We're still in the great state of Georgia (which brought us today's Judge of the Day). Now one of our favorite pro se litigants has been barred from further filing in the Northern District of Georgia.

From the Fulton County Daily Report:

The federal court filing spree launched by Jonathan Lee Riches, a pro se inmate who has barraged courts around the country with some 1,500 handwritten suits, is coming to a halt—at least in the Northern District of Georgia.

Calling Riches a “vexatious and abusive litigant,” U.S. District Judge Willis B. Hunt Jr. last week permanently enjoined Riches—who has filed 351 suits in the Northern District alone over the past several months—from filing any more without first meeting a strict set of criteria.

Vexatious. That's a great Scabulous word!

The order [pdf] dismisses all of Riches' pending cases without prejudice. Skadden Arps and Pepper Hamilton must be breathing huge sighs of relief.

Among the defendants to Riches' Atlanta suits were former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his wife, Silda; the law firms Pepper Hamilton and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; Hooters of America; Norwegian Cruise Lines Inc.; and investment banker Bruce Wasserstein, whose private equity fund used to own the Daily Report's parent company.

Riches' celebrity targets included actors Anne Heche, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones; musicians Cyndi Lauper and Eddie Van Halen; and Braves pitcher Tom Glavine.

In one case, he alleged that actress Molly Ringwald “said she is going to turn me into a redhead and … burn me with 16 candles,” an apparent reference to Ringwald's 1984 hit movie “Sixteen Candles.”

The candles line tempts us to withdraw our promise not to have Riches join ATL as a guest blogger.

Judge blocks inmate's flood of cases to district court [Law.com]

What is it about Florida that causes its lawyers and litigants to misbehave so egregiously? Just last week, the Florida Supreme Court sanctioned colorful attorney Jack Thompson. And now they've expressed their displeasure (PDF) with pro se litigant Julio Mora.

What did Mr. Mora do to upset the court? From its opinion:

Mora has filed pro se pleadings containing scandalous and obscene language. Specifically, in his “Petition to Inhibit Jurisdiction From this Very Supreme Court of Injustice,” Mora maintained that through its show cause proceedings with DOC, the Court has proven itself “to be a pack of incompetent cowards, without balls, testicles, courage or valor.” Further, Mora urged this Court to

"take this case and the ultimate decision, if ever, and please shovel it to the chief justice and every other justice’s a**hole, in order to have a common place to store the justices’ crap, together with the justice crap from their’s mind, properly disposed through the sewer system, in order to prevent the contaminants to reach the citizen of Florida, and also kiss Julio Mora’s the idiot seeking justice, kiss his a**hole every time the justice will retire going to their den. . . . Please kiss my a** one more time."

The court declined to grant Mora the requested relief. Instead, it sanctioned him, directing the clerk of court to reject any future filings from Mora "unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar."

In a court of law, it's the parties who do the ass-kissing -- not the judges.

Mora v. McNeil (PDF) [Supreme Court of Florida]

As many of you may recall, from our prior coverage of him, Jonathan Lee Riches is in a South Carolina prison until 2012 for wire fraud and conspiracy. He's killing his time by filing a ridiculous number of ridiculous lawsuits in courts across the country, nicely summarized in this overview of his oeuvre, in the Fulton County Daily Report:

Thirty-nine percent of the 491 cases filed so far this month in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia have been filed by one man: Jonathan Lee Riches.

Among the defendants to his 192 suits are former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his wife, Silda; the firms Pepper Hamilton and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; Hooters of America; Norwegian Cruise Lines Inc.; and investment banker Bruce Wasserstein. Riches' celebrity targets include actors Anne Heche, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones; musicians Cyndi Lauper and Eddie Van Halen; and Braves pitcher Tom Glavine.

Riches has alleged that Eliot Spitzer "used the fines [from corporate convictions] to pay for prostitutes," that the MacArthur Foundation froze Riches' inmate account and funneled the money to Spitzer; and that Pepper Hamilton took a $1 million retainer from him and other inmates, but used the money to gamble on the New York Giants.

We wonder if the suit against Cyndi Lauper was about the mental anguish suffered when "Time After Time" gets stuck in your head.

Federal district courts across the country are annoyed at the waste of their man hours and money in processing the complaints. Is he crazy or crazy like a fox? He's garnered a great amount of media attention, as detailed in his Wikipedia entry (and we've written about him extensively in these pages). We surmise that he may be setting himself up as a media commentator on frivolous lawsuits.

Some of Riches' prior complaints have been dismissed, including a $662 trillion suit filed in the Northern District last summer against Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. The suit alleged that Vick was attempting to "kidnap" Riches' mind and to force him to lose weight, and demanded that the $662 trillion be delivered -- in "British gold" shipped via truck -- to the front gates of the prison where Riches is incarcerated.

Noting that a trio of other Riches' suits -- in federal courts in Michigan, South Carolina and Florida -- had been dismissed as frivolous, Senior U.S. District Judge Willis B. Hunt Jr. dismissed the suit against Vick in August. He cited 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), the "Three Strikes Rule," which says a prisoner is prohibited from bringing federal civil actions in forma pauperis if, while incarcerated, he has had three other suits dismissed on the grounds of frivolity, malice or failure to state a claim.

There is, however, an exception. The prisoner may file, the statute says, if he's in imminent danger of physical injury.

"[T]his Court finds that none of Plaintiff's farcical assertions in the complaint, including his claim that Michael Vick threw snowballs at his car, qualify as a claim of imminent danger of serious physical injury," Hunt writes in Riches v. Vick, No. 07-13940-J.

Don't worry. We are amused, but we promise not to bring him on as a guest blogger at ATL.

Inmate's Frequent Filings Take On Targets Ranging From Spitzer to Van Halen [Fulton County Daily Report via Law.com]

There's a new development in the well-publicized AutoAdmit lawsuit. The defendant known as "AK47" has filed a pseudonymous, pro se motion to quash the plaintiffs' subpeona. The memorandum in support of the motion appears here (PDF)

Over at the WSJ Law Blog, reporter Amir Efrati -- who first broke the news of this case's filing, and has done a great job covering it -- describes the motion as "well-composed.... which leads us to suspect that 'he' is an aspiring lawyer." He also notes that AK47 "shows he’s done some research, citing a host of Internet law precedents he says bolster his arguments."

But over at the Legal Satyricon, Professor Marc Randazza is less impressed: "My prediction — had Mr. AK47 written his motion a little more skillfully, he might have had a great chance. Unfortunately for him, the motion is so poorly drafted that it will take some charity on the Court’s part for it to fly."

We're not surprised that Professor Randazza applies a demanding standard. After all, he practices First Amendment law. He previously (and successfully) represented AutoAdmit exec Anthony Ciolli, who was dropped from the lawsuit back in November.

Feel free to share your thoughts on any of this in the comments.

AutoAdmit Case - Motion to Quash by “AK47″ [The Legal Satyricon / Marc Randazza]
AutoAdmit Suit Update: Defendant “AK47″ Responds [WSJ Law Blog]

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.)]

As the old adage goes, "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." And there is some anecdotal evidence in support of that proposition. See, e.g., Elana Glatt / Elana Elbogen (depending upon how you view the merits of her case against her wedding florist).

Here's another example of what can happen when Biglaw litigators represent themselves. From TaxProf Blog:

The Tax Court today decided Hynes v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2008-1 (1/2/08), a case involving Shawn T. Hynes, a fifth year securities litigation associate in Cleary Gottlieb's New York City office. The taxable year at issue was 2003, when Hynes was a Penn 3L (he tranferred to Penn after completing his first year at Oregon).

More about the facts of Shawn Hynes's case, and how he got benchslapped by the Tax Court, after the jump.

In our earlier post about the recusal motion filed by one Robert Seitz -- a Florida pro se litigant seeking recusal of Judge Mary Barzee Flores, claiming that he once received a pre-judicial BJ from Her Honor -- we noted that his claims were mere allegations.

We expressly disclaimed any independent knowledge of his claims. We were simply passing along allegations made in a publicly filed court document -- which, by the way, has circulated widely via email. (It was forwarded to us by maybe half a dozen different tipsters.)

Now we bring you Judge Barzee Flores's side of the story. From an omnibus order filed in the case, denying Seitz's motion to recuse:

You can read the full order, after the jump.

Earlier: Legal Ethics Question of the Day: If the Court Has Gone Down on You, Is Recusal Required?

* Does a federal district court have to recruit pro bono counsel for a pro se litigant? [Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals via How Appealing]

* DOJ cool with torture tough interrogation techniques. [New York Times]

* Bush doesn't care about poor kids. [AP via Athens Banner-Herald]

* The ACLU doesn't want to let Bush protect us. [Jurist]

* Falcons want their money back; so do Falcons fans (last week's fine win notwithstanding). [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Crazy pro se lawsuit against Google, seeking $5 billion in damages, touches upon the war on terror and a Burton snowboard. And no, it wasn't filed by Jonathan Lee Riches. [TechDirt]

* A misdemeanor count of cruelty to animals? Guess he wasn't that good. [Denver Channel]

* Law professors get their academic gowns in a wad over the gender divide in faculty hiring. [TaxProf Blog]

* Dewey LeBoeuf? Already done it. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Debevoise & Plimpton lords it over the competition. [Times of London]

Is this litigation kosher? You bet. From Vos Iz Neias (Yiddish: "What's News"):

A New Hampshire prison inmate's file drove a federal judge to rhyme to express himself.

A prison inmate protesting his [non-Kosher] diet attached a hard-boiled egg to documents sent by mail to U.S. District Court Judge James Muirhead.

"I do not like eggs in the file. I do not like them in any style. I will not take them fried or boiled. I will not take them poached or broiled. I will not take them soft or scrambled Despite an argument well-rambled," Muirhead wrote in his response to inmate Charles Wolffe.

Wolffe, 61, says he is an Orthodox Jew and has accused prison officials of refusing to feed him a kosher diet. He is seeking... proper foods and $10 million from the state. His case has been scheduled for a trial.

More discussion, plus the full text of Judge Muirhead's order, after the jump.

* 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]

A 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.

* 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]

Federal 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.

Gotta 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]

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.

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:

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.

In 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.

* 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!]

We 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]