Want Greta's blog delivered directly to your e-mail box? Click here to sign up!
OK — the blog is short today for one good reason (also the reason it is late): I wrote it early this morning and instead of pressing "send," I hit delete. And then to top it all: Before I realized what a dope I was for deleting it, I emptied my delete folder and thus it is really deleted. Now I am scrambling to re-write it.
Tonight the show airs from D.C. Tomorrow? Unclear... it could be Miami — stay tuned!
Did you watch our show last night? There is a new chapter in the most absurd case: the administrative law judge suing a dry cleaners over some pants. It would be far less absurd, and have gotten no coverage, if he had sued for $100. He might have had a legitimate beef over his pants and what was promised by the cleaners, but he elected to be a nut and sue for tens of millions. There is a reason the judge is representing himself — I assume because no lawyer would represent him in his folly. The judge took his beef to the absolute ridiculous: tens of millions of dollars. The dry cleaner owners had no choice but to defend the lawsuit. Their lawyer told me last night during a commercial break that he walks down the street and people will say to him, "Are you the pants lawyer?" If the case gets any more attention, law schools will add to their curriculum of constitutional law, labor law, etc.... and now pants law. Yes, never dull... this lawyer now has custody of a pair of pants — the judge's pants!
By the way, like the "pants lawyer," I once had custody of evidence for a few years that I could not get rid of: my client's dental bridge. The government claimed it was a weapon because my client bit the victim and, upon his arrest for murder and other crimes, they took his bridge for evidence and comparison bite marks. They wanted to compare his dental bridge to the bites on the victim.
Yes, there was a match.
After the case was over, I fought to get his dental bridge back so he could eat properly in prison. The government resisted — his dental bridge was a weapon and you don't return weapons to criminals... especially in prison. It was a battle. I finally won the battle over the dental bridge and got it... I took the bridge to the prison to give to my client so he could eat properly and had a hard time convincing the prison officials to let me give my client his bridge. Remember, it was a weapon!
After much headache and many more months, the prison, like the prosecutor, finally agreed. But now a new problem: In all the time that had passed — one or two years? — my client's teeth had moved and the bridge did not fit. So what happened? I get sent the dental bridge again. No, they don't teach you this stuff in law school.
Now for some e-mails:
E-mail No. 1
I'm getting a little bit sick at that guy (the sheriff?) calling it a miracle. Three people were killed on the ground! That is not a miracle to the loved ones of the three. Fortunate, perhaps that only three people were killed on the ground, but no miracle. It only counts as a miracle, IF NOBODY WAS KILLED.
E-mail No. 2
Dear Ms Van Susteren,
Is Judge Roy Pearson, the Man With(out) the Missing Pants, appointed or elected? What would it take to get this type of frivolous kook off the bench?
James E. Esplen
E-mail No. 3
Intuition and "street" logic tells me Brian Wells was in on the scheme, but was a scapegoat in the "perfect plan." That is, if caught, could claim as he did. If not, the loot would be divided (but unknown by Wells, he was scheduled to be blown up either way). Because in either case, no ties to the originators of the devious plan could be made. I think this is what the lawmen have come up with but are putting a clamp on it for now.
Just my view of the case.
E-mail No. 4
Roy Pearson is simply trying to torture the Chungs for DARING to cross him. Evidently, he has quite a history of suing people. Pearson knows he won't get any money, but it's not costing him one penny to torture, ruin the business and bankrupt the poor immigrant couple who own the dry cleaning shop in question. Pearson's ultimate quest is to use the court system as a weapon to destroy them.
Pearson is either corrupt or mentally ill, in my opinion. Between Pearson and Nifong, is it any wonder why so many people distrust the legal system?
E-mail No. 5
If the judge doesn't want the pants back, then they should have them altered to fit Griff Jenkins and let him wear them to court. Then we can see if the judge really feels that strongly about them by his expressions when Tonya Riemann (O'Reilly) reads his body language at someone else wearing his beloved pants! Take care, Greta!
Send your thoughts and comments to: email@example.com
Watch "On the Record" weeknights at 10 p.m. ET