Roy Pearson loses again

by Walter Olson on December 18, 2008

At the D.C. Court of Appeals level, in the Chung missing-pants dry cleaner case (Volokh, ShopFloor).

{ 6 comments }

1 Dan W 12.18.08 at 9:24 pm

This affair is so sad. Roy Pearson appears to be the SARS of the legal world. Nothing in our legal arsenal seems to exist to keep him from attacking the Chungs. If he were ranting on a soapbox in the park we could snicker and pass by, but he is causing actual harm. Is there really nothing short of highly illegal means that can protect the Chungs from this aberrated individual? Or is it simply that the Chungs, with no privileged access to the right people, are up against a system that protects the powerful and the commoner be damned? I feel for the Chungs and don’t know what I can do to change the system that permits this cruelty.

2 pato 12.18.08 at 10:57 pm

I know how they feel. I was sued by someone from the middle East who bought my house in California. He claimed the RICO act stating that 29 individuals and agencies conspired against him including the Orange County tax assessor and the California department of Realty. After all the defendants spent more than 1 million dollars to defend ourselves, the Judge finally threw the case out. Our system is rigged against the honest and iinnocent. The Judge in our case gave the plaintiff way too much latitude at our expense. We need to through out all lawyers from the Judicial system and hire people with common since! These types of cases don’t require a Law degree to realize that there is no merit to them!

3 Keith R. 12.18.08 at 11:04 pm

Quite simply, Roy Pearson should be disbarred. He takes the privilege of practicing law and uses it to abuse people. He appears to be seriously demented. You just can’t expect the legal system to police its own.

4 callmehats 12.19.08 at 4:09 pm

I’m not that familiar with the legal system, but I have done a lot of research on spite (behavior where a person accepts harm, or at least no gain, for themselves in order to hurt someone else.) This is some classic spite. I have a question: Can you sue someone in civil court for harassing you with a frivolous lawsuit? It seems wrong that this guy can get away with all this over a pair of pants. That’s why so many people want to help the family, it violates our innate sense of fairness. When the legal system fails to provide justice, people will take things into their own hands, just like that mom who goaded that girl into suicide with her fake myspace account. I’m willing to bet that one way or another, Pearson will get his comeuppance in the court of public opinion.

5 callmehats 12.19.08 at 4:14 pm

P.S.- If somebody found Roy Pearson’s missing pants, do you think he might let this go.

6 nonenone 12.19.08 at 5:13 pm

Did Pearson really “lose”? Yes, if his motives were maximizing financial gain – but were they?

In fact, from the facts of the case it sounds like Pearson’s primary motive was to harm the Chungs, to vent his anger. He certainly did that – the Chungs had to close their store, and now have only one much smaller store.

So from a legal point of view, Pearson likely got what he was after. (I think if Pearson had really been after money, he would have taken the $12,000 settlement offer the Chungs made. I think he was after harm, which he got).

Now in this particular case, there happened to a lot of publicity, so the Chungs were not harmed as much as they otherwise would have been, and also Pearson lost his ALJ position in consequence. But the Chungs were still harmed substantially, and Pearson rather obviously is not cut out to be an ALJ – he and the rest of us are all no doubt better off that he isn’t one.

So did Pearson win, after all? Maybe.

Comments on this entry are closed.