The 28th Amendment 12/16/08

This has been bothering me for a long time.

Roy L. Pearson, a Washington, D.C. judge sued the Chung family in April 2007. The Chungs were a family of Chinese immigrants just trying to make a living owner a dry cleaners. Judge Pearson dropped off a pair of pants and when he came back, the Chungs misplaced them.

His response? He demanded they pay him $65 million dollars in court. Some 1,000,000 of those were for "emotional damages." Of course, this was after the Chungs offered him reparations of some $12,000. Pearson refused the money and took it to court.

Pearson's justification for his abuse of our legal system and the waste of just about everyone's time was that Custom Cleaners had two signs in the window (since taken down). One said "Satisfaction Guaranteed" the other "One Day Service." Since neither satisfied Pearson, he claimed the Chungs misled him and owe him more money than they can sell themselves into slavery for.

I'm not sure if Pearson is a moron or just a vicious animal. Probably both. But I can't imagine he expects "guaranteed" to mean 100% of the time. It's a business. It's a human run business and humans are inherently flawed. Hence we have a judicial system and a government.

Of course, Pearson probably understands this and is just looking for a quick buck. Which would make him a jackass.

Pearson's no better than a lot of people. Namely Stella Liebeck who became namelessly famous for suing McDonalds over a 49 cent cup of coffee which scalded her thighs, groin, and ass. Never did she take into account that she was 79 years old and maybe her body isn't what it used to be, nor in fact that the coffee was hot as she held it between her legs.

Like seriously, what happened was awful and tragic, but to abuse the system by demanding (and receiving) $640,000, is downright wrong. Yeah, you're bitter because you're old and have third degree burns, but to claim you didn't know the coffee was hot?

I'm just blown away. The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (a.k.a. the "Cheeseburger Bill") which said Private Citizens cannot sue corporations for causing their obesity, was continuously shot down in the Senate despite passing multiple times in the House.

Why should a law-abiding private citizen with moderate intelligence a lot more sense and respect for the system watch as vultures come out of nowhere claiming some stupidity like "I didn't know fast food makes you fat" or "I couldn't tell the coffee was hot until I spilled it."

I'll give you the answer: there's no reason.

The only way this could be implemented is if it's an Amendment to the Constitution. And I'd like someone to give me a good reason why it shouldn't be: it's called the Anti-Stupidity Clause. If ratified it would become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

It says that any case involving justification that a common American citizen would otherwise view as insensible would be thrown out and stamped with a big red "Stupid." mark.

How to enforce this? You hand the case file to the jury (no opening statements allowed) and if a single juror utters "What?!" "Are you serious?" or "Why didn't I think of that?" then the case is thrown out.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about BS like this with stupid lawsuits that hold absolutely no water, and watching people I would otherwise consider morons get awarded obscene amounts of money. It's such a sin that I think I'm going to write Senator Dodd about this one.

"Senator Dodd, I'm an 17-year old politically active college-bound man. You're a do-nothing Senator who's up for reelection in 2010. I swear to God, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny that if you get my Amendment passed, I'll become your most vigorous campaigner in 2010."

I hate Chris Dodd and am still wondering how we elected him. But I'm truly serious about this Amendment.

12/16/08