I Guess We Knew This Was Coming:
From the Associated Press, via Howard:
A former judge who lost a $54 million law suit against a dry cleaners over a missing pair of pants is suing to get his job back and at least $1 million in damages.
In the suit filed in federal court, Roy Pearson [alleges] he was wrongfully dismissed for exposing corruption within the Office of Administrative Hearings, the department where he worked. In court documents, Pearson said he was protected as a whistle-blower and that the city used the fact that he was being "vilified in the media" to cut him out of his job.
Given the nuttiness of his lost pants case, it would seem that his employer did not demand competence or even sanity from employees. But one thing you don't want to do with municipal employers is start grousing about corruption.
To be fair, there was more involved (eventually) than just a missing pair of pants.
... not much more, though.
As for restoring his job, I would argue that anyone who would file suit over a pair of pants ipso facto demonstrates his unworthiness to serve as an arbiter of a Law which does not concern itself with trifles. Of course, if that was one of the criteria, we'd rapidly run out of trial lawyers :)
Also, he's a f'ing nut job.
He's not a "judge" in the same sense that a district court judge is, to be sure, but does not the "J" in "ALJ" stand for "judge"? I think that sorta qualifies him as a "judge."
Roy Pearson for President!
The fact he's a complete asshole being insufficient?
Some states still require an ad damnum clause, and the amount in the clause has legal significance as a limit on awards. Thus, if a jury awards more than the ad damnum, the plaintiff may be limited to the amount asked for. FRCivPro and most states have abolished this rule, some states prohibit ad damnums or specific amounts, and some other states permit amendment after the jury returns a verdict.
But, it's a huge issue in some places. For example, after a state supreme court justice (who has been working on this for 20 years and specially assigned himself to my panel) and I went at this question for about 30 of my 20 minutes of argument, he pointed out that the biggest question here was whether there was malpractice if the lawyer didn't ask for enough (or forgot to move to amend immediately after the verdict came down).
And that is the reason for the "reasonable" outrageous ad damnums: nobody, particularly a contingency fee lawyer, wants to gamble on a verdict and then lose it because she didn't ask for enough. You will ask for a billion before you risk losing your house.
As the New Jersey Supreme Court put it many years ago: whatever the value of the ad damnum in providing certainty for the defendant in calculating trial risk, it exacts a far greater cost to the legitimacy of the judicial system from a public perception of inflated demands.
Having said that, I also used Roy Pearson as an example of why the rule needs to be abolished. "Four words, Your Honor: Dry cleaners. Lost pants."
That's generally what the media does when you do bad things.
Is it because he's not suing a defenseless victim this time?
Maybe he got the pants from Marion Barry, and that was the street value of the pocket liners.
Causes of action: defamation, slander, tortious assault with a deadly internet blog, copyright infringement for uttering plaintiff's given name without payment of royalties, and violation of 37 provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Only question remaining for the jury according to his motion for plaintiff's judgment on the merits is whether the damage to his reputation will exceed the damage to his pants...
Truth? A complete defense? Naw, this suit will be filed in the District of Columbia -- whole 'nother set of rules apply there...
Well, it's [i]his[/i] reputation ...
And "whistle blower?" I do not think blowing your own horn counts as such.
Just goes to show that everyone has a place in the world.
I do not think blowing your own horn counts as such.
It may be my own problem, but that was not a mental picture I needed.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.