Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Embarassment to the Legal Profession Update

Can this guy be any more stubborn?

In case you don't remember, this is the case about judge Roy Pearson who sued a dry cleaner for $54 million for losing his pants.

He lost the case.

And now, instead of just dropping this frivolous issue, he is appealing the case.

Inhale, exhale.

Here are my thoughts:

A) Roy, get off your power trip.

B) We're talking about pants, right? Pieces of cloth with two legs, that you wear, and that are easily replaceable, right?

And, most importantly,

C) It is incredible to me that a judge, of all people, would waste the legal and financial resources the way he continues to do so. He should be stripped of his position as a judge and disbarred as an attorney.

As someone who has, in various legal aid settings, represented poor families being unjustly evicted from their homes, sick people going bankrupt from their HIV-related medical care, and disabled people desperately trying to get deserved disability payments, I am sickened by this judge. Mainly, because for each of these people that I and my colleagues represented, there were about 10 others who went without legal representation that they needed for serious and pressing legal issues.

And this judge, Roy Pearson, has no qualms about continuing to pursue his ridiculous case that speaks volumes not only of his financial and edcational privilege but of his audacity and self-centeredness.

Some may say, yeah, but he can afford to bring whatever case he wants. Yeah, true.

Some people believe that capitalism brings out the best in people. It is cases like this that continue to make me believe otherwise.

Let them represent themselves, I suppose.

D) It does make me feel a little better that The Commission on Selection and Tenure may not renew his term on the bench.

But what's with the "may" not? They better fucking not. Is there any doubt as to the quality of this man's judgment and "judicial temperament"

E) At some point, you have to stop caring about "winning" the fight. Because in the proces of winning, what are you proving? That you are able to pick on people smaller than you? That you can afford better lawyers than other people? That you are "smarter" than them? So what.

What are those things when you are a joke to the rest of the world, when you have no respect, and no more friends?

F) Anyway, the scary thing about this case is this: How many of you were at least a little scared that a judge would rule in Pearson's favor?

No comments: