还韩裔移民公道 滥兴讼成全球焦点 原告法官职位难保
世界日报综合廿五日电讯报导/两年前控告一家干洗店主的韩裔店主丢失他的一条西装裤子、并“狮子大开口”求偿5400万元天价的华府行政法法官皮尔逊（Roy Pear-son），25日大栽跟头，官司败诉，不仅得不到分文赔偿，还要为被告南韩移民郑淑和郑金（Soo Chung and Jin Chung，音译）夫妇及其子付一千元法庭诉讼费用，而且可能有更大的麻烦等着他，包括法官职务可能不保。
皮尔逊为一条裤子提出天文数字的求偿数额，使这场官司成为全球注目的焦点，皮尔逊也因此成为滥用司法制度的国际象征。
自以为懂得法律的皮尔逊早先振振有词地表示，他求偿5400万元绝对有道理，因为这家名为Custom Cleaners的干洗店挂出“保证满意”的招牌，违法欺骗消费者。他根据华盛顿特区特区（DC）保护消费者法每天应课以罚款1500元的规定，计算出求偿额。
但是，华盛顿特区高等法院法官茱迪丝．巴特诺夫（Judith Bart-noff）在23页裁决书中明白表示，这家干洗店没有违反华府特区的保护消费者法。她写道：“一个讲理的顾客不会把‘保证满意’解释为：商家必须满足顾客的无理要求，商家即使有争辩的理由也必须同意顾客的要求。”
郑金夫妇对判决表示欣喜满意，而且欢迎皮尔逊光顾。在判决出来后，皮尔逊一天都没有回应媒体的询问。
这场官司的起源是2005年5月皮尔逊把几条西装裤送到这家干洗店，请店主予以修改。皮尔逊事后宣称，店主送回的裤子有一条不是他早先送去的，因而兴讼控告对方欺骗。但是，巴特诺夫法官25日裁决，皮尔逊未能证明干洗店送还的裤子不是他的。
媒体指出，25日的裁决并不表示官司就此了结，皮尔逊可能还有更大的麻烦。被告郑家的律师表示，他们寻求数万元的律师费用补偿，而且要求制裁皮尔逊兴讼。华盛顿邮报报导，皮尔逊可能失去他年薪9万6000元的特区行政法法官职务。不过，巴特诺夫法官表示，她要等到两造律师提出法律文件，再裁决后续问题。
这场“荒唐官司”也再次引起有识之士敦促改革美国的诉讼作风。乔治城大学（Georgetown Univer-sity）法学教授罗斯丹（Paul Rothstein）说：“这个案子让美国的司法体系在世人面前丢脸。更令人生气的是，兴讼者是一位律师出身的法官。”不过，他表示，25日的裁决令人恢复了对司法制度的信心。
Judge’s pants not worth $54-million
LUBNA TAKRURI
Associated Press
June 25, 2007 at 11:15 AM EDT
WASHINGTON — A judge ruled Monday in favour of a dry cleaner who was sued for $54-million over a missing pair of pants.
The judge’s decision said Custom Cleaners did not violate the city’s Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to administrative law judge Roy Pearson’s expectations of the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign once displayed in the store’s window.
Judge Judith Bartnoff of District of Columbia Superior Court ordered Judge Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.
Judge Pearson had originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, contending that they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to give him a pair that he said was not his.
He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2-million in common-law claims.
Judge Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.
Chris Manning, the Chungs’ lawyer, argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
The Chungs said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.
The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd and overshadowed the drunken-driving trial of former mayor Marion Barry.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070625.wpants0625/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070625.wpants0625
