They say justice is blind. I submit to you that it is blind, deaf, dumb, lame, mute and stupid. It is also quite tyrannical when brought to bear as a weapon against an individual or the fruits of their labor. One of the biggest problems in America is the plague of frivolous litigation that is clogging up the nation’s court systems. From a spilled cup of hot coffee while driving, to a severed finger planted in a bowl of fast food chili, the claims of irreversible harm and emotional distress encouraged by multi-million dollar jury verdicts continue to border on the absurd.
Recent estimates indicate that the average American coughs up an additional $3,500.00 per year for everyday goods and services [1] as a result of frivolous litigation brought by individuals with an axe to grind. As an orderly society, we cannot function without certain individuals to teach us, guide us, heal us or protect us. That is why we hold professions such as priests, judges, teachers and police officers more accountable than others. It is also why the citizens of Washington DC must hold DC Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Pearson accountable.
The Honorable Judge Pearson is the plaintiff in a frivolous $65 million dollar lawsuit against Ji Nam Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners in suburban Washington DC. The suit was brought by Pearson over a pair of his pants that apparently went missing when he sent them for cleaning. Pearson began his assault by asking the Chungs for $1,000.00 - the full price of the suit. The Chungs contended a week later that the pants had been found. They refused to pay, at which point Pearson brought forth his lawsuit.
The Chung’s attorney, Chris Manning said that they made three settlement offers to Pearson - first $3,000.00, then $4,600.00, and finally $12,000.00, all of which were rejected.
Pearson contends that two signs in the Chung’s business, “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” amount to fraud because of his dissatisfaction over his pants. As a consequence of this alleged “fraud”, Pearson calculates that -according to DC consumer protection laws- at $1,500.00 per violation per day, the Chungs had 12 separate violations over 1,200 days times three people for 64.8 million dollars. Additionally, Pearson decided that since he no longer wanted to patronize his neighborhood dry cleaners, it was worth another $15,000.00, which he contends would be the cost to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to take his suits to another dry cleaners. And in a final sign of this jerk’s contempt for our legal system, he appointed himself to represent all DC area customers “affected” by signs promising satisfaction, such as were found in the Chung’s establishment.
Sherman Joyce, President of the American Tort Association stepped forward and offered an olive branch to Pearson by offering to buy him the suit of his choice. It is unknown whether Pearson accepted the offer. Thankfully, people in a position to stop this madness are beginning to speak out. Former NLRB chief administrative law judge Melvin Welles wrote the Washington Post, urging that Pearson be immediately disbarred. Pearson may very well be on his way there. On Wednesday, Judge Pearson’s biography page was active, but as of Saturday May 5th, 2007, his biography has been removed from the Office of Administrative Hearings website.
It appears that in this case, the system may in fact work the way it was intended. But even Pearson’s possible disbarment and dismissal from the bench don’t quite go far enough. Rather than being offered a new suit, Judge Pearson should have his pants sued off for malicious prosecution and then be forced to trade in that black robe for something more suitable such as a bright orange or black-and-white-striped jumpsuit with matching wrist and ankle bracelets.
It has long been held that there are two systems of justice in this country. One for the haves, another for the have-not’s. If your pants have deep pockets; If you can afford a flashy attorney schooled in theatrics and skilled oratory, you stand a much better chance of winning. Likewise, one who earns a living practicing the legal profession has a substantial edge over the average citizen when facing off in court. They ought to face substantial sanctions for the “piling on” of frivolous costs and accusations. If there is ever going to be meaningful tort reform, these types of lawsuits must never see the inside of a courtroom.
1. Source Towers, Perrin, Tillinghast 2006 Update on US Tort Cost Trends
Help Support The Chung’s against this tyrannical judge
