Per MSNBC, drycleaner beats judge, no $54M settlement!

[babylonsister]

What a useless waste of time that was!

Edited for those who don't know what I'm talking about:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1949716.htm

$64-million lawsuit over lost pants

AM - Wednesday, 13 June , 2007 08:29:00
Reporter: Kim Landers

TONY EASTLEY: It's one of those only in America stories. In Washington, a judge has gone to court to claim he's owed $64-million by a dry cleaner who lost his favourite pants.

The trouble over the sartorial loss began in 2005 when the judge says he took his strides to a Washington drycleaner for alterations.

They went missing, and although the drycleaner insists the trousers showed up a week later, the judge claims the pants offered were not his.

As North America Correspondent Kim Landers reports, the South Korean owners of the dry-cleaning business are now fighting to save their livelihood.

KIM LANDERS: This lawsuit has gained national attention and its fair share of wisecracks. It's a case of trying to take the cleaners to the cleaners, a story about a judge pressing his case, a lawsuit that begins with part of a suit. And so it goes on.

VOX POP: He should not be suing for $65-million.

VOX POP 2: He's just greedy.

more...

[soothsayer]

1. no kidding!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

2. v good n/t

[tularetom]

3. They should make the frickin judge pay the dry cleaner

$54 million just for being a general all around asswipe.

Seriously there should be some sort of censure or a price paid for abuse of the legal system by one who should know better.

[Ganja Ninja]

4. I thought $54 million for a pair of pants was reasonable.

:crazy:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Good, now I hope they turn it around

and sue the judge. I don't know if there are grounds for that, but it seems like they got a lot of unnecessary hassle from him.

[William769]

6. Pardon the pun, but...

That judge should be taken to the dry cleaners.

[blondeatlast]

9. Nah, he just needs a good steam table pressing to straighten him out... nt

[Turbineguy]

7. It wasn't about the money

it was the principle of the thing!:rofl:

[MetaTrope]

8. Now that's over with, can we get around to legal questions about raping child prisoners in Iraq?

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

10. Would be nice, but that seems to have been swept under the rug.

Out of sight, out of mind.

[rasputin1952]

11. The case should have never reached the stage it did...it should

have been thrown out of court immediately.

As for the "rest of the story", the judge was a GOP appointee, one who should have been well drilled in the whole "frivolous lawsuit" gyrations the GOP is always talking about. The gop screams that doctors are sued for frivolous reasons, like amputating the wrong leg, or enucleating the wrong eye...but a pair of shit stained pants gets a $54 million lawsuit...:wtf:

Corp's that produce goods and provide services are also sued frivouly when they produce articles that kill and maim, or services that kill, maim or destroy property....like Lawn Darts...:eyes:

The sheer hypocrisy and idiocy of this entire incident is beyond belief, and I should think that someone should be looking at the sanity of this "judge".

On the upside, he pretty well blew the whole "frivolous lawsuit" BS right out of the water, as his hubris and greed will be cited time and again as just what real "frivolous lawsuits are all about.

[marshall]

12. The judge in Jersey won't take that case

She says it's out of her jurisdiction.