It appears that Jonathan Lee Riches -- ATL's favorite pro se litigant, who filed that famous $63,000,000,000.00 Billion lawsuit against Michael Vick -- has some competition in the contest for craziest complaint.

Pro se litigant Gregory Newman has filed a lawsuit against "Covert Action Air Operations." This entity does not exist. But that hasn't stopped Mr. Newman from alleging that it erased his videotape of a "magnetic tornado" that descended upon his backyard.

Here's an excerpt from the memorandum opinion dismissing the complaint, which describes some of Gregory Newman's more colorful allegations:

You can read the two-page opinion -- which includes some boilerplate and citations, perhaps helpful to the law clerks among you, for the proposition that complaints "that describe fantastic or delusional scenarios are subject to immediate dismissal" -- by clicking here.

Memorandum Opinion: Newman v. Covert Action Air Operations [U.S. District Court (D.D.C.)]

One of the allegations in Sullivan & Cromwell's countersuit against its former associate, Aaron Charney, is that Charney leaked sensitive internal documents to the Wall Street Journal.

The firm's Complaint implies that Charney physically removed -- i.e., stole -- confidential documents from the files of a partner. S&C alleges that Charney then leaked these materials to the Wall Street Journal.

And who, pray tell, was the Journal reporter who received the leaked documents? None other than Peter Lattman, author of the WSJ's popular Law Blog, as well as a reporter for the print edition of the Journal.

Charney hasn't admitted anything, so S&C's allegations haven't been proven (although the circumstantial evidence is very, very strong). How can the allegations be definitively established and thoroughly explored? Through the testimony of Peter Lattman, of course.

Thus far, Lattman isn't giving up his source. When contacted by the New York Law Journal, the WSJ, through a spokesman, said that it "does not comment on sourcing."

Has Peter Lattman said anything about his role in this controversy over at the Law Blog? No. Why not? Because he hasn't been around.

Earlier today, a Lattman fan sent us this email:

Can you find out if Peter Lattman is away from the Law Blog this week because of his role in the S&C documents being made public? Usually he tells us when he's going to be away. Who is Marmor?

After redacting our reader's name and email address, we forwarded this query to the Law Blog. About ten minutes later, this post went up:

We’ve had some inquiries as to Peter Lattman’s whereabouts this week. Sorry we didn’t notify our loyal readership sooner, but Peter’s out of town through Wednesday on assignment. Meanwhile, thanks to colleague Jessica Marmor for stepping up and pitching in!

So P. Latt is away "on assignment." Is that what they're calling it these days? [FN1]

Very interesting. We previously speculated that Peter Lattman might make an appearance at Thursday's hearing in S&C v. Charney. But in light of his delicate position at the eye of the storm, we doubt that he'll show. In fact, he will probably try to stay as far away from 60 Centre Street as possible.

If "Charneygate" is the Biglaw version of the Valerie Plame saga, then Peter Lattman is our Judith Miller. Judy Miller went to jail to protect her sources. How far will Peter Lattman go? [FN2]

To lawyers who practice in First Amendment and media law: (1) Does New York have a reporter's privilege and/or shield laws? (2) If so, what are the general standards that must be satisfied to invoke those protections?

[FN1] We have no reason to doubt that Peter Lattman is, in fact, out of town on assignment. But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us.

[FN2] Yes, we know -- any exposure Peter Lattman might have if he refuses to testify in a civil case is nothing compared to what Judith Miller faced. He might just have to pay a fine rather than go to jail (assuming he can even be held in contempt at all). But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us.

Update: This comment makes a good point (and our clouded thinking is probably a sign that we need to step away from the computer now). But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us.

Where's Peter? [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

* The feds and the ACLU wrangle over a classified document. Is such use of the grand jury subpoena creative, or improper? [New York Times]

* A Swift (& Co.) crackdown: federal raids on meatpacking plants in six states result in over 1,200 arrests on immigration charges. [Associated Press]

* MoveOn and those Swift Boat Veterans get fined. [New York Times]

* "Seventh Circuit reinstates claim asserting that ... members of the plaintiff classes have bought products or services from some of the defendants that they would not have bought had the defendants not concealed their involvement in slavery." [How Appealing]

* Girls Gone Wild guy gets community service for filming underage women. [MSNBC]

* "College Student Gets Mother-in-Law to Co-Sign $10,000 Loan to Buy Apple Computer, Has $7,800 DOI Income When He Repays Only $2,200 After Taking High-Paying Job at Microsoft." [TaxProf Blog]

* A British police inquiry rejects conspiracy theories concerning the death of Princess Diana, concluding that the 1997 car crash was a "tragic accident." [Associated Press]

* Does anyone know if "ABV D LAW" is taken? [WSJ Law Blog]

This is a continuation of our prior post about the annual dinner of the Federalist Society. You can read the rest of it after the jump.

Ah, Wesley Snipes. Not only is he an alleged tax cheat, as well as a possible fugitive from justice; he's also practically illiterate a rather poor writer.

In an email to Scott Maxwell, a writer for the Orlando Sentinel (huh?), Snipes wrote:

Hi Scott, guess you can imagine I've been a little busy. Wow this is so crazy . . . Scott this was almost (10) ten years ago. Why are they coming with this issue now? Were the statutes of limitation running out or what? We thought all issues had been resolved. Guess not, huh? Like the situation in New York, and Florida, I know this has more to do with a few individuals with access to power, making moves (trying to move up!) and less with some alleged crime against the whole population of the United States of America. This reminds me of Rape cases where the "victim" is flipped, turned or converted into the role of victimizer, the "architect conspirator." It appears I'm to be the scapegoat, because there's more public interest in "celebrities gone bad" than "rich people being taken advantage of."

Why does Snipes think he's being victimized? He thinks his race may have something to do with it: "Being, a black male who asks questions doesn't help the situation either."

An elaborate government conspiracy, directed against an African-American male celebrity? We're getting a feeling of deja vu.

But don't expect Snipes to write a "hypothetical" memoir titled "If I Did It." Tax fraud isn't quite as sexy as double homicide.

Snipes says he's 'scapegoat' in tax-fraud case [Orlando Sentinel]
Actor Wesley Snipes Claims He's "Scapegoat" in Tax Fraud Prosecution [TaxProf Blog]

Federal judges are brilliant people. But they aren't always the best, or the safest, of drivers. We've had the privilege of riding in cars with federal judges, so we know this firsthand. Let's just say that the reasoning in their opinions is often tighter than their left-hand turns.

Rumor has it that Justice Antonin Scalia can be rather aggressive when behind the wheel of his BMW 525. Some pedestrians fear Justice Sandra Day O'Connor "like a Floridian driver." And it has been alleged that Judge Robert W. Gettleman (N.D. Ill.), the highly regarded Chicago judge, drives his vintage Porsche "like a cabbie."

On a more serious note, sometimes placing a federal judge behind the wheel gives rise to tragic consequences. From the New Haven Register:

The motorist who struck and critically injured a city police officer working a traffic detail Tuesday is a senior federal judge in New Haven. John M. Walker Jr., who is in his mid-60s, had been chief judge for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for six years until Sept. 30, when he assumed senior status.

Police sources said Walker was the driver of the sport utility vehicle that struck Officer Dan Picagli, a 17-year veteran, on Chapel Street in the Wooster Square neighborhood. Picagli, 38, remains in critical condition at Yale-New Haven Hospital.

Police are investigating the accident, which happened during a steady rain at 6:30 p.m. No charges have been filed.

Officer Picagli, who works in a youth-oriented policing unit and runs the Police Athletic League, a program for city youths, is well-loved by both his colleagues and the kids he works with.

More about this accident, after the jump.

The past few days have been full of law-related news about celebrities. E.g., Lindsay Lohan, Wesley Snipes, and Madonna. And no menagerie of stars would be complete without the King of Pop himself: Michael Jackson.

Things are getting majorly "meta" for Michael. He's retained new lawyers to sue his former lawyers, against whom he makes some pretty wacky interesting allegations:

Michael Jackson is accusing his former attorneys of conspiring to put him into involuntary bankruptcy. In papers filed on Aug. 29 in Tarzana, Calif., but unseen until now, Jackson accuses former attorneys Ayscough & Marar of “approaching other lawyers” who represented Jackson “in an effort to get such lawyers to join [with them] in forcing Jackson into involuntary bankruptcy …”

We tend to doubt Jackson's precarious financial condition is the fault of his lawyers. Unless they happen to be prepubescent boys demanding millions in hush money.

Jacko: Former Lawyers in Conspiracy [Fox News]