Time to start that legal defense fund

Why do people in Maine get up at 5AM? Isn't that a sue-able offense?

I actually woke around 4.30, but stayed put till 5. Birds singing, sun shining. etc. People to see, books to write.

A better question would be what YOU'RE doing up, considering the three hour time difference. But then I suspect you just haven't gone to bed yet ...

Yup. Hitting the sack now.

What are birds doing up that early? See ya.

I hope there's some sort of responsible and sensible appellate court in Australia that will throw this ruling out on its ear. This is just absurd (as was the Irish case).

Yes, this seems like madness to me. Another downside of the cult of indiividualism: give everyone a voice and no one ever shuts up. Wait till bloggers enter the fray.

I wouldn't stress too much.

Things happen in the Australian legal system that would never happen anywhere else (and that does include America, frighteningly enough).

For one thing, a politician in the state that I grew up in managed to get Defamation Law rewritten so that it was still defamation even if it was true. He then used this rewritten piece of legislation to sue every journalist, academic, unionist etc who said that his government was brutish, avaricious and corrupt (which is was).

I'm pretty sure that restaurants aren't closed down because of one critic, just like books aren't pulped because of one reviewer.

Yatterings.com

Hi Liz,

I gather from the Indie that its not the first time. Ca we please get over this facile notion that everyone deserves prizes - sometimes you don't. Donlt know if you readthe restaurant review in the same edition of the Guardian but damning... Wow , it was catastrophic but told you, in that experience, why. What's wrong with that? At least the restauranteur can learn what went wrong that day and why and perhaps fix it. Sigh. Lots of legal defenses being set up though. Its a sad day.

Such an awful ruling, you can only take a deep breath and sigh. In the Belfast ruling I suppose it can be said, "Well, Britain has always set the bar for defamation pretty low." The reasoning in Sydney however, that somehow a corporate entity deserves greater protection than an individual is just chilling. Applying that particular metric, if airline A filed bankrupcy protection, they might then turn around and seek damages from any media company that reported on their poor on-time arrival record. An absurd idea, but no more farfetched than the case in point. Here in the States the bar is set pretty high. Years ago at Time Inc they used to hold periodic Libel/Slander training sessions just to keep everybody on their toes, but the deck is stacked in favor of free expression. It's tough to prove defamation when the plaintiff is public person or entity. If anything the standard has narrowed in the internet age. Many States have given up entirely on older criminal defamation (criminal libel) statutes. This narrow standard has been a tremendous asset to organizations as different as Swift Boat Vets (opposing Kerry) and PETA (opposing bio-medical research.) Even outright lies with clear malice are protected.

Inherit the Wind(bag)! From the Washington Post

Wearing Down the Judicial System With a Pair of Pants

By Marc Fisher
Thursday, June 14, 2007

Don't look for Roy Pearson to be out shopping for new suit pants this weekend. At the end of the $54 million pants suit in D.C. Superior Court yesterday, Judge Judith Bartnoff said she wouldn't issue a decision until next week but nonetheless gave a strong hint of her direction.

After listening to Pearson argue for hour upon hour that he was somehow protecting the interests of all Washingtonians by using the D.C. consumer protection law to punish Custom Cleaners for allegedly losing a pair of his pants, Bartnoff said: "This is a very important statute to protect consumers. It's also very important that statutes like this are not misused."

Trying to get inside the head of Pearson -- a D.C. administrative law judge who launched his long, twisted legal odyssey after bringing pants in to be let out -- is tricky business.

This is a man who, despite his soft voice and polite demeanor, told the court yesterday that "there is no case in the District of Columbia or in the United States that comes anywhere close to the outrageousness of the behavior of the defendants in this case."

The Chung family, owner of Custom Cleaners, is accused of the terrible crime of not only misplacing Pearson's pants -- either for a few days, as the Chungs contend, or permanently, as Pearson claims -- but also posting a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign and then refusing Pearson's demand for vast sums of money.

Pearson, according to the Chungs' lawyer, Christopher Manning, is "a bitter man, emotionally distressed . . . who has irrationally and uncompromisingly pursued this litigation. He wanted the Chungs to suffer."

Soo Chung, who owns the shop on Bladensburg Road NE with her husband, broke down on the witness stand, just as Pearson had a day earlier. Pearson cried while recalling being handed pants that he believed were not his, but Chung spoke through her sobs of a different order of pain:

"He is asking for an enormous amount of money," said the Korean immigrant, whose family's savings are gone as a result of defending this suit. "It has been really hard on us to deal with this."

Pearson said he had no choice but to sue, because he is a "private attorney general" standing up for every person in Washington. Pearson told the judge he wants $500,000 in attorney's fees (though he represents himself), $2 million for his "discomfort, inconvenience and mental distress" and $51.5 million that he would use to help any D.C. resident sue businesses just as Pearson has. (Just before trial, Pearson lowered his demand from $65 million.)

Bartnoff spent hours delving into the puzzle of Roy Pearson. Sometimes incredulous, sometimes gently joshing, she lured Pearson away from long monologues about the minutiae of D.C. consumer protection law, but she also let him spell out his odd notions of law. She gave him all the rope he needed.

If a customer demands $1,000 for a lost garment, Bartnoff said, and the merchant truly believes the customer is lying, does a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign require the shop owner to hand over a check?

"Yes," Pearson said. The courtroom broke into laughter.

How does such a case get to trial? How does one man get to make a laughingstock of the system? Judges chipped away at Pearson's case for two years, limiting the witnesses he could call, trimming his claims. But Pearson prevailed by burying the court in paperwork and bringing up arguments just plausible enough to allow him a hearing. Nobody wants to be on the wrong end of a Pearson lawsuit; that fear lets him charge ahead.

The pants suit united tort reformers and trial lawyers in a rare joint statement denouncing Pearson's excesses. But Pearson's zeal is only an exaggerated version of what goes on in virtually every institution of American life, where humane and reasonable behavior is quashed by reminders that someone could conceivably be sued.

Did Pearson have a case? When the defense finally revealed the pants it says Pearson brought in for a $10.50 alteration, it wasn't clear whether they matched the jacket Pearson displayed the previous day. One thing was certain: The pants bore the same ticket number as Pearson's receipt.

Re: Inherit the Wind(bag)! From the Washington Post

This is a very good argument for hand-washing items at home.

Yeah, I'm truly not losing much sleep over this — but it does make me wonder how much lower, in theory if not practice, the bar can drop before the act of looking cross-eyed at someone in the streets can result in a charge of some sort. There was a legal tussle recently over the name of a serial killer in a novel — turned out there was a respectable citizen with the same name who felt his honor, dignity and livelihood were negatively impacted. I remember back when writers would confess they got names for characters from the phone book ... scripteur emptor!

On the other hand, I'm glad someone is sueing LT Leroy.

Oops -- meant caveat scripteur! Just got back from our annual Town Meeting and my brain is fried ...