Who can’t relate to this? I mean if you have ever taken clothes to dry cleaners, you probably have lost some clothes. Or at least was afraid that they would lose them. All you have to prove your loss is a measly claim ticket—which I for one, keep losing. When that happens, you feel betrayed, vulnerable, helpless really. It is the same feeling that you get when an airline loses your luggage, or when a natural disaster destroys items valuable to you.

Something has been taken from you and a debt has been incurred. You – your heart demands restitution, restoration—things put back the way they were. You have lost an item of clothes certainly—but you have lost more than that. It is difficult to quantify—but you know something else has been taken. A good Judge – and wise judicial system is designed and empowered to help the victim and the community quantify the loss.

This is what this site is all about. Forgiveness is a function of debt consolation. And so the strange trial between Judge Roy L. Pearson (Plaintiff) and Soo Chung et al. (Defendants) is perfect to communicate how justice should work in real life.

Here is the official description in the court documents themselves, from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division, Docket No. 05 CA 4302 B Calendar 7 Judge Bartnoff

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This case has its origin in a dispute between plaintiff Roy Pearson and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung over a pair of allegedly missing pants. The defendants own Custom Cleaners, a dry cleaning store on Bladensburg Road, NE, within walking distance of the plaintiffs home. Mr. Pearson claims that he took his pants to Custom Cleaners for alterations in May 2005, that the defendants lost his pants, and that they then attempted to substitute another pair of pants for his. The defendants deny the plaintiffs allegations, and they insist that the pants they attempted to return to him—which he has refused to accept—are the pants that he brought in to be altered.
Mr. Pearson also claims that a “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign that, until recently, was displayed in Custom Cleaners was an unconditional warranty that required the defendants to honor any claim by any customer, without limitation, based on the customer’s determination of whatever would make that customer “satisfied.” According to the plaintiff, the defendants did not honor and had no intention of honoring that purported unconditional guarantee of satisfaction to their customers, which he contends is an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, B.C. Code § 28-3901 et seq. (“CPPA”), on several grounds.
In Count One of his Amended Complaint, the plaintiff alleges, based on the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign and on his claims regarding his pants, that each of the three defendants is liable to him for seven different violations of the CPPA, for every day Custom Cleaners was open over a period of several years.’ He also alleges common law fraud, based on the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign (Count Two).2 In addition, the Amended Complaint asserts a claim for conversion or negligence, relating to the pants (Count Three), and a claim for injunctive relief under the CPPA, regarding the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” signs (Count Four). The plaintiff is seeking statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. He also is seeking attorney’s fees, to which he claims to be entitled under the CPPA because he is an attorney who is representing himself in this action. He has presented various calculations of damages that go as high as $67 million.

From Judge Pearson’s perspective a debt was incurred. We can begin our due diligence there. What was taken? At face value, a pair of pants was lost. He had trusted the Chungs with his pants to alter them (to improve them) and then to return them in a timely manner. They failed in their commitment. At face value then, the debt was the value of the pants (lets say $150). Also since the pants were part of a suit (and upon investigation the suit line was discontinued) the defendants arguably were liable for replacing the entire suit (lets say $1100—a very expensive suit).

But more was taken. The Judge’s trust was betrayed. He had placed his trust in an institution that guaranteed their trustworthiness and they had betrayed that trust. This is difficult to enumerate, but we have all experienced betrayal. It leaves a wound. It has taken something—a sense of peace, or willingness to trust—to be vulnerable. OK I know we are speaking about pants—not a rape, or a robbery at gun point—but generically they are on the same scale. While our human judicial institutions hesitate putting dollar amounts on this debt, it is real. So in one sense, we must be empathetic to the victim. Biblically, more than a pair of pants was taken from Judge Pearson. The good news of the Bible is that God promises to all involved that there will come a time where the perfect all seeing judge will perfectly measure all losses, including the ‘soft’ ones. He will not stop there. He will then perfectly proclaim perfect judgment, the perpetrators condemned (perfectly according to objective law—no more—no less); and then, God Himself will fully restore all losses. Judge Pearson, this is for you—you will ultimately be made whole.

So does all of that add up to $67 million of ‘statutory, compensatory and punitive damages’? The Trial Judge certainly didn’t think so.

One suspects that there is a bigger context to this legal fight. Sure enough. This was not the first time that the Chungs had lost pants. Reportedly, in 2002, they paid a check to Judge Pearson for $150 for losing a pair of his pants then. Subsequently, they tried to refuse service to the Judge, requesting that he take his business elsewhere. Reportedly, they backed off when he threatened them with a law suit. Clearly the $67 million figure has a history.

In addition, by the time of the second ‘pantsing’, the Judge was on hard times. He had been unemployed for about 3 years, was going through a difficult divorce, was required to write his former wife a check for $12,000, had pegged out on his credit cards and to top it off, had put on a bit of weight so that his former suits didn’t fit him anymore. His life was about to turn around – having just been appointed Judge—a new lease on life—when this last event occurred. He wanted to report to work for the first time with a well fitting crisp suit. This was an important event. He brought his pants to the Chungs to be let out. This was far more important to him than just any day at the cleaners. This personally very important. They said that the pants would be ready by the day he was to report to work and tragically, the pants got lost. In the trial transcripts, we are not told what pants Pearson wore on his first day at his brand new all-important job. But you can imagine to some degree how he felt. Embarrassment, feeling like there is a celestial target on his back, feeling like a victim. I feel for this guy. It is clear from the transcripts that the Chungs were not the most compassionate or empathetic of defendants. There was of course cultural and language barriers—and of course there is the matter of history from the Chungs perspective (Pearson has already cost them $150 and threatened a law suit three years earlier). I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t treat him with at least some disdain.

But to their credit, they did try to settle with Pearson; first for $3,000, then for $4,600 and finally for $12,000. I admit that I am not familiar with the entire case, or any of the parties involved, but it seems to me that $12,000 and an official apology would be more than reasonably pay for the debts (hard and soft) incurred by the Judge—that is unless there were pride or vengeance issues.
Forgive my armchair speculations. I fully admit that I am a distant observer, but find this a fascinating example of the nuances of the justice/forgiveness process. A good judge should be wise enough to accurately determine what the debt was, who caused it and what restoration satisfies the debt. The goal of a wise and good judge (Biblically speaking) is not just resolution of debts, but ultimately reconciliation. There has been a rip in the community—bad will. The Biblical good judge would prioritize healing the gaping wound. It is clear that this is not on the radar screen of the Superior Court of DC.
And so the wounds go on wounding. There will no doubt be an appeal. More money out, more media frenzy. Pride, anger, frustration, vengeance, disregard for the humanity of both parties. There is only dishonoring of men and women—image bearers of God to whom honor is do. There is no real hope of real Biblical consolation this side of heaven—only a final settlement with which neither party can really be happy with. Ironically, there is talk that Pearson’s antics may ultimately cost him the very job that he needed the pants for in the first place. While I do feel sorry for the man, it is apparent that he is more angry than wise—and therefore should not be on the bench.

This is beyond nuts. The vast majority of North America (reportedly) cringed to hear that Paris Hilton is out! “Injustice!” some cried. “Favoritism”, moaned others. “Unfair!” “She isn’t getting what she deserved!”

Listen, don’t get me wrong. I agree that this is just one more occasion for us to be slapped in the face by the far too many dysfunctions of our justice system. Now, having said that, it is the goal of this blog to ask other questions—questions that should be obvious to us—intuitive—but are not.

Here is my question. What was the expected or prescribed role of the judicial system in the Paris Hilton case? What was our goal anyway? What would the system look like if it were really ‘just’?

It was a traffic violation—driving on a suspended license that we are talking about. It was a flagrant violation to be sure—but it was after all a traffic violation. I wonder if something else is going on in our combined souls.

Down deep, behind all of our self-righteous cries, maybe, just maybe, what we were really hoping for was finally, Paris punished for being rich and spoiled? For her ungratefulness and lack of humility. I wonder if we are objective anyway. But heres the thing. We don’t punish people for being spoiled in the US. We actually allow people the freedom to be dysfunctional—and if we were honest— all of us freely use that freedom. I wonder how much of our moral outrage is really petty jealousy? If being spoiled is a misdemeanor, wouldn’t jealousy get us in the clink as well?

Or, maybe you say, that what you really want is reasonable punishment for her driving with a suspended license? Fine. Tell me what was the societal debt that the punishment is designed to repay? Has anyone really measured the extent/cost of her crime? What does she owe? What were we hoping that her 23 days in jail actually pay back to society? What did we want it to cost her? Did this cost her something? Was the value of the cost equal to the debt to society? It seems to me that it might be better—perhaps for her to pay cash to an appropriate charity. A lot of cash.

Or maybe you say that the justice system is really interested in ‘reformation’. The system would like to think that after 23 (or 3) days in the pokey will change her heart, and now she will not drive without a license? Does anyone really believe this? I guess she may hate prison so much that she won’t—but that is fear-based. Is her heart really transformed?

This blog is trying to raise better questions. What did Paris do? What was the cost to society that needed to be paid back? What are creative means that she could pay that back? What imaginative life-changing ways can we engage her to become part of the community—involved, compassion to others, humble (loving God and loving neighbors; golden rule stuff).

Society was not better off with Hilton behind bars – or now free. I am not sure that anyone was transformed, or healed. I don’t think that the crime was even thought through. The judicial bureaucracy’s wheels turned and dysfunctionally did what they will do 10 times out of 10. It is not really working. What do you think?