Pimpin' Aint Easy

I consider myself a student of unique lawsuits, so I was intrigued when I read about the story of Oregon-based short term relationship consultant Sirgiorgiro Clardy. In June of 2012, one of Mr. Clardy’s clients refused to pay one of his independent contractors for her services. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Clardy began stomping the client’s face outside of a Portland hotel before forcibly relieving him of his wallet. Soon thereafter, he beat the 18-year old independent contractor he had forced into service to the point her ears bled. The client required stitches and plastic surgery to repair the damage.

As a result of the encounter, Clardy was convicted of second-degree assault and robbery amongst other legal transgressions. As it would happen, Mr. Clardy was wearing a crisp pair of Air Jordan sneakers at the time of the altercation. A fact which he has come to believe played an integral role in the events he was convicted of. For that reason, he recently filed a $100 million lawsuit against Nike for failing to provide “adequate warning or instruction” concerning the “dangerous product” that caused “personal injury in the likes of mental suffering.” He alleges that the Nike Corporation failed to inform him, as a consumer, that their footwear could be a dangerous weapon when used to repeatedly step on the face of another person. Nike has yet to respond to the lawsuit.

Mr. Clardy

While some might label such litigation “frivolous”, perhaps this young entrepreneur has a point. How is he, as a small business owner, to know that his sneakers were capable of causing injury and mental distress? There was certainly no disclaimer on the box informing him that said footwear could be a potential source of unpleasantness when forcefully applied to the jaw of a client. Is it really too much to ask for Nike’s legal department to produce a blanket disclaimer for Air Jordan packaging?

Caution: Nike sneakers are designed, produced, and sold for the purpose of various athletic pursuits in accordance with all local laws and ordinances. Their utilization by west coast pimps to curb-stomp a john over an invoicing discrepancy is strictly forbidden.

To me, the biggest mystery is why he felt it necessary to beat the prostitute for the client’s failure to pay. Being unfamiliar with the standard operating procedure in these cases, I wasn’t sure if it was customary for the servicer to be expected to check for financial solvency before performing services or if that aspect relies on the honor system. I assume it hasn’t gotten to the point where the pimps are using Square on their iPads. What would he even yell at this poor girl, “How many times have we gone over the closing procedures Daphne!? Do I need to get you another copy of our mission statement!?”

Just as disturbing as the details of this incident, are the comments that appear below the story on The Oregonian’s website. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly any forum for Internet commentary can devolve into a political debate.

It was unclear how “lamer” ascertained the political ideology of Mr. Clardy (as I have yet to hear either party run on the Pro-pimp platform) but soon enough another reader labeled him as a “another brain-dead conservative cliché spewing moron”. This eventually led to a disagreement about which political party spent more on footwear before culminating in a heated discussion about gun-control. Is this how far we have fallen? Unable to simply agree that a violent felon filling frivolous lawsuits is a meritless pursuit, we now find ourselves speculating on his voting record in order to validate preconceived notions about other people.

Those that chose not to participate in the partisan melee supplied cringe-worthy puns:

I am trying to recall the last time that the commentary section of an Internet news story contributed anything to the collective wisdom of modern society; but I suppose one could make the same observation about a blogger that takes the time to editorialize on said commentary…