Pearson is claiming that he was wrongfully dismissed for "exposing corruption" within the department where he worked. He claims that he was protected as a whistleblower and that the city dumped him because he was being "vilified in the media."
The city in turn has said that Pearson's term expired in 2007 and the commission decided not to reappoint him, saying he lacked "judicial temperament." Gee, I wonder where the commission could have possibly come up with a reason to think he lacked the proper temperament to be a judge.
Pearson has claimed that he suffered physical illness, damage to his career, and humiliation from losing his job; no word on whether he admits that he brought that on himself with his dry-cleaning suit.
As for judicial temperament, one can only close with the observation that Pearson broke down and cried on the stand when he tried to describe how he learned he'd never see his pants again.
Let's hope the judge in this new case, when pondering judicial temperament, ponders how Pearson valued his pants at $54 million but his job at $1 million. That's one expensive pair of trousers.
