You sue dey ass fo tens of millions of dollas, das what.
A former administrative law judge who unsuccessfully sued a dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants tried to convince an appeals panel Wednesday that he deserves the money because he is a fraud victim.Y'see y'honor, I was a judge myself, so I KNOW da laws and how dey work. I no longer practice judgin things (not professionally at least) due to the fact that what had happened was my license was revoked when I tried to sue a court stenographer fo' misspellin erry'thang on they report. Turns out they was usin' somethin' called "shorthand."
But we are not here to talk about dat, y'honor. We here to talk about PANTS!
"This is not a case about a pair of suit pants," Roy L. Pearson argued before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.Yeah, I mean we ain't here to talk about pants, that shit'd be re-dickaluss...
...Um, what we talkin' about agin?
Rather, it is about whether the owners of a neighborhood business misled consumers with a sign that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed," he said.YEA das what I'm talkin' bout! Satisfaction GUARANTEED. They din't have ta put dat sign in they window. But they DID. I went in expectin' my satisfaction to be guranateed regardless of what I wanted! Free service? GUARANTEED! Pickin' up clothes that ain't mines? GUARANTEED! Blowjob from the cashier girl while I wait? GUARAN-FUCKIN-TEED!!! GIMME MY MILLIONS!
Lay's and gennulmen, I am not some gayboy douchefag lookin' fo a million offa some bitch what ruined my umbrella. That would be plain non-sessical.
I'm just sayin' that when a man walks into a establishment what got a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign (not a "Satisfaction Fairly Likely" sign, mind you, not a "Satisfaction is what we're aiming for but cannot be held liable if said satisfaction is not achieved" sign, but a "SATISFACTION GUARANTEED" sign), when a man walks into a store what got dat sign he should be able to demand anything he wants and sue for a re-dickaluss amount of money if he don't git SATISFIED! I'm a gat-damned fo'mer JUDGE!!! TRUSS ME!!!
The three-judge appeals panel peppered Pearson with questions about whether he knew of other rulings in which a promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" meant that unsatisfied customers should be entitled to whatever damages they believe were appropriate.How 'bout The People vs. dis DICK, N****!!!
I don't need a gat-damned precedent! I'm a fuckin' pie-oh-near, BITCH! And whaddabout dat bitch that got burned by tryin' to hold a Mac-Donnals cup a'coffee wit her cootchie?!? Now DAT bitch was stupid. She got her cheddah! What's good, homey? Where MY cheddah?!? WHASSSSGOOOOOOOODHOOOOOOMEEEEEEEY?!?!?
MAN! I'm even tryin' to meet these crackas halfway!
Pearson had originally sued for $67 million. He reached the amount by adding up violations under the act and almost $2 million in common law claims. But he lowered the demands after deciding to no longer seek damages related to the pants, focusing instead on the sign.YEAH! I wanted erry'body to know dat this is NOT about pants...anymore...that's what it was originially about, actually that was all this was originally about, but can you believe I was only able to sue fo' $13 million based on the pants? That's some ol' BULLSHIT. This "false fraudulent advertisin'" shit is where da money at.
The appeals court is expected to rule in several months. If Pearson loses again, he could seek to have the case heard by the full court or appeal to the Supreme Court.YEA YOU HEARD DAT?!? I'm takin' this shit ta Washington!!! All da way to the CAPITAL muh-fuckas! I'm--hold up, what? We already in Washington?
Well sheeeeeeeeeeit, least I don't gotta pay fo a bus ticket den.