|
Just for the record the link doesn't work, or at least I had to search for the article on the site.
As to the merits, in a strictly technical/legal sense, this judge is arguably entitled to recover statutorily provided damages if he proves the elements of his claims (fraud, theft, etc.)
But in applying the law to facts, judges often have ways of getting around some things. In the state I'm from, judges are directed to interpret the law according to its plain meaning unless it would produce absurd results. $65M for a lost pair of pants, when they tried to give you $12K seems like an absurd result to me. Then again I don't wear judges robes...
I think the honorable plaintiff should pay attention to the presiding judge when he's telling him he's out of line. Unless he's dumb enough to demand a jury trial (how would you like jury duty on this case) he's antagonizing the guy who may set his final recovery. Not a smart move...
Then again, what do I know, I'm just a law student...
The link took me to a search index, but a search of "Judge, sue, pants" got me the story.
It really is stories like this that give the justice system a bad name. I will bet that when the court enters a judgment for the dry cleaners, no one will report that.
As to the Administrative law judge doing this...wow. I hope he does get disbarred. I know that I wouldn't risk my liscence and a sweet job like that over a pair of pants.
As to the merits, in a strictly technical/legal sense, this judge is arguably entitled to recover statutorily provided damages if he proves the elements of his claims (fraud, theft, etc.)
Well, the problem with this is the requisite intent to defraud, as well as the efforts made to make him satisfied. Fluffery is also permitted within certain boundries. If a car dealer tells you that you will "love this car" and you only really like it, it doesn't give rise to a cause of action. To be honest, I am surprised that this case survived a summery judgment motion (if one was filed).
Wow, I didn't know the Bill of Rights included access to a dry cleaner within four blocks of one's residence. What a brave patriot, sticking it to those that would deny all Americans our God given right to freshly pressed, dry cleaned pants.
As for you immigrant working class small business owners: watch out! Uncle Sam is on to your little game!
|
I read the article, and that is nuts. Still, it seems to me that he didn't really do anything that should result in his being disbarred. His actions are possibly unethical, definitely petty, and a tad vindictive, but not necessarily against the law.
Still, I'd also love to see the guy get his just deserts.
His actions are possibly unethical, definitely petty, and a tad vindictive, but not necessarily against the law.
Still, I'd also love to see the guy get his just deserts.
When you become a judge, you give up your right to be unethical. There are certain guidelines you have to follow, good moral fiber and all that. This fellow is abusing his post, using his office for personal gain, that should be reason enough for disbarring him. Just deserts with all the fixins.
Then again, what do I know, I'm just a law student...
Is his position an elected one?
