Pantsed

Scott Hardie | May 4, 2007
Any comments on the infamous $65 million pair of pants? I would like to think there's a tiny chance this judge has filed this lawsuit to point out the absurdity of the consumer protection law, but his refusal to speak to the press cancels out that theory. I feel awful for the family suffering the lawsuit.

Tony Peters | May 5, 2007
That judge needs to be shot for wasting the time and money of this country

Jackie Mason | May 5, 2007
[hidden by request]

Matthew Preston | June 25, 2007
And this has concluded:

Link.

Tony Peters | June 25, 2007
well at least it ended well but it should have been thrown out months ago

Scott Hardie | June 26, 2007
If he sued when the dry cleaners threw out his pants, imagine when he heard the judge was throwing out his whole suit. </rimshot>

Tony Peters | June 26, 2007
ugh......I'm dieing

Amy Austin | June 26, 2007
Shit, beaten to the punch... :-7

This is my favorite line in the article though: It's not known whether Pearson will appeal the ruling.

Scott Hardie | June 26, 2007
All along, I kept expecting him to say, "Psyche! I brought this suit to criticize the current state of consumer protection law and runaway litigation." He's a friggin' judge, after all. But now it's over and he still hasn't, so I guess his motives were, so to speak, pure. I can understand someone being that greedy, but I can't understand someone in his position being that blind about his actual chances of victory.