trial of Judge's Lost-Pants Claim Set to Begin

According to the website of the firm representing Custom Cleaners, the trial of Judge Roy Pearson's $54-million-dollar lost-pants claims is set to begin today or tomorrow in District of Columbia Superior Court.  Apparently Judge Judith Bartnoff is presiding over another trial that is running longer than expected, one that someone apparently thinks is more important than getting closure on the pants allegations.

To date, I've been unable to determine whether Pearson was reappointed to another ten-year term as an administrative-law judge.  That appointment was to be considered recently, but, some would say, the pants dispute (for my Spanish readers, el ensayo de los pantalones) has cast some doubt on Pearson's objectivity and common sense.  If anyone knows whether he was reappointed, please let me know.

Updates to follow.

Link: Manning & Sossamon

Granddaughter of Zorro Sues For Treaty Violation

I have no details yet, but this report indicates that a very dramatic lawsuit was filed Wednesday in San Francisco Superior Court:

Eowyn v. b.b. Cts. de la Vega v. St. Vincent de Paul Society and Mercy Housing Corp., CGC-07-464019

Complaint for quiet title and wrongful death. The plaintiff challenges the Treaty of September 9, 1850, signed by Zorro Diego de la Vega, her grandfather, with whom she spent the summer of 1956 along with Vladimir Putin.

Like I say, no details yet, but there appear to be a few problems with this lawsuit just based on that description.

• First, the only "Treaty of September 9, 1850" that I can find is the Robinson-Huron Treaty, which is the reason that Native Americans don't own the land north of Lake Huron.  But other facts, discussed below, make this unlikely to be the relevant agreement.
• According to the Texas State Historical Association, that was also the date that the Texas-New Mexico Boundary Act was passed, as part of the Compromise of 1850 that apparently averted a fight between Texas militia and federal troops over that border dispute.  (And you thought you'd never learn anything useful by reading this blog.)  It's also the date that California was admitted to the Union.  Neither of these events involved "treaties," but they are possible candidates.
• That's because plaintiff's reference to "Zorro Diego de la Vega" appears to refer to Don Diego de la Vega, who of course was (secretly) Zorro.  To my knowledge, Zorro did not work the area around Lake Huron, which is why I think Texas and/or California are more likely.
• One problem, though, with plaintiff's claim that she is the granddaughter of Zorro/de la Vega is that he was fictional, and not even created until 1919.  Both of these facts make it unlikely that Don Diego de la Vega signed any treaty in 1850, in costume or otherwise.
• Plaintiff also appears to claim that she spent the summer of 1956 with her grandfather.  Had he been real, this would not have been completely impossible, although assuming you have to be 18 to sign a treaty, he would have been 124 years old at the time, longer than any other human is known to have lived.
• It's unclear whether plaintiff claims that she spent the summer of 1956 with Vladimir Putin or that he signed the treaty "along with" her grandfather.  (This is an example of how a comma can make all the difference in interpretation).  Putin could not have signed anything in 1850 because he was not born until October 1952.  But, again, it is not completely impossible that plaintiff spent the summer of 1956 with Vladimir Putin, although it does seem unlikely.

Therefore, construing plaintiff's allegations as favorably as I can, she appears to claim that she has standing to enforce a non-existent boundary-dispute treaty signed 157 years ago by her fictional grandfather, who advised her of the possible claim during a glorious summer she spent in the mid-50s with the then-124-year-old Zorro and a three-year-old Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, later to become the leader of post-Soviet Russia.  Sadly, it looks like (even if plaintiff resolves the problems above) this lawsuit would be barred by the statute of limitations.  But stay tuned.

Judge Drops Pants; Suit Still On

New developments this week in the lawsuit by D.C. administrative law judge Roy Pearson against his local dry cleaners, alleging a diabolical pants-related scheme.  As you may recall, Pearson sued under the D.C. consumer-protection statute after the cleaners allegedly lost a pair of pants, applying the statutory scheme to calculate a demand of nearly $65 million.  The news today is that, in a pre-trial brief he filed yesterday, Pearson lowered his demand to a mere $54 million, and apparently focuses now on the allegedly misleading signs used by Custom Cleaners, as opposed to the allegations of damages stemming from the loss of Pearson's pants.

I am by no means the first to use something like "Judge Drops Pants From Suit" as a headline, and I struggled with that for a while, but sometimes a headline joke is just inevitable.  A variation on the theme was the best I could do.

Since I haven't seen the brief yet, it's not entirely clear whether the pants were dropped entirely, or the focus merely changed.  If they were dropped entirely and the demand reduced to $54 million, then that seems to indicate that Judge Pearson valued the pants and associated damages at $13 million.  (I apologize for earlier statements about "$65-million-dollar pants," which it seems were wildly exaggerated.)

But the suit itself is still going forward, apparently, since the report states that trial is set for June 11.  The defendants' attorney said he was "still baffled" as to why Pearson was continuing, "unless it's simply to harass and annoy my clients."  Pearson refused to comment "in light of pending litigation," which is an awfully popular no-comment excuse these days.

The suit is costing the defendants an awful lot of money, of course.  (Pearson is representing himself, and seems to be getting what he's paying for.)  You can donate to the defense cause if you like at the Custom Cleaners link below.  There's also a link to a page on this case at the site of the defense firm, Manning and Sossamon, which includes some additional details such as these:

• Mr. Pearson alleges that on May 3, 2005 he left a pair of pants with the Chungs to be altered by May 5, 2005. The pants he submitted were grey in color and were unique in that they had a succession of three belt loops very close together on each side of the front waistband of the pants.
• The Chungs offered the altered grey pants to Mr. Pearson a few days after the May 5, 2007 deadline.
• Mr. Pearson refused to accept the pants the Chungs offered even though (1) the pants had the same unique belt loop configuration as the pants he originally submitted; (2) the pants' measurements were identical to measurements he requested for the alteration; and, (3) the tag number on the pants matched his receipt.

This is the first I've heard of the unique belt-loop configuration issue, which may make it extremely difficult for Pearson to show the pants were not his, if the pants are still an issue in the case, as I expect they will be.  Stay tuned for more dramatic developments in this titanic legal battle.

Link: DC Examiner
Link: The Facts of Pearson v. Chung (at Manning & Sossamon, PLLC)
Link: Custom Cleaners Defense Fund

Law Student Claims Discrimination Against Unskilled Typists

I've been meaning to post this for a while -- it's not new, but worth having in the Hall of Pleading Shame.  Late last year, Adrian Zachariasewycz (or, as his complaint states in paragraph 1, "hereinafter Adrian Zack"), after not being hired by the law firm where he had been a summer associate, sued that firm, his law school (Michigan), and a bunch of employees of both entities, alleging that they had all conspired to deny him employment.

Not surprisingly, the conspiracy allegations are especially vague.  Plaintiff does allege that he "believe[s] there is some nexus between the actions" of everybody that is named or not named in the complaint (see para. 33), which I think means among other things that all of you reading this now, and everyone you know or don't know, are alleged to be participants in the Conspiracy Against Adrian Zack.

The heart of the complaint, however, is Zack's allegation that Michigan Law School implemented, as part of the conspiracy, a "system of course examination and grading [that] disadvantaged students that could not type at a sufficient speed to produce the volume of text required to produce competitive examination responses."  This diabolical scheme resulted, in certain exams, in "borderline failing grades by virtue of the low volume of prose Mr. Zack could type in the time allotted as compared with other students."

I make a lot of suggestions in my legal writing seminars, but "try to generate a higher volume of prose" is not one of them.

It is not clear whether Zack is claiming to have an actual disability, but he does charge the law school with failing to make an accommodation for bad typists "that would allow them to complete on a level playing field with their manually more dextrous peers with better-developed keyboarding skills."  Among the relief sought in the complaint in addition to money, is an injunction preventing defendants from (among other things) "voluntarily disclosing the existence of this action," which of course Zack had already done himself by filing the complaint (not under seal).

Ironically, Zack's complaint has been typed reasonably well, by a person or persons unknown.  Perhaps he tapped it out one painful stroke at a time, during the two-and-a-half years that he has been trying unsuccessfully to find a job.

Link: Zachariasewycz v. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP., et al. (complaint filed Nov. 28, 2006).

Georgia Court Rules Against Mom, in Favor of Harry Potter and Satan

Earlier this week, a judge in Gwinnett County, Georgia, chose to side with the forces of darkness by dismissing a lawsuit intended to protect schoolchildren from the witchcraft-inducing Harry Potter books.  This ends, for now, a two-year quest by suburban mom Laura Mallory to have the series removed from county schools.

Mallory told the court Tuesday that she has testimony from children who have read the books and have thought about using magic and acting out spells described there.  The school board's position is that the books help encourage children to read and think creatively, which is just what you would expect the Devil to say.  Mallory was not fooled.  "They don't want the Easter Bunny's power," she said of today's children.  "[They] want Harry's power, and they're getting it."  I guess the Easter Bunny has placed its mighty colored-egg-hiding power in the service of good, and that's reassuring, but apparently kids today are more interested in being able to fly and whatnot.

The only legal argument mentioned in the article was Mallory's position that, because witchcraft is a religion to some people, the Potter books should be banned because reading them in school thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state.  Ah!  Clever, but on a collision course with Mallory's other position: "I have a dream that God will be welcomed back in our schools again [once this other religion is kicked out]."  This slight inconsistency was ferreted out by the court, causing Mallory to lose and to tell reporters that, as the article put it, "it may be time to rethink her arguments with the help of an attorney," which she did not have.  "I maybe need a whole new case from the ground up," she told reporters.  Well, it's never too late to get one, except on appeal.

For much more info than you would ever want about how Harry Potter is of the Devil, you could go to the "Harry Potter is of the Devil" webpage.  Or (and this is probably safer) you can just imagine what that page is like based on the fact that, in addition to dozens of anti-Potter articles, it also warns against Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Casper, the UN, Pocahontas, Peter Jennings, the Pope, the Lion King, Bill Clinton, Pokemon, South Park, and somehow even "Touched by an Angel" and Christianity Today,  all of which appear to be joined in a vast Satanic conspiracy.

I always suspected Peter Jennings of being the Antichrist, but then I found out he was just Canadian.

The same types of charges have been leveled at the Potter books around the world, including in Russia, where the Moscow City Prosecutor's office declined to press charges against the publisher of a Russian-language version in 2002.  But Harry Potter has survived worse than that in Russia, including the far more serious charge that the character of Dobby the House Elf is "insulting to the head of state" because he looks too much like Vladimir Putin:

These conspiracies go far deeper than I ever imagined.

Link: Pensacola News Journal.com
Link: American Library Association (on the Russian case)

Plaintiff in Assassination-Conspiracy Case Will Take Less Than $1.4 Billion for Quick Settlement

Poor Loli Wang has been the target of a massive conspiracy to assassinate her in every way possible, or at least that's what her many lawsuits allege.  Luckily, the conspirators always seem to fail.  I noticed that the most recent attempt, by that heartless utility Pacific Gas & Electric, was especially insidious:

Loli Wang v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company 5/4/2007 RG07-324365 (Oakland)

Complaint for assassination conspiracy. The defendant conspired to install more than 30 deadly carbon monoxide gas devices in the plaintiff's apartment. She seeks $1.4 billion, or less for an immediate, out-of-court settlement.

In Pro Per

Damn you, Pacific Gas and Electric, you scoundrel!  Let this woman be!

Admirably, even in the face of such evil, Ms. Wang is still willing to compromise, actually offering to take less than the $1.4 billion she deserves in exchange for a quick settlement of the matter.

A PG&E spokesperson said that the company did not comment on pending litigation, but that it was considering tying Ms. Wang to some train tracks and insisting that she sign over her mortgage.

Courthouse News Service (reported May 4, 2007).

Further Details Emerge on $65-Million-Pants Lawsuit

We learned more this week about the lawsuit by a D.C. administrative law judge against his diabolical neighborhood dry cleaners, who allegedly lost or stole or set fire to or irradiated or otherwise acted tortiously towards a pair of pants that he dropped off for cleaning four years ago.

WARNING: these people
want your pants

You'll recall that the bulk of the damages were calculated in a very straightforward manner under the D.C. consumer-protection statute.  Applying the simple equation

X=1500D*V*W
(where X=1500 x [number of Days violation persisted] x [number of Violations] x [(number of Wrongdoers])

yields a total of $64,800,000.  It is not clear yet how the judge derived 12 violations from one pair of pants, so assuming he is just a bit optimistic there, a more reasonable lost-pants valuation would seem to be $5.4 million.

A new detail is that an additional $15,000 was claimed in order to compensate the plaintiff, who obviously can no longer use this neighborhood cleaners, for the cost of having to rent a car each weekend for a ten-year period in order to go to another one.  Based on rough calculations, that comes out to just $15.64 per day, which again is a very reasonable value for car rental.

The remaining $647,500 claimed by the judge appears to be a combination of litigation expenses and time, and his "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."  At least some of the "discomfort," however, may be due to the alternative cause of the judge's pants having become "uncomfortably tight" in the first place, damages that he could have mitigated.

Finally, the publicity over the lawsuit has led some of these unscrupulous Internet people to dig up the opinion from Judge Pearson's divorce proceedings a few years ago, in which he was demanding support from his wife.  Consistent with his current tactics, he sought sanctions at least twice, demanded the judge recuse himself, filed multiple motions to compel his wife to respond to his 248 requests for admission, and, according to the trial judge, "in good part [was] responsible for driving up" everyone's legal costs, "including threatening both the wife and her lawyer with disbarment" which created "unnecessary litigation."

No news yet on whether Judge Pearson, who is up this week for another ten-year term as an administrative law judge, will be reappointed.

Link: CNN.com
Link: Pearson v. Vanlowe (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (on FindLaw.com)

Lawyer Seeking $65 Million for Pants-Related Fraud

Marc Fisher wrote in the Washington Post on Thursday about a titanic legal dispute that is unfolding in our nation's capitol, where an attorney (who I will refer to here only as "Attorney" for various reasons) has been battling with a local cleaners ("Cleaners") for years now over some pants ("Pants").

It seems that in 2002, Attorney asked Cleaners to clean Pants.  Cleaners lost Pants, later admitting its error and compensating Attorney with a check for $150.  (Apparently these were high-quality Attorney Pants.)  But the dispute seems to have been acrimonious, because Cleaners told Attorney he was no longer welcome there, although this was resolved in some fashion that caused Attorney to continue to use Cleaners.

But the Pants Dispute was almost certainly still in Attorney's mind when the next Pants issue arose in 2005.  Attorney had a new job that required him to wear suits every day, so that he needed five times as many Attorney Pants ready to wear.  Attorney also found that his existing Attorney Pants had somehow become "uncomfortably tight."  Attorney returned to Cleaners with Pants on May 3, 2007 (it is unclear whether these were the same Pants, so I will refer to these as "Second Pants"), and asked Cleaners to let the waist of Second Pants out two or three inches so that he could wear them on May 6.  But Second Pants were not ready that morning.  Indeed, said pants were nowhere to be found.  Anger followed.

Have you seen these pants?

One week later, Cleaners found a pair of pants that it believed to be Second Pants.  But Attorney said Second Pants had pinstripes, whereas these ("Third Pants") were gray.  Anger increasing, Attorney pointed to representations that Cleaners made in signs posted on the premises, including "Satisfaction Guaranteed," and "Same Day Service."  Eventually, he sued, claiming the broken sign promises constituted fraud.

This has been going on for two years now, and Attorney's settlement demands have continued to escalate, along with Cleaners' attorney fees.  Originally, he demanded $1,150 for a new suit.  This was apparently rejected, but as legal bills continued to mount, Cleaners offered $3,000, then $4,600, and eventually $12,000, enough for ten new suits even at Attorney prices.  But this is no longer enough for Attorney.

Attorney now seeks damages including litigation costs, the value of the time he has had to spend on the litigation, the value of "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort," and the costs of leasing a car each weekend for the last ten years (the report did not explain that one).  Also, because Attorney is suing under the District's handy Consumer Protection Act, he also claims damages under that law's provision that imposes damages of $1,500 per violation (Attorney claims 12 "violations"), per defendant (three members of the family who run Cleaners), per day (1,200 -- probably the limitations period of the CPA).  Total damages claimed?  $65,462,500.

Oh, also some new pants.

And that's just for Attorney's own claim.  Although the case is somehow going to trial in June, a D.C. judge did at least reject Attorney's attempt to turn the case into an action on behalf of the general public (all D.C. residents).  This is a common feature of consumer-protection statutes, and while it may be beneficial in some cases it also is susceptible to abuse, which is why you get someone claiming with a straight face to be representing all members of the public in a case that is based on a pair of pants.  In rejecting that claim, the judge said that "the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion" Attorney sought had caused the court "significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith."  "Significant concerns" -- really?  Let's not rush to judgment, your Honor.

Meanwhile, it is entirely possible that the whole dispute, which you will recall began over the alleged loss of Second Pants, is completely unnecessary.  Cleaners' attorney told the Post that he has a perfectly good pair of gray wool pants hanging in his closet, bearing a tag that he says matches Attorney's receipt.  "We believe the pants are his," he said.  Whether the mysterious pants are in fact Attorney's pants will apparently be fought out in the arena of D.C. Superior Court sometime this summer.

Link: Washingtonpost.com
Link: Video report from local news

Reasons Not to Represent Yourself, #73

I'm going through some of my files and want to start posting some of these case reports before I lose them.  This one I thought was definitely worth keeping.

The appellant, who had chosen to represent himself at his preliminary hearing, was subsequently convicted of robbing a hotel in Washington, D.C.  He appealed based in part on his own legal work:

After the night [clerk] had testified, . . . appellant proceeded to ask him questions, one of them being the question comprising the first error alleged on his appeal.  The question asked was, "How do you know it was me, when I had a handkerchief over my face?"

Judgment affirmed.

Nance v. United States, 299 F.2d 122, 123 (D.C. Cir. 1962).