DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Other Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/other-talk-9/)
-   -   Judge sues cleaner for $65M over pants (update: Judge loses job) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/other-talk/499602-judge-sues-cleaner-%2465m-over-pants-update-judge-loses-job.html)

tommyp007 05-03-07 07:58 PM


Originally Posted by Groucho
This thread came up on a routine search for "pants overflowing with whitey". It does not deliver. :grumble:

rotfl 5/5

atari2600 05-04-07 01:38 AM


Originally Posted by McHawkson
That Judge is fucking asshole... It's ONLY pants, it can easily replaced.

especially with the $12000 that was offered.

hes a greedy asshole who i hope does not get one cent. and i hope he loses his job. let this ruin the rest of HIS life.

chanster 05-04-07 08:56 AM


Look, I'm not defending this guy, but to say he should lose his license is ridiculous. It would be a blatant denial of equal protection and due process. What is the comparable penalty for anyone who is not a lawyer who brings a frivolous lawsuit? There is none. Just because someone is an ass, that is not a reason to lose your license. If it were, most of the top law firms wouldn't have any lawyers in them.
There are several ABA Model Rules right on point with this. The D.C. bar has adopted at least one that is right on point:
http://www.dcbar.org/for%5Flawyers/e.../rule03_01.cfm
3.1

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law....
In the comments section it states:

The action is frivolous if the lawyer is unable either to make a good-faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
I would argue that the damages for "satisfaction guaranteed" is pretty baseless and not grounded in much law. The other claims for damages are pretty wild.

Also, there is a Code of Judicial Conduct, which the guy has to abide by, and he probably isn't doing that either.

benedict 05-04-07 09:38 AM

$12K seems more than generous.
 
I don't know if you guys have anything similar but, in England & Wales, if an eventual settlement is less than what was offered at an earlier date, the "winner" is liable for all of the legal expenses incurred by both sides from the time of that earlier higher offer.

It is like officialdom saying, you should have taken the lump sum and not wasted everyone's time.

starman9000 05-04-07 10:02 AM


Originally Posted by Groucho
This thread came up on a routine search for "pants overflowing with whitey". It does not deliver. :grumble:

:clap:

mmconhea 05-04-07 12:36 PM

12 was not offered to the judge, that what he first offered they pay him.

Dr. Henry Jones, Jr. 05-04-07 12:38 PM


Originally Posted by mmconhea
12 was not offered to the judge, that what he first offered they pay him.

Sounds like it was offered to him..


Manning said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson. First they offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000.

Brian Shannon 05-04-07 12:44 PM


Originally Posted by benedict
I don't know if you guys have anything similar but, in England & Wales, if an eventual settlement is less than what was offered at an earlier date, the "winner" is liable for all of the legal expenses incurred by both sides from the time of that earlier higher offer.

It is like officialdom saying, you should have taken the lump sum and not wasted everyone's time.

No but we should have.

DVD Josh 05-04-07 02:10 PM


Originally Posted by benedict
I don't know if you guys have anything similar but, in England & Wales, if an eventual settlement is less than what was offered at an earlier date, the "winner" is liable for all of the legal expenses incurred by both sides from the time of that earlier higher offer.

I love Brian, but he's wrong. You just described an "Offer of Judgment" FRCP 68 and adopted by most, if not all, states, in some similar or identical fashion.

I don't know English statutory law, but here in the US "legal expense" are costs, which are not fees. Generally speaking, fees are only recoverable where authorized by contract or statute. I would be surprised if it in the UK attorney's fees were covered under the umbrella term "legal expenses".

AllHallowsEve 05-04-07 03:27 PM

Another idiotic case that shouldn't even see the light of day. Valid cases get postponed and left out due to these idiotic cases. It's an embarrassment.

Kudama 05-04-07 04:08 PM


Originally Posted by DVD Josh
Look, I'm not defending this guy, but to say he should lose his license is ridiculous. It would be a blatant denial of equal protection and due process. What is the comparable penalty for anyone who is not a lawyer who brings a frivolous lawsuit? There is none. Just because someone is an ass, that is not a reason to lose your license. If it were, most of the top law firms wouldn't have any lawyers in them.

I think in this case he should definitely be disbarred. This is much more than frivolity. The money is not the issue and this guy is making what, in most people of low character, would be a hissy fit into an attempt to literally destroy the lives of an entire family. And...he is using his "impartial" position to do it. I wouldn't want this guy sitting on any bench in any court in any country. I feel that giving him license to practice law is a mistake after he's shown his true nature.

If you give a kid some crayons and he/she starts coloring all over the walls, wouldn't you take the crayons away?
Now what if the crayons were the means to destroy anyone you felt like?

cpgator 05-04-07 04:37 PM


Originally Posted by Kudama
Now what if the crayons were the means to destroy anyone you felt like?

Then I would carry at least one of the crayons with me at all times.

Kudama 05-04-07 04:38 PM

:lol: ...:eek:

DVD Josh 05-04-07 04:57 PM


Originally Posted by Kudama
I think in this case he should definitely be disbarred. This is much more than frivolity. The money is not the issue and this guy is making what, in most people of low character, would be a hissy fit into an attempt to literally destroy the lives of an entire family. And...he is using his "impartial" position to do it.

WTF? How on earth is he using his "impartial" position to bring a lawsuit? It's not like he's suing them as a judge or bringing the case in his own courtroom. It's suing as a private party litigant, which is his right, as it is yours to do.

It is very troubling to me how quick people are to throw away one of the most important rights in the Constitution (due process) just because a person is of low character. If the Constitution does not protect the weakest among us, the strongest surely have no chance.

Breakfast with Girls 05-04-07 05:01 PM


Originally Posted by DVD Josh
WTF? How on earth is he using his "impartial" position to bring a lawsuit? It's not like he's suing them as a judge or bringing the case in his own courtroom. It's suing as a private party litigant, which is his right, as it is yours to do.

It is very troubling to me how quick people are to throw away one of the most important rights in the Constitution (due process) just because a person is of low character. If the Constitution does not protect the weakest among us, the strongest surely have no chance.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think he's acting within the ethical bounds of his profession. He's essentially trying to put this family out of business through expensive legal action. Over a pair of pants.

DVD Josh 05-04-07 05:19 PM


Originally Posted by Breakfast with Girls
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think he's acting within the ethical bounds of his profession. He's essentially trying to put this family out of business through expensive legal action. Over a pair of pants.

To be sure, the guy is a total asshole. But is he not a private citizen when not presiding over his court or acting in an official capacity? If so, why should he be subject to penalties for actions that are not associated with his official duties? In my mind, that is not justice applied equally.

BJacks 05-04-07 05:26 PM


Originally Posted by DVD Josh
To be sure, the guy is a total asshole. But is he not a private citizen when not presiding over his court or acting in an official capacity? If so, why should he be subject to penalties for actions that are not associated with his official duties? In my mind, that is not justice applied equally.

Isn't he an officer of the court? If so, he should be held to a standard of principals when it concerns the judiciary (and filing such a frivilous lawsuit would certainly go against the code of ethics, in my mind).

DVD Josh 05-04-07 05:50 PM


Originally Posted by BJacks
Isn't he an officer of the court? If so, he should be held to a standard of principals when it concerns the judiciary (and filing such a frivilous lawsuit would certainly go against the code of ethics, in my mind).

It's the same argument. He is not acting in that capacity when prosecuting a lawsuit filed a private citizen.

Kudama 05-04-07 05:59 PM


Originally Posted by DVD Josh
It's the same argument. He is not acting in that capacity when prosecuting a lawsuit filed a private citizen.

That is a fact, but I think this "trying to destroy someone for a frivolous reason" sheds light on his character.
A felon who has paid their debt to society wouldn't be considered for the position because of character issues. I think this guy has made it pretty clear that he is not mentally balanced. His reaction is so drastically out of proportion to what happened it's insane. Would you want someone with a history of mental illness sitting as a judge?

Breakfast with Girls 05-04-07 06:13 PM


Originally Posted by DVD Josh
To be sure, the guy is a total asshole. But is he not a private citizen when not presiding over his court or acting in an official capacity? If so, why should he be subject to penalties for actions that are not associated with his official duties? In my mind, that is not justice applied equally.

He's trying to ruin them financially, destroy their livelihood. It's not that far removed from a medical doctor refusing to help his neighbor who's having a heart attack because his neighbor doesn't mow his lawn often enough.

AllHallowsEve 05-04-07 08:14 PM


Originally Posted by Kudama
That is a fact, but I think this "trying to destroy someone for a frivolous reason" sheds light on his character.
A felon who has paid their debt to society wouldn't be considered for the position because of character issues. I think this guy has made it pretty clear that he is not mentally balanced. His reaction is so drastically out of proportion to what happened it's insane. Would you want someone with a history of mental illness sitting as a judge?

I agree 100%. There's some weido philosophy going around in this country by a certain faction that lawyers, educators and judges can't be crazy too.

I once had a math teacher who would come in to class, push her desk against the wall, and talk to herself constantly in frenetic irrational chatter. She might have passed a state test, but the woman was missing more bricks than the Cascade Brick Inn -- after it was hit by that midwestern tornado.

-----

Also, a judge will have more power than the average person no matter if they're on their "private citizen day" or not. And more money to bring about frivolous lawsuits that shouldn't see the light of day.

He's literally putting this family through an unneeded hell just to be an "asshole." Expletive usage, but appropriate. Hopefully he takes up golf and knocks himself in the head with the club -- fifty times over.

Kudama 05-04-07 08:27 PM

At least a math teacher can only give you a bad grade, not make or break a case that changes or destroys peoples' lives.

BTW - What grade did you get in that class and did she come on to you? And was she cute?

DVD Polizei 05-04-07 09:53 PM


Originally Posted by CPA-ESQ.
I just saw the clip on CNN and I'm interested in seeing if this guy gets removed from the bench - I didn't know he was a minority. :eek:

Yep. And the official government website has taken down almost all references to the dumbass.

For a judge who is supposed to determine equality of the law, this fucker is obviously not competent to be a judge. He can go back to flipping burgers.

antennaball 05-04-07 10:08 PM


Originally Posted by DVD Josh
It's the same argument. He is not acting in that capacity when prosecuting a lawsuit filed a private citizen.

It's the same principal as cops. If I went out on my day off and drove around drunk, there's no why I can use the excuse that I was a private citizen at the time and get to keep my job. Why? Because as soon as I did that, I would lose ALL credibility in my job. I guarantee you the very next time I went to court on a DWI that I arrested, the first thing out of the defense's mouth would be "The officer himself has a history of DWI" and I would be discredited from the get-go.

The same applies to a judge or any other officer of the court. What you do on your "private time" can (and should) directly effect the performance of your job.

DVD Polizei 05-04-07 10:26 PM

Especially when you're an employee of a public agency.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 AM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.