Pants Suit May End, But Broken Lawsuit System Will Remain

Institute for Legal Reform ^ | 6/18/2007 | Lisa Rickard

[MrLegalReform]

Even if they win, the Chungs lose. If they are fortunate, the judge will require Pearson to repay the tens of thousands of dollars they've spent in legal defense costs. But even if that happens, this frivolous lawsuit will still have cost them years of stress and unwanted attention and time away from running their family business. For them, the American dream has turned into a nightmare, thanks to the broken lawsuit system.

[MrLegalReform]

According to this article, the ruling will be "later this week." I think they should make the judge suing these folks pay THEM the $54 million he's asking for.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

I thought this might have been a Hillary article. Sorry!

[SeanOGuano]

Me too. I thought the article was about the possible retirement of ol’ crusty.

[varon]

For them, the American dream has turned into a nightmare, thanks to the broken lawsuit system.

Part of the American dream is the privilege of being sued. That's what keeps attorneys employed.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> According to this article, the ruling will be “later this week.” I think they should make the judge suing these folks pay THEM the $54 million he’s asking for.

$54 million for a pair of pants! This Judge needs to be removed from the bench, as he has clearly lost touch with reality and has made the American Judicial System an object of derision internationally.

Would *you* trust this guy to preside over *your* trial?

He has clearly gone ‘round the twist.

[3AngelaD]

Me three. That pants suit has got to be falling apart. And then I thought, oh no, she’s going to start appearing in skirts again, with those telephone pole legs, and scare all the children. The horror.

[3AngelaD]

The person who picks the admin law judges has said he now doubts Pearson’s suitability for the bench. Peason crying about his pants in court led me to believe he is seriously unhinged. The fair and just outcome would be for him to lose his job and have to pay all of the dry cleaners’ legal fees, although after O.J., I don’t know how the American Judicial System could be a greater object of derision.

[mimaw]

Agree

[Red_Devil 232]

"I thought this might have been a Hillary article. Sorry! "

Me too! Wonder what is up with Mao collars also!

[boop]

Ironically, I bet the Chungs are democrats.

[oyez]

Paint Suit may End..

For a second I thought it was going to say that skirts and dressed are becoming fashionable again.

[17th Miss Regt]

1) Loser pays.
2) Lawyer for losing party is immediately beheaded on the courthouse lawn.

[Old Grumpy]

“I thought the article was about the possible retirement of ol’ crusty.”

Ha ha! That’s what I thought too.

[Russ]

I wonder whether the judge in this case has the guts to rule against a fellow judge? It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he rules in his favor.

[SeanOGuano]

Do you think we’ll end up in a gulag in Alaska during the next Clinton administration for posting this stuff? Sometime in her fourth term?

[zek157]

Koreans are not big democrats?

Many of the small business owners are apolitical and interested only in getting their kids the best education money can buy.

[Old Grumpy]

If we do, we’ll have lots of good company!

[MrLegalReform]

From what I read, the ruling judge (who’s a woman) was pretty amused by the suing judge, and not in a way that suggests she’s going to rule in his favor.

[Juan Medén]

I don’t know a whole lot about the legal system, but it seems to me that allowing the judge discretionary power over what does and does not make the court docket would eliminate a vast majority of these prima facie frivolous suits. Such discretionary power could be challenged through the same system of appeals that applies to verdicts. Judges that allow frivolous suits to proceed could also be appealed. Maybe this system is already in place but is not working. It sure sounds simple to me.