Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (214273)	8/2/2007 6:57:09 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793955

First, Pants Man Loses Case. Next, His Job. By the middle of next week, Roy Pearson, the D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million and lost, will receive a letter that starts the process of putting him out of a job. City sources tell me that a marathon meeting of the commission that reviews the performance of administrative law judges (ALJs) ended last night with unanimous agreement to meet again next Monday to revise and finalize the wording of a letter that will state the panel's doubts about granting Pearson the 10-year reappointment that he has been seeking throughout the last months of his battle against Custom Cleaners and its owners, the Chung family. The panel had expected to complete work on the Pearson case last night, but discussions were complicated by a series of conflicting recommendations to the Commission on Selection and Tenure of ALJs by the chief ALJ, Tyrone Butler. In rapid succession this spring, Butler told the commission that "I do not oppose" Pearson's reappointment, that "I recommend reappointment," and that "I do not recommend" reappointment, according to sources who have seen the letters. The first switcheroo came as a result of the commission notifying Butler that he had not complied with the law that requires the chief judge to submit a yes or no recommendation to the commission that decides whether judges' performance merits an extension of their time on the bench. ALJs sit on cases involving disputes between city agencies and between citizens and those agencies. But after Butler came back with a pro-Pearson letter, Pearson sent a series of emails within the ALJ staff disparaging the chief judge, calling him "evil" and mean-spirited. That helped sway Butler to switch yet again, to a recommendation against reappointment. Within the commission, the discussion about Pearson's future has focused on when and whether it is right to measure a judge's performance by his behavior outside the courtroom. The panel looked specifically at whether Pearson's extraordinary zeal in pursuing the case against the Chungs was so frivolous and embarrassing to the judicial system that it should be taken as evidence of his lack of judicial temperment. "A judge has a right to bring a lawsuit like any other citizen," said a source close to the commission, "but he doesn't have a First Amendment right to bring a frivolous lawsuit." The commission is expected to address the Chung case specifically in its letter to Pearson, pointing out that his no-holds-barred pursuit of mega-millions in a case stemming from a $10.50 alteration on a pair of suit pants raises serious questions about his judicial temperment and raises public questions about judicial ethics and standards. Following receipt of the letter, Pearson would then have the right to a hearing before the commission. Only after that hearing would the commission formally move to end Pearson's tenure as a judge. Pearson has not been sitting as a judge since the end of April, when his first term on the bench expired. Rather, he is now technically considered an "attorney advisor" to the Office of Administrative Hearings. Asked what Pearson does in that position, a high-ranking city official said, "Zippo." Separately, Pearson is preparing an appeal of Judge Judith Bartnoff's rejection of his case against the Chungs. Meanwhile, at a fundraiser for the Chungs last week, donors contributed more than $62,000 toward the legal fees the family incurred in their defense against the Pearson suit. Another $30,000-plus came in from Post readers and others who made contributions to a defense fund around the time of the trial in June. The total comes close to covering the Chung's bills for the first round of the case, but Pearson's push to appeal the ruling will mean further legal fees for the immigrant family. The commission's chairman, D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert Rigsby, declined to comment on the specifics of Pearson's case, saying only that "We met for several hours last night and discussed the vacancies and the reappointments of 11 ALJs. We worked well into the night and will do so again on Monday." He said the commission will finish its work on Pearson and the other ALJs up for new terms on Monday night. As satisfying as it would be to see Pearson lose his post over his obsessive pursuit of the Chungs, the downside for the owners of the dry cleaners is that with Pearson out of a job, their chances of ever recovering the court fees that Pearson has already been assessed and the attorney's fees that he may yet be ordered to pay would be severely diminished. As has happened at every stage of this sorry case, it is possible to win the legal battle while still being destroyed by the process. blog.washingtonpost.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (214273)	8/2/2007 9:18:22 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793955

It's not that getting free cigarettes makes you smoke. Getting the ability to ban cigarette smoking was the first step down the road to "degreday." No one appreciates the smoking ban more than I. It makes dancing a lot more enjoyable. But it was the wrong thing to do. And the route they took to accomplish it was the classic Government ploy. Lying to the public about the effect of "second hand smoking." The stats they give you are phony with no real studies to back them up. But they don't care. They are "doing God's work." They invented this technique so they could ban drugs. Now they expand it to anything they want to get rid of. Smoking, Transfat, Global Warming, etc you name it. The major reason now that I don't trust any Government stats when they have an axe to grind.

To: Lane3 who wrote (214273)	8/3/2007 2:44:22 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 793955

my understanding and they treat you like crap if you do not breast feed in the hospital. All kinds of pressure is put on the new mom by that staff to breast feed.

To: Lane3 who wrote (214273)	8/3/2007 11:21:26 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Red Meat Headline Alert- NYC Hospitals Ban Baby Bottles, Formula to Boost Breast Feeding How many people see a headline that is inaccurate, but it subliminally influences their final reaction to the story, or perhaps they never read further, but are incensed by the headline? I found this while trying to pursue the facts on formula question and it struck me how misleading it is- the facts are IN the story, once you get past the reporting bias (they talk about the nanny public health dept). foxnews.com