Posted by Ron Coleman on October 22, 2008
Pearson, a former District administrative law judge, recycled some of the same legal arguments that were rejected last year by a judge in D.C. Superior Court — namely, that a sign at the Northeast Washington store saying “Satisfaction Guaranteed” meant he was entitled to the money.
“This is not about a pair of suit pants,” Pearson, 58, representing himself, told a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals. The term “satisfaction guaranteed” is “very subjective” and with “no parameters at all,” he said, accusing the cleaners of fraud.
What is so phenomenal about this is the idea that anyone who has every practiced law and been paid for it, much less someone vested with the title of a judicial officer in any jurisdiction, could ever, ever make this argument with a straight face in a court of law.
The reporting about the oral argument says, indeed, that the appellate panel was incredulous at the fact that Pearson not only made this “argument,” but acknowledged that he didn’t have a single judicial precedent to back it up — thank God.
But really, something is very, very wrong here. (Hat tip to James Hertsch.)