I would vote for this man in any election he could place himself on the ballot. (as soon as he gets out of jail)

v LeBron James

Filed 16 August

Charges Putting bubblegum on plaintiff's bicycle seat; breaking into the Watergate hotel in the 1970s

Plaintiff seeks $83,000,000 from the basketball player to be donated to good causes

That's a hell of a trick for a guy born in 1984.

Either this guy's genuinely insane, or he thinks serving out his term in the booby hatch would be easier.

didn't fark recently celebrate his birthday?

i know, i know - it's not news...

Why is he allowed to do this?

Lionel Mandrake: Either this guy's genuinely insane, or he thinks serving out his term in the booby hatch would be easier.

This is a pretty common pastime for people in jail - it's not like it costs them anything, and it beats staring at the wall for entertainment, so they figure they might as well have some fun and clog up the system a bit.

Welcome to last year Ric... DON'T DRINK THE MILK!

i'm just really mad at Justia News because they have mostly stopped posting his new lawsuits. being a law student sucks so much that sometimes that was the only thing that got me through the day, and i've been deprived of the vast majority of my jlr(C)-related amusement. :(

The day the law is made to "backfire and cost" idiots like this
is the day it will stop....

/I know
//NEVER

FTFA:
v Mike Tyson

Filed 10 September

Charges Wearing a sailor outfit with a black beret; unplugging a jukebox in a nightclub in Iowa as it played Michael Jackson songs chosen by the plaintiff, then putting on Culture Club's 'Do You Really Want To Hurt Me?' instead; kicking plaintiff in ribs when he refused defendant's request for a dance/

Neat!

This may be a bit of a repeat, but these suits are still funny as hell to read

kilgorn: The day the law is made to "backfire and cost" idiots like this
is the day it will stop....

/I know
//NEVER

You mean like "loser pays?" That would be a nightmare. People who have legitimate suits would be scared to death of suing because of the low win rates in the United States court system (yes, LOW win rates).

Repeat.

"Blimp set me up!"

beve: Why is he allowed to do this?

Because there isn't any reliable means of stopping him that will stand the test of law, and changing the law would impact the ability of honest people to bring legitimate litigation. It's like guns - the problem is in the culture, not in the thing.

Ummmm this is going to present a problem. Fark has used the copyrighted name "Jonathan Lee Riches" without the express permission of the owner of said material.

Farkers, set up a fund to help Mr. Riches with his lawsuits! This has the potential of becoming comedy gold fitting for Fark if any of his lawsuits ever see a real courtroom....

'loser pays', no. 'ridiculously frivolous and litigious loser pays', i like.

Heh...looks like the Guardian will get a lawsuit for leaving out the "tm" out of his name...

toneskin..People who have legitimate suits

Those people, as far as this article goes, are never mentioned...
that I could see...

Can we figure out a way to sue him?

I think that any prisoner filing frivolous lawsuits like these ought to have a year added on to their sentence for every one thrown out of court.

The_Brain: 'loser pays', no. 'ridiculously frivolous and litigious loser pays', i like.

Yep...of course they already have that. It's called Rule 11. They just need to enforce it. There should also be a three strikes law for lawyers who bring forth bull shi'ite suits. Losers should pay if they reject a reasonable settlement offer, and loser-pays should apply to appeals.

Jonathan Lee Riches is America's most prolific batshiat insane litigant.

FTFY.

The_Brain: 'loser pays', no. 'ridiculously frivolous and litigious loser pays', i like.

Great. So, where do we draw the line between legitimate and frivolous?

I like to think he's doing this as a social commentary on our overly litigious society.

tonesskin: kilgorn: The day the law is made to "backfire and cost" idiots like this
is the day it will stop....

/I know
//NEVER

You mean like "loser pays?" That would be a nightmare. People who have legitimate suits would be scared to death of suing because of the low win rates in the United States court system (yes, LOW win rates).

No, but you can easily classify lawsuits like this "nuisance" or "frivolous" lawsuits and once classified as such, make these idiots pay through the nose.

kilgorn: The day the law is made to "backfire and cost" idiots like this
is the day it will stop....

/I know
//NEVER

It already does.

I'm going to assume most of his complaints would be filed in Federal Court, as Mr. Riches is "domiciled" in the state of South Carolina, and most of the defendants are not. Further, some of these complaints invoke federal questions, so let's start with the FRCP.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11(b)(3), in pertinent part states: "By presenting to the court a pleading an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery"

And if you blow it, you get FRCP 11(c)'d:
"If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may...impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation"

Additionally, most of these complaints fail under FRCP 12(b)(6): Failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The surrender of a bike-shaped missile and cancellation of the 2008 Olympics are two good examples of this.

Is that going to stop a nutcase like this who obviously has nothing to lose? Probably not. But I wouldn't go whining about all these merit-less lawsuits just yet, there is a remedy.

So what exactly is he in jail for? Wikipedia says wire fraud.

Can he get charged with making false lawsuits, too?

Hutz: And so, ladies and gentleman of the jury I rest my case.
Judge: Hmmm. Mr. Hutz, do you know that you're not wearing any pants?
Hutz: DAAAA!! I move for a bad court thingy.
Judge: You mean a mistrial?
Hutz: Right!! That's why you're the judge and I'm the law-talking guy.
Judge: You mean the lawyer?
Hutz: Right.

Sid_6.7: The_Brain: 'loser pays', no. 'ridiculously frivolous and litigious loser pays', i like.

Great. So, where do we draw the line between legitimate and frivolous?

Use a panel of judges, which can rule on all lawsuits passed to it by the assigned justice as "frivolous" and confirm or revoke the ruling. It shouldn't take long.... rule quickly on the obvious ones, and the ones that aren't obvious, can be tossed back as simply lost cases.

wydok: So what exactly is he in jail for? Wikipedia says wire fraud.

Can he get charged with making false lawsuits, too?

yeah, he was a prolific identity thief.

he can't be charged with anything in connection with the lawsuits...but if he files more than three frivolous lawsuits in one federal district, the judges can dismiss them far more easily.

Sid_6.7: The_Brain: 'loser pays', no. 'ridiculously frivolous and litigious loser pays', i like.

Great. So, where do we draw the line between legitimate and frivolous?

Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(6) does a pretty good job. Most states have something similar.

I'm waiting for someone to bring up the McDonald's coffee case, which was actually an actionable claim.

Sid_6.7: The_Brain: 'loser pays', no. 'ridiculously frivolous and litigious loser pays', i like.

Great. So, where do we draw the line between legitimate and frivolous?

It's like pornography. Even if you can't define it, it's obvious when you see it.

Malbar: Where do we draw the line between anything? Few things are 100% scientific fact in a courtroom; judges use their own judgment on a daily basis to administer the law and there's no reason they can't follow some predefined definition of frivolous to make the same judgments on cases like this.

You make a damn fine argument against mandatory minimum sentencing here.

TX-Law..But I wouldn't go whining about all these merit-less lawsuits just yet, there is a remedy.

I'm all ears...

Great. So, where do we draw the line between legitimate and frivolous?

A judge decides?

kilgorn: TX-Law..But I wouldn't go whining about all these merit-less lawsuits just yet, there is a remedy.

I'm all ears...

You must be, because if you had eyes, you might have seen what I said right before that...

TX-Law: And if you blow it, you get FRCP 11(c)'d:
"If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may...impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation"

That means sanctions, or fines.

I don't know what's wrong with this guy, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

"$42,000,000,000 in Swiss francs"

The swiss franc is pretty cool looking money.

$213,529,000,000,000??

Two hundred and thirteen TRILLION dollars? To be delivered by Fed Ex?

I would LOVE to see that. That would be like a cube of $100's a half-mile on a side or something...

But hey, who knows, maybe Tiger has it. It's only about 100 times greater than all the money in the world....

FatherDale: I don't know what's wrong with this guy, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

You must have a speech impediment. It's called boredom.

As a lawyer, I heart this guy.

The first suit of his i read was the one against Micheal Vick. At first, I thought it was just funny. However, after reading more, I realized that he is perhaps right up there with The Onion in terms of satire.

As for the "Oh no, he's clogging up the courts," his cases get tossed sua sponta. Basically, a clerk at the local federal court reads the complaint, has a good laugh, enters in the docket that it is dismissed. Lost time: maybe one hour. I don't think the world will end.

You cannot (and should not) stop prisoners from filing lawsuits. They are the minority that needs protection from the majority. Civil litigants on the other hand, can be limited in their access to the courts. There is a guy in Chicago who is barred from filing patent litigation cases without judicial approval due to his theory of "File 1000's of cases and hope for some low settlement offers on a couple" for a living.

whistleridge: But hey, who knows, maybe Tiger has it. It's only about 100 times greater than all the money in the world....

[Citation needed]

America's most prolific litigant

I think not. A rank amateur compared to the RIAA.

bacongood: There is a guy in Chicago who is barred from filing patent litigation cases without judicial approval due to his theory of "File 1000's of cases and hope for some low settlement offers on a couple" for a living.

People like that are why first offense assault fines are so low. :D

/98% of software patents are horse crap.

mgyqmb: Great. So, where do we draw the line between legitimate and frivolous?

A judge decides?


Maybe this judge?... Linkiepoo (poppety goodness)

MacWizard: America's most prolific litigant

I think not. A rank amateur compared to the RIAA.

This.

At least, when you take into account all of the John Doe lawsuits they throw around.

bacongood: There is a guy in Chicago who is barred from filing patent litigation cases without judicial approval due to his theory of "File 1000's of cases and hope for some low settlement offers on a couple" for a living.

The RIAA/MPAA and DirectTV should all be sued for copying this guy's mode of enrichment. :p

It seems that prisoners should be restricted to filing only with regard to their case and their current surroundings; if it involves parties outside of their prison or events that predate their incarceration, then too bad. If after they are released they want to go hog wild with the stupid lawsuits, then go for it.