Saturday, August 11, 2007

Clearer heads maybe......

After a meeting last week, it seems that Roy Pearson may have more to worry about. Yes, it seems that America's favorite lawsuit happy, pantless judge received a letter this week stating that he may be out of a job.

The Washington Examiner and the Washington Post have both reported that Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson was formally notified Tuesday, August 7 2007, by a letter that had been seen by government employees who spoke on condition of anonymity. The letter is said to have mentioned his ongoing lawsuit with the dry cleaners briefly but it is said to have focused more on Pearson's temperment as a judge over the past two years.

Pearson has not been fired and he will have 15 days in which he can file a rebuttal and he can request a hearing at the city commision's next meeting schedualed for September. Officials have stated that the reappointment process is being kept private and is considered a personal matter but there will be a public announcement after the D C Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges makes their decision.

"Judicial temperment is a critical characteristic of an outstanding jurist. Any individual who chooses to pursue a case such as Judge Pearson's, at a minimum, calls into question his or hers," stated American Tort Reform Association President Sherman Joyce wrote to the commission in April.

Legal reform groups have called for his firing based on his lawsuit and a lack of public confidence in him as a judge. Pearson was appointed in 2005 to a two-year term and had been seeking reappointment to a ten-year term. He has not been hearing cases since his term expired in April and is considered an "attorney advisor" while he waits for an answer on his reappointment.

This does make it rather interesting though I think......... if he isn't reappointed, which I feel is entirely correct in his case, how does he think he will continue to pay his legal fees while he decides whether to continue his fight with the dry cleaners? It would prove to be a huge waste of the court's time if he decided to sue himself for non-payment of his own legal bill.

No comments: