- One of the hallmarks of
the American legal system is that anyone can file
a lawsuit for any reason at any time. ("The Star Spangled Banner" playing) (fireworks) and, of course, one of the major drawbacks to the American legal system is anyone can file any lawsuit
at any time for any reason. Doesn't mean they're going to win, but they can still file the lawsuit. And over the years, many people have taken advantage of this principle to file a whole variety of frivolous lawsuits. Now, many of these cases are filed by self-represented parties, but you'll also find far too many lawyers willing to attach their
names and reputations to these suits. (mock sneezing) Sorry. Must be getting over something. But baseless lawsuits not
only waste the precious time of an already overloaded court system, they can also be financially ruinous to the parties having to defend
these nonsensical claims. But these cases also have
the unfortunate side effect of making us lawyer
types look kind of bad. But today let's take a
mirror to our own profession and let's discuss five
of the dumbest lawsuits ever filed. (upbeat music) Sponsored by Skillshare. So where do we begin? Well, when someone tries to sue another for a substantial sum of money, we refer to that as suing
the pants off of someone. (grunts) (popping) But that can literally be the case. And in 2005, Roy L. Pearson Jr., a lawyer and newly appointed
DC administrative law judge took that phrase quite literally after Custom Cleaners, a DC
dry cleaning establishment, briefly misplaced his pants. The store prominently displayed a sign that said satisfaction guaranteed, and Judge Pearson demanded satisfaction by suing the owners for $67 million. So here's the backstory of what
has become the poster child for frivolous pants-related litigation. In 2005, Judge Pearson took
a pair of expensive pants to Custom Cleaners. The business was owned
by Jin and Soo Chung, Korean immigrants who came
to the United States in 1992. Now Judge Pearson intended
to wear these pants on his first week on the bench. But the business owners had inadvertently sent the pants to the wrong location. But Judge Pearson refused to accept them, claiming that they were not his pants, despite the owners providing confirmation through their business records, tags and the judge's receipt. Now Pearson demanded payment of $1,150. The owners did not respond to this demand, so Judge Pearson then filed suit, no pun intended, in the District of
Columbia Superior Court for $67.3 million in damages, 67,000 times more than his
original settlement demand. Judge Pearson contended that the Chungs had failed to honor the legal warranty established by the same day service and satisfaction guaranteed
signs displayed at their store. Judge Pearson apparently had
an incredibly expensive view of the idea of satisfaction guaranteed, which he claimed obligated the Chungs to undertake any and all
actions without limitation based on the customer's determination of whatever would make
the customer satisfied. Given this expensive
and incredibly literal interpretation of satisfaction guaranteed, it sort of raises the question, who was Judge Pearson's legal mentor? Lionel Hutz? - Mr. Hutz, do you know
you're not wearing any pants? - What? (screams) - Well, Judge Pearson contended that the Chung's failure to
provide him proper satisfaction constituted seven separate violations of Washington DC consumer protection laws, and using a complicated formula, Judge Pearson argued that
the owners and their son, Ki Chung, owed each $18,000 per day that the judge was not satisfied, and they had failed to provide
him with same day service. As part of his damages,
Pearson also claimed $90,000 to rent a car to drive
to another dry cleaner and $3 million in emotional distress, because you know, he
really loved those pants. But Judge Pearson is
not an unreasonable man. Before trial, Judge
Pearson generously lowered this damage claims to $54 million. When this case went to trial, it actually went to trial in 2007, the DC Superior Court rejected all of Judge Pearson's claims. The court ruled that Judge Pearson had failed to prove that Custom Cleaners had misled consumers with a
satisfaction guaranteed sign. In fact, the court
found that Judge Pearson was unable to prove that the cleaners lost his pants in the first place, and further, the court
held that Judge Pearson's expansive interpretation
of satisfaction guaranteed had no support under the law. Shocker. Pearson appealed, but
lost on appeal as well. And because this is America,
although the Chungs prevailed, they were financially
devastated by the litigation, and they were only able to
afford their attorney's fees after a generous outpouring
of financial support through third-party fundraising. In September, 2007,
citing a loss of revenue and emotional distress, the Chungs closed and sold
their dry cleaning shop at the center of the dispute. And they decided to focus their energy on another dry cleaning shop that they owned. And as for Judge Pearson, well, he did not get
to be judge much longer as he was not reappointed when
his two year term expired. Over a decade later, former Judge Pearson was brought before the DC Board of
Professional Responsibility to address his bizarre
behavior in the pants lawsuit. And on June 4th, 2020, the
Board suspended Pearson from practicing law for 90 days. The Board characterized
Pearson's damage theories as utterly frivolous and excoriated him for his refusal to accept
reasonable settlement offers. The Board concluded that
Pearson had violated the ethical rule prohibiting
conduct, which quote, "Seriously interferes with the
administration of justice." Which takes us to our next
incredibly frivolous lawsuit. Because in today's image-obsessed culture, people will try anything
to fight the aging process. Trendy diets, experimental remedies, whatever it is that keeps Paul
Rudd from getting any older. But in 2018, a 69-year old Dutchman was perhaps the first
person to turn the fight against the aging process into a legal one by asking a judge to legally
reduce his age by 20 years. This did not go well. But meet Emile Ratelband,
a motivational speaker and self-described positivity
trainer from the Netherlands. In 2018, the then 69-year old Ratelband appeared before a Dutch court complaining that he had been the victim of age discrimination in employment, and through unfair denial of Tinder dates. But instead of filing suit
against specific people or entities that might have wronged him, Ratelband took novel approach
to remedy his alleged injury by asking a Dutch court to
legally change his birthday from March 11th, 1949 to March 11th, 1969 in order to make him 20 years younger. Describing himself as a quote "young god," Ratelband argued that his
strict diet, exercise routine, and mental discipline had,
according to his doctors, given him the body of a 45-year-old. - The judge was first laughing, and then I told him the series matter, and then he said, "Well, you have a point. Perhaps I want to be younger also." - In a move that was sure
not to offend anyone, Ratelband likened his struggles to that of transgender
people saying quote, "We live in a time when
you can change your name and change your gender. Why can't I decide my own age?" And in a generous offer, Ratelband even stated that he was ready to give up his 1500 Euro per month pension in return for the Dutch government shaving 20 years off of his official age. Not surprisingly, the court ultimately ruled against Ratelband, holding that there was no legal mechanism for allowing a person to
change their date of birth. And in its ruling, the court warned that allowing Ratelband to
change his date of birth would create all kinds of legal problems by effectively erasing 20 years of events. Quote, "Mr. Ratelband is at
Liberty to feel 20 years younger than his real age and to act accordingly, but amending his date of birth would cause 20 years of records to vanish
from the register of births, deaths and marriages and
registered partnerships. This would have a variety
of undesirable legal and societal implications. The priority must be to ensure
that the public registers contain accurate factual information." The court highlighted that specific dates and obligations attached to
age, such as the right to vote right to marry, drink
alcohol and drive a car, and that a ruling in favor of Ratelband could open up the possibility of a person declaring oneself older and try to obtain those rights. Which pisses me off just because
I didn't think about that, and I really would've
liked to have done that. But if Ratelband feels like he has been discriminated against, the ruling said that there were other laws that he could use to invoke and try to seek relief that way. Because at the end of the day,
he only has himself to blame, which is also the case in
our next frivolous lawsuit. Our next plaintiff took
it one step further and just sued himself. Because many people who
represent themself pro se are filed by those currently
serving time in prison. And many of those lawsuits try to address a variety of important issues, like subpar prison conditions, or particularly in case
of death row inmates, to seek a retrial of one's case. Other times, they're just plain weird. And such was the case of Robert Lee Brock, the man who sued himself for $5 million for violating his own civil rights. Here's the story. In 1995 Brock was serving
a 23 year prison sentence at the Indian Creek Correctional Center in Chesapeake, Virginia
for breaking and entering and grand larceny. And like many people
who make bad decisions that they regret forever,
he was drunk at the time. - To alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems. - And for that, Brock believed You may be entitled to compensation. Who me? Yes, you. You could get compensation. Wow, that sounds great,
I think I'll do that. Because in a seven page
handwritten complaint, Brock argued that his Christian faith forbids him from drinking alcohol, and he argued that getting drunk
caused him to commit crimes and violate his own
religious civil rights. He pleaded with the court to
grant him relief from himself, quote "For violating my religious beliefs, I want to pay myself $5 million, but ask the state to pay it on my behalf since I can't work and
am a ward of the state." Brock sought $3 million
for his wife and children, quote "for their pain and
suffering and college tuition," and $2 million to support him for the next 23 years in prison, but promised he would pay it back someday. The judge was not impressed and immediately dismissed
the lawsuit as frivolous. In her order, the judge wrote quote, "Plaintiff has presented
an innovative approach to civil rights litigation. However, his claim and
especially the relief sought are totally ludicrous." But Brock, who would later
file lawsuits under the alias Two Souls Walker, would continue to be a thorn in the side of
the federal court system, filing 29 appeals to Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 through 1996 alone, all of which were rejected. But Brock's barrage of baseless lawsuits included complaints about
the price of coffee, improper placement of a
mirror for the handicapped, and suing the prison for $1
million for mental cruelty when prison nurses said
no to Brock's request for extra meat with dinner, and vitamins in place of vegetables. Brock even sued the victim of the crime that originally sent him to jail. But in his final lawsuit, Brock alleged that he was quote, "Either being poisoned or experimented on" by the prison, because the
pancake syrup he was being served contained propylene
glycol, a food additive that does also happen to be contained in some items like
deodorant and antifreeze. But it was the syrup that
broke the camel's back as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that it had finally had enough. The court ruled the case was frivolous, not only because of the propylene glycol is a common nontoxic extract, but also Brock made no allegation the prison forced him to eat
the allegedly poisonous syrup. Citing Brock's history of wasting money and precious court resources, the court banned him from
filing any more lawsuits without a judge first certifying that his claim was not frivolous. Because the Constitution
guarantees life and liberty, but it doesn't guarantee a good time. And that's what takes as to
our next frivolous lawsuit. There's an old saying that you can't believe
everything you see on TV, and that's actually a
good rule to live by, and it's especially true
when it comes to advertising, because beer commercials
often present a fantasy of beach parties, beautiful women, and occasionally skateboarding dogs, but most people understand
this image to be just that, a fantasy. But that's most people. Because, for one Michigan man, he believed that Budweiser's
advertisements in the late 80s were misleading their audience
with an explicit promise of partying and fun times. And when there's a
will, there's a lawsuit. So in 1991, Richard Overton,
representing himself, sued Anheuser-Busch for $10,000, alleging their advertisements caused him emotional distress, mental
injury and financial loss. And in support of these allegations, over Overton cited the
company's Bud Light ads, which he claimed promised
beer's ability to make quote, "Fantasies come to life, fantasies involving tropical settings, and beautiful men and women engaged in unrestricted merriment." - Bye, Spuds. Call me. - Overton alleged Anheuser-Busch's ads violated Michigan's laws
against deceptive advertising by presenting this fantasy as reality while downplaying the destructive effects of drinking alcohol. The Michigan Court of Appeals
dismissed Overton's claims. The court held that Anheuser-Busch's ads portraying unrestricted merriment, were merely quote, "Grandiose suggestions constituting puffing," which is actually a legal term, and could not be the basis
of an actionable fraud claim. The court further concluded
that Anheuser-Busch could not be held liable
for allegedly downplaying the dangers of alcohol by
portraying the consumption of alcoholic beverages
in a positive light. And according to the Michigan court, the dangers inherent
in alcohol consumption are well-known to the public. As a result, Anheuser-Busch
had no affirmative duty to disclose in its advertisements risks that are already well-known. And decades later, Overton
still stands by his lawsuit. In a 2007 interview with
the Kalamazoo Gazette, he rejected the
characterization of his image as a sex starved loser, who drinks Bud Light hoping
to find pretty girls. Overton himself doesn't
actually drink alcohol and has three children and
a wife for three decades. And according to Overton,
the spark for his lawsuit was seeing his young children
captivated by Spuds McKenzie, the Budweiser dog. - Crack open one of those BLs. I don't have thumbs. (clinging) - He said, quote, "I looked at them and I thought this isn't right. Here are my kids being drawn into part of a culture of alcohol
because of this advertising. That's when I figured
something needed to be done." And fair enough. I think a lot of people
would probably agree with that sentiment. In a way, society has come to Overton because those kinds of
ads regarding alcohol are no longer really seen on TV. But the solution to this issue wasn't going to be found in a
deceptive advertising lawsuit. But unfortunately, some
people have learned that if you don't like something on TV, even if you file a frivolous lawsuit, you can still cause
pain to the other side. Because you can accuse
former president Donald Trump of a lot of things, and in fact, I have actually
outlined a lot of things that you can credibly
accuse Donald Trump of in a variety of videos. But there's one thing that
you cannot credibly accuse former President Trump of, and that's having a sense of humor. Because in 2013, Donald Trump
showcased his lack of humor by hiring high-priced
lawyers to sue Bill Maher for $5 million over a joke. Back when Donald Trump was
just a failed game show host, he made a name for himself by questioning the Constitutional legitimacy
of president Barack Obama, the first African-American
elected to the presidency. And back in 2011, Trump
demanded the Barack Obama release his long form birth certificate to prove that he was born
in the United States. After Obama released
his birth certificate, Trump continued to fan the flames of racist conspiracy theories, and in the run-up to the 2012 election, Donald Trump said that he would donate $5 million to charity if Obama released all passport records
and college transcripts. And enter Bill Maher, host of
the eponymous HBO talk show and in mocking Trump's demands that Obama prove has
eligibility to be president, the comedy host demanded that Donald Trump provide
his own proof of parentage, namely, that he was not quote, "The love child of a human woman and an orangutan from the Brooklyn zoo." And on January 7th, 2013, Bill Maher appeared on the
Tonight Show with Jay Leno, where he continued to demand that Donald Trump prove he
was not sired by a great ape. (laughing) - And he marched into court
with his birth certificate and sued me, because he's a whiny little (beeping). - And in turning the
tables, the very next day, Trump, through his attorney, sent Maher a copy of his birth certificate and demanded that Maher pay him $5 million to donate to charity. And yes, what I'm going to
show you is a real letter sent and signed by a lawyer. "I write on Donald Trump's
behalf to accept your offer made during the Jay Leno
show on January 7, 2013, that Mr. Trump prove he is not the quote, 'spawn of his mother having
sex with an orangutan.' Attached hereto is a copy of
Mr. Trump's birth certificate demonstrating that he is
the son of Fred Trump, not an orangutan." And I want to add that not
only is this a real letter sent and signed by a lawyer, this demand was not from
Trump's fixer Michael Cohen. This was sent by Cooley LLP, one of the top international
law firms in the world, best known for representing
multinational corporations. The following week, the Cooley attorney sent a followup demand
letter stating quote, "Mr. Trump has accepted
your offer for $5 million, provided the necessary
documentation and demanded payment. You have not honored your obligation." If you think that those
letters are strange, wait until you see the complaint they actually filed in court. Because on February 4th, 2013, Donald Trump formally sued
Bill Maher in California for breach of contract demanding
immediate direct payment of $5 million to Trump so
that he might donate that to the charities of his choosing. The complaint reads like
Donald Trump wrote it himself, or at least dictated most of it. And after quoting from Maher's
interview with Jay Leno, Trump argued that Maher
had made a sincere offer to pay Trump $5 million
if Trump could prove that he was not the son of an orangutan. And the complaint alleges
that a contract was formed when Trump performed by
producing his birth certificate Maher failed to pay the promised sums, and thus Maher was in breach
of contract for $5 million. Though apparently they
thought better of it, because eight weeks later, Donald Trump withdrew the lawsuit. - We should not be having
frivolous lawsuits like this. The legal system in this
country is not a joke. It's not a toy for rich
idiots to play with. It's not a collection
agency for billionaires. - And while his fixer, Michael Cohen, claimed that Trump would soon be filing an amended complaint, such
a complaint was never filed. Cohen never gave any
reasons for the withdrawal or why a subsequent
lawsuit was never filed. Though some legal scholars do point out that this lawsuit was
complete and utter nonsense, and Trump wouldn't actually
be able to recover anything, also other scholars point out that California's Anti-SLAPP law, which punishes those who
file frivolous lawsuits that seek to chill speech would have entitled Bill Maher to recover all of his attorney's fees from Trump when Maher inevitably prevailed. And if there's one thing that
we know about Donald Trump is that he hates paying for attorneys. Of course, the bottom line is that all of these lawyers
who filed these lawsuits should probably be
disbarred and find new jobs, because they filed such
frivolous lawsuits. They'd really benefit from
Mari Andrew's Skillshare class, Drawing as Self-Discovery,
5 Ways to Start, because they'd probably be better artists than actual lawyers. Or they could take Andy Pizza's class, Find Your Style: Five Exercises to Unlock Your Creative Identity, because their identity
should not be bound up in actually being a lawyer. Or let's be honest, they're
gonna do what everyone does and start a podcast
probably after watching John Lagomarsino's class, How to Make a Podcast: Plan, Record, and Launch with Success. Because you can find almost any class in the world on Skillshare. Skillshare has classes
on almost everything, from video to business to design. Skillshare, as you know, is
one of the world's largest online learning communities with tens of thousands
of classes on everything, and it's the best place to
get a start on the internet. Or, if you're one of these lawyers, a new start on the internet. If you'd like to try out Skillshare, the first 1000 Legal Eagles to use my link in the description we'll get a free trial
of Skillshare Premium. And after the trial ends, Skillshare is still way more affordable than most online learning platforms, with plans starting at
less than $10 per month. Plus, clicking that link
really helps out this channel. So just click on the
link in the description to get a free trial of Skillshare. So do you agree with my analysis? Are there other frivolous
lawsuits that I didn't cover that I should? Leave your objections in the comments, and check out this playlist over here with all of my other videos on the craziest lawsuits in the world, legal issues in the news. You name it, it's over here,
so click on this playlist, or I'll see you in court.
Omg that head
Im kinda surprised that the vig suit is not in this