Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson is back! Fancy Pants recently lost a $54 million suit filed against his dry cleaner for a lost pair of pants. Now, Fancy Pants has filed papers asking the judge to reverse her verdict for failing to address his legal claims.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. azntg says:

    Some people never learn! Repeat after me!

    …and I’ve been told from my college’s professors and education classes that I shouldn’t adopt that mentality!

  2. LatherRinseRepeat says:

    Well, obviously it’s not about the pants anymore. Or was it ever? I think Pearson is one of those types of people that always has to be right. And since he’s a judge/lawyer, he has the time/money/knowledge to drag this case on and abuse the system.


    It’s really pathetic, considering the defendants aren’t exactly wealthy. I guess his motive is to sue them into bankruptcy? What an ass.


    Well, I’m glad there’s a fund raising effort to help cover the legal fees for this family.

    http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com

    http://www.chungfundraiser.com

  3. chili_dog says:

    Not all lawyers are disgusting piles of crap. But this one sure is. Hopefully the DC Bar steps in and starts the process of penalizing his license if not full disbarment.

  4. homerjay says:

    This loser must be dieing of something. Why else would anyone willfully fuck up their entire career for something they have obviously NO chance of winning??


    Oh, and if he’s not dieing of something, I recommend somebody give him something.

  5. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    I think we need to get Judge Carlos to ask the Ghost of Johnny Cochran.

  6. faust1200 says:

    If you look into a mirror and say:

    Fancy Pants Pearson
    Fancy Pants Pearson
    Fancy Pants Pearson

    Fancy Pants Pearson will suddenly appear and sue you.

  7. goodkitty says:

    As a judge, he’s probably used to people always saying yes to him. I don’t see how anyone can have confidence in this man after all he’s done–it’s time to remove him from the bench. He should like that since moving to private law practice will give him more time to work on his frivolous and vindictive lawsuits.

  8. palegreenstars says:

    As my old countrified neighbor used to say, “That man ain’t right in the head!” It genuinely scares me that he himself is a judge. =

  9. Slytherin says:

    @faust1200: LOL! :D

    This guy (not faust1200…Fancy Pants Pearson) is unbelievable!!! Makes me want to punch him in the face. I mean, WTF!!!

  10. banned says:

    It must be a racist thing against the immigrant owners because I can’t see why else he would continue to stoke the fire.

  11. no.no.notorious says:

    i really hope NO ONE is siding with this guy…the one with the issues

    we need judge judy to set this guy straight once and for all!

  12. Erskine says:

    Looks like we’ve found the villain for the next season’s story arc of “House”…

  13. Peeved Guy says:

    I have been saying for years that a civil litigation system wherein the loser pays ALL legal fees would radically reduce the number or idiotic lawsuits such as this one.

    But since we don’t do that, this tool just needs a swift kick in the balls, revocation lawyerin’ license and forced to work in a dry cleaner for five years (just to see what kind of asses these people have to deal with day in and day out).

  14. ElizabethD says:

    My 15 year old son has a comment for this sort of crap:

    “Go die.”

  15. Dustbunny says:

    @doctor_cos:

    If the pants don’t fit, you must acquit!

  16. nequam says:

    @Peeved Guy: Your proposal has plenty of surface appeal, but the practical consequences would be disappointing. There already are in place rules that allow the court to require a party who brings a frivolous case to pay his opponent’s legal fees. So we already have a way to police the bringing of pointless cases. Your rule, however, would be too broad in application and would have the unwanted effect of keeping people of modest resources from seeking recourse for meritorious claims.


    To be sure, a claim against Pearson to collect the Chung’s legal fees is pending.

  17. @Erskine:

    That’s a great idea!! House would eat this guy for breakfast. He’d be a wimpering pile of garbage by the end of it!

  18. rosy501 says:

    This guy is disgusting. Where the eff does he expect to weasel $54 million from the already-broke Chungs? Ugh, I’m sick to my stomach.

    This whole case makes me feel really sad for our crumbling joke of a legal system. I know it’s not all corrupt, but with the headlines these past few weeks, I’m getting even more cynical than I was already.

  19. FLConsumer says:

    Can someone please totally disbar this guy? At the very least, get him out of the damn courts & ban him from the local area courts.

  20. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    @Dustbunny: Amen!
    Somebody tell this “judge” he’s done used up his 15 minutes, now shut up and go home.

  21. E-Bell says:

    @nequam: You surely must know that Rule 11 sanctions have absolutely no teeth. D.C.’s offer of judgment rule is even weaker, allowing only costs.

    If the Chungs get anything at all out of their motion, it’ll be a mere pittance compared to what they expended to defend this case.

    As for Pearson, I’d expect no less. A motion for new trial is routine – if he had retained an attorney, I’d argue that attorney was committing malpractice by NOT filing one.

  22. man1000 says:

    @rosy501:
    I plan to open up a restaurant with a sign “No freaking judge allowed!”