Pro Se Litigants

Non-Sequiturs: 08.27.07

By

pony head spicy pony head ponyhead Above the Law blog.jpg* Oh, those crazy French people. They eat the darnedest things! [Conglomerate]
* A shameless (and belated) plug: we were interviewed last week by NPR’s Mike Pesca, for an interesting story about Jonathan Lee Riches and his wacky pro se lawsuits. (We appear around the 2:30 mark.) [NPR]
* Blawg Review #123 — in the form of a judicial opinion. Very clever! [Texas Appellate Law Blog via Blawg Review]

Sign up for the Above the Law newsletter

Subscribe to our free daily email and get breaking news, commentary, and opinions on law firms, lawyers, law schools, lawsuits, judges, and more.

ATL Practice Pointers: Clerks, Don’t Date the Prisoners

By

meet an inmate Above the Law blog.jpgA relationship between a prisoner — falsely accused, natch — and a compassionate woman on the outside, crusading for his release. What could be more romantic?
Well, if the woman happens to be a court clerk, with responsibility for handling prisoner filings, the situation goes from romantic to problematic. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

A deputy clerk at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has been fired after striking up a romantic relationship with – and trying to help win the release of – a Washington man serving life in federal prison, court documents show.

Jane Cross, 57, came under scrutiny in June, after she filed a Washington State Bar Association complaint against Kurt Hermanns, an assistant U.S. attorney in Tacoma who handled the prosecution of William G. Moore on methamphetamine and other charges in the mid-1990s. She was placed on leave and subsequently fired last week.

In the immortal words of Def Leppard: Love bites.
More after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “ATL Practice Pointers: Clerks, Don’t Date the Prisoners”

Morning Docket: 08.20.07

By

* Who needs lawyers? [WSJ Law Blog]
* Take the deal, Vick. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]
* Buyer’s remorse on the surveillance law? [New York Times]
* I want a new drug website. [BBC]
* Being the creepiest guy on earth is apparently not a crime. [CNN]

Lawsuit of the Day: Jonathan Lee Riches Strikes Again (and Again and Again)

By

Jonathan Lee Riches Jonathan Riches Jon Lee Riches Jon Riches Above the Law blog.jpgFederal prisoner Jonathan Lee Riches, whose “$63,000,000,000.00 Billion dollar” lawsuit against Michael Vick was discussed in these pages last month, has a new celebrity athlete in his sights. From a tipster:

Got to think you’ve seen this by now: the guy suing Michael Vick for a bazillion dollars or whatever it is now realizes that the real culprit is Barry Bonds. See here.

Question: Where can we file amicus briefs on these?

More description of Riches’s latest Complaint, alleging “Fraud Against Mankind” and “Batman and Identity Robbin,” from the Smoking Gun:

Riches, who is doing a decade in prison for fraud, is at it again, this time filing a loony — though quite funny — complaint again Barry Bonds, baseball commissioner Bud Selig, and Hank Aaron’s bat.

In his lawsuit, Riches weaves an intricate conspiracy theory involving television ratings, steroids, the cracking of the Liberty Bell, Colombian narco-terrorists, and secretly recorded conversations for which journalists Robert Novak and Judith Miller have transcripts.

Sounds like the plot to Syriana or Babel. Might Riches — a/k/a “Secured Party” d/b/a “The White Suge Knight” — have a future as a Hollywood screenwriter?
As it turns out, Jonathan Lee Riches is an old hand at crazy lawsuits — a veritable pro at proceeding pro se. More after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Lawsuit of the Day: Jonathan Lee Riches Strikes Again (and Again and Again)”

Pro Se Litigant to Judge: ‘Bite Me, Your Honor’

By

Wesley William Wimber pro se Montana Abovethelaw Above the Law blog.jpgGotta love those pro se litigants in Montana — and their dads, too. From the Billings Gazette:

Bond was set at $50,000 Friday for a man accused of attacking three police officers in a county courtroom as his father reportedly egged him on.

The officers were summoned to District Court in downtown Billings on Thursday after Wesley William Wimber shouted profanities at Judge Russell Fagg, court documents said.

In a confrontation that unfolded after a ruling by Fagg, the man allegedly charged one of the officers while his father shouted encouragement from the back of the courtroom, yelling, “Take ‘em, Wes! Take ‘em!”

No, we’re not making this up. The alleged assailant really is named “Wesley William Wimber.” And the presiding judge really is a Fagg.
So what gave rise to this disorder in the court?

Prosecutors said the melee broke out Thursday at the end of a custody matter in Fagg’s courtroom involving Wimber’s daughter. When Fagg ordered that Wimber allow his daughter’s mother visitation with the 4-year-old, Wimber called out, “Bite me, your honor!”

Very nice. If you’re going to tell a judge to “bite you,” be sure to add “Your Honor.” Then it’s all good.
(We’re reminded of McDermott Will & Emery partner William P. Smith, who suggested to a judge that she might be “a few french fries short of a Happy Meal.” The fact that he prefaced the suggestion “with respect,” and addressed the judge as “Your Honor,” didn’t save him from her wrath.)
Man charged in courtroom melee [Billings Gazette]

Also, Rain Is Wet

By

pro se litigants risky Abovethelaw Above the Law blog.jpg
We love pro se litigants here at ATL. Like the guy suing Michael Vick, alleging that Vick stole his dogs and abused them, subjected him to “microwave testing,” and pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda.
Today’s pro se litigant is a defendant rather than a plaintiff. From an article warning that representing yourself can be risky (who knew?), in the Virginian-Pilot:

Charles Willis knew he was no match for the prosecutor.

Police had given him a citation for illegally parking in a fire lane at a home improvement store in Chesapeake, and the Hickory man wanted to fight it.

But on his income – he’s retired and lives on his Social Security disability check – he couldn’t afford it. So on Tuesday morning, the 58-year-old made his way to Chesapeake Circuit Court with his walking cane, armed with a briefcase filled with notes and pictures from the scene.

Like a growing number of defendants these days, Willis was going to represent himself.

Ruh-roh. We suspect this won’t end happily.
Read more, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Also, Rain Is Wet”

Lawsuit of the Day: Vick’s A Defendant In A Federal Civil Suit, Too

By

Albeit a ridiculous pro se one filed by a prisoner in South Carolina.
There’s nothing like the free time that prison provides and obviously severe mental problems a vivid imagination as a recipe for hilarious, hand-written, pro se complaints. Exhibit A:
Michael Vick Pro Se 1 Abovethelaw Above the Law blog.jpg
Where to begin? Well, first of all, as far as we know Vick is not a federal agent of any kind, so this can’t possibly be an action filed pursuant to Bivens. But of all of the problems with this complaint, that may be the least. Continued discussion and the rest of the complaint after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Lawsuit of the Day: Vick’s A Defendant In A Federal Civil Suit, Too”

Lawsuit of the Day: Aisha v. Madonna

By

Madonna at Supreme Court SCOTUS Aisha Goodison Abovethelaw Above the Law blog.jpgIn addition to handing down some big opinions, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a number of cases. As noted by SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, the Court denied certiorari in a significant antitrust case, as well as a pair of test cases raising constitutional issues in the immigration context.
But the most important cert denial was surely Aisha v. Madonna, No. 06-1389. A blurb about this battle of the mono-monikered musicians, from a reader:

Why nothing about this crazy diva? Her case is discussed by Marty Lederman over at SCOTUSblog.

Aisha Goodison seems right up your alley. She’s more than a little nutty, “strong,” fearless, and with a bad attitude. (Gotta love the pictures of Madonna and Gwen Stefani on her website).

I glanced over her cert petition and she’s pro se. Does that mean she wrote her own complaint? If not, who is helping her out? Just how crazy is she?

Plenty crazy. More discussion, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Lawsuit of the Day: Aisha v. Madonna”

Morning Docket: 05.01.07

By

University of Virginia School of Law UVA Law School Above the Law blog.jpg* These guys get a case at the Supreme Court before they even graduate. They really are the coolest law school! [The Daily Progress via How Appealing]
* Cho loophole supposedly now closed. [CNN]
* Bush telling Texas it has to comply with international law? Seems a little ironic… [Jurist]
* A fool for a client… [WSJ Law Blog]
* Yes, what’s going in Darfur is genocide, ok people? Geez. [The Christian Science Monitor via Yahoo!]

Lawyer Pro Se Litigant of the Day: Michael Melnitzky

By

Patek Philippe watch timepiece Above the Law.JPGWe sure do love pro se litigants. Like the guy who filed this notice of appeal. Or the loon who filed this lawsuit against Arm & Hammer. And, of course, there’s Aaron Charney (although he now has counsel).
Today we introduce you to Michael Melnitzky, who served as the principal art conservator at Sotheby’s for almost three decades. From the NYT:

[W]hen his wife filed for divorce in 1994, Mr. Melnitzky became something else: a litigator. A prolific one. And although he has no law degree and only himself as a client, he has never been busier.

Through a series of self-fashioned lawsuits and appeals, issues that might have been settled with his divorce have gone on for 13 years, 3 years longer than his marriage.

He has sued virtually everyone involved: one of his former lawyers, his wife’s lawyer, three banks, five judges and a psychiatrist appointed by the court to evaluate his mental health. In unrelated cases, he has sued a neighbor, a thrift shop, the city and his former employer. And he has almost always lost.

Unlike so many pro se litigants, Melnitzky is neither incarcerated nor impecunious. But in terms of his psychology, he fits the pro se profile:

At a recent hearing, an opposing lawyer called him a “serial litigator” who was turning the legal system into a “hobby” at the expense of the people he sued.

Mr. Melnitzky takes exception to such characterizations, as he does to the mention of obsession.

“It’s not an obsession; it’s a cause,” he said. “Would you call the fight against Nazis an obsession?”

Melnitzky is a Holocaust survivor. But despite that fact, we respectfully question whether it’s appropriate to compare the worldwide struggle against Fascism and genocide to litigation over a watch collection (even a very nice one — it includes timepieces by Patek Philippe and Vacheron Constantin).
The Marriage Lasted 10 Years. The Lawsuits? 13 Years, and Counting. [New York Times]

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell — Or Should We Say, Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney?

By

H Rodgin Cohen 2 Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPGWe just got back from dinner with lawyer friends, where everyone mourned the apparent passing of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. Earlier today, it seemed that this lawsuit — which has riveted legal gossip circles — was on the brink of settlement.
As we pointed out this afternoon, something was definitely going on in the case. Aaron Charney was no longer listed on the S&C website. He wasn’t returning our emails, and when we finally reached him by phone, the usually chatty plaintiff refused to speak to us. When we contacted Sullivan & Cromwell partner Theodore Rogers, he was also quite cagey.
In short, the parties were acting weird — very weird. We felt a great deal of tension in the air. Something was definitely not “normal” (to the extent that anything about this lawsuit could be called “normal”).
We suspected a settlement was in the works (and even asked you to vote in a reader poll about the amount). But it turns out that nothing could have been further from the truth.
Reports of this lawsuit’s death have been greatly exaggerated (largely by yours truly). The legal warfare between Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell, far from going away, is actually ESCALATING. WOW!!!
Check out the fantastic comments to our last post. Or read this concise summary, emailed to us by a reader:

Sullivan & Cromwell filed its own action against Charney [yesterday] — and it was started by an order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction!!!!

The case is on for next Thursday, February 8, before Judge Bernard Fried.

I think this means the case is far from settling, if S&C started their own lawsuit. I will try to get my hands on the complaint.

Mr. Charney, S&C is playing hardball — and you’re the ball. Biglaw is about to get medieval on your ass.
You’re going to be bending over for Messrs. Sullivan and Cromwell. And this time around, they won’t ask nicely.
ATL readers: Please email us with any information, tips, or rumors about the litigation. We are ESPECIALLY interested in getting our hands on S&C’s moving papers, which apparently were filed yesterday (February 1).
Treat this post as the open thread for all things Charney-licious. We will add, update, and tinker with it throughout the weekend. Refresh your browser for the latest — and check out the comments, too.
Fasten your seatbelts, everyone. For fans of Biglaw gossip, it’s going to be a bumpy — but hopefully entertaining — little ride.
Update (12:58 AM): Hey, guess what? You don’t need to read all 60+ comments to our most recent Aaron Charney post.
We’ve prepared a handy little digest of these comments. It appears after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell — Or Should We Say, Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney?”

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Morning Newswrap

By

Aaron Charney 2 headshot Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett CharneyWe’ll get back to the subject of pay raises for law firm associates in a minute. For now, here’s a quick update on the other story that Biglaw is abuzz about: Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the case filed against S&C by associate Aaron Charney, alleging anti-gay discrimination and retaliation.
We’re monitoring coverage of this lawsuit through a news feed. Here are links to, and excerpts from, the latest stories:
1. Maple Grief [TheLawyer.com]

[O]ne charge [in the Charney Complaint] strikes [us] as particularly heinous. And that is that partners at the firm said the prevailing attitude internally was that “S&C considers all Canadians to be irrelevant”.

Given that the firm’s M&A lawyers spent most of last year defending Canadian nickel producer Inco on a £9.3bn hostile bid, we would be keen to hear Sullivan’s arguments played out in a tribunal.

2. Fake-Lawyer Jokes Better Than Real-Lawyer Jokes [New York Magazine / Daily Intelligencer]
A very brief mention — but with a shout-out to ATL:

Aaron Charney, the gay associate suing his former firm for discrimination, hasn’t gotten the support he expected from New York’s Lesbian and Gay Law Association. [Above the Law]

3. The Tough Road Ahead in the Lawsuit against S&C for Anti-Gay Discrimination: The Plain Truth about Plaintiffs [FindLaw]
Those of you who have been hungering for a dissection of Aaron Charney’s case by an employment lawyer will appreciate this excellent article. It’s by Professor Scott Moss, who teaches employment discrimination law at Marquette. Before entering academia, he practiced plaintiff-side employment law for several years, at Outten & Golden LLP in New York City.
It’s quite interesting. Highlights and our commentary, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Morning Newswrap”