'The most litigious man in history'

September 10, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Lawyer reporter Michael W. Hoskins wrote this post.

You might hear the name Gordon Gekko and think of the movie “Wall Street” and the character played by Michael Douglas. But that name has special meaning for Indiana’s federal courts, where a prisoner pro se litigant uses that as one of his many aliases to file lawsuit after lawsuit.

A current resident of the Federal Medical Center hospital prison in Kentucky, prisoner litigant Jonathan Lee Riches has filed 34 lawsuits in the Hoosier federal courts during the past five years – 11 in the Southern District, five in the Northern District, and 18 at the appellate level with a few still open.

But that’s only a small slice of his overall impact on the nation’s court system. He’s filed a ridiculous number of suits – federal dockets show 1,453 as of this morning -- in federal courts nationally since his arrest and incarceration. That stemmed from his arrest for a multi-state wire fraud and identify theft ring, which he received a 10-year federal sentence on. His projected release date is in March 2012, but before that comes he’s making a name for himself as a serial prisoner litigant.

Through the years, some of his more famous lawsuit targets have been New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick, former President George W. Bush, Martha Stewart, NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, entrepreneur and Apple guru Steve Jobs, Somali pirates, and pop singer Britney Spears.

The Guinness Book of World Records designated him as the most litigious man in history, filing or intervening in more than 5,000 civil and criminal cases at all levels. Of course, he sued Guinness for tagging him that way, along with the Library of Congress, Encyclopedia Britannica and some other publishers who he claimed hurt his feelings and violated his civil rights by doing a disservice to his hard work.

In Indiana’s federal courts, Riches sued the 2008 World Series teams – Tampa Bay Rays and Philadelphia Phillies – for creating a danger for him in prison by angry Florida fans who could watch the game past the normal 10 p.m. lockdown time. He’s also sued all nine U.S. Supreme Court justices for not releasing him from prison and blaming them for the harsh conditions he’s had to live in. U.S. Judge Robert Miller in the Northern District has dismissed his claims as frivolous – as have other Indiana District judges – and restricted Riches from entering any more appearances in that court.

His latest intervention comes at the 7th Circuit level, in the case against former East Chicago Mayor Robert Pastrick who along with former top aides is on the hook for $108 million in damages following a default judgment from Judge James Moody earlier this year. The case stems from the Sidewalk Six paving-for-votes scheme, in which the longtime mayor and his allies misspent $25 million in public funds on paving project in exchange for primary election votes in 1999.

Using the alias Gordon Gekko, the litigation-happy Riches is appealing the November 2008 decision by Judge Moody to not let this pro se prisoner litigant intervene in the Pastrick case.

“Citing his convictions for computer hacking and identity theft, Riches claims that he ‘can provide this court with vital information dealing with these types of crimes, as I’m a whistleblower and a [sic] Advocate Against crime.’ Without providing any factual support, Riches makes the highly-suspect claim that he has newly discovered evidence pertaining to this case.”

Judge Moody found he didn’t make the required showing to meet the federal rules of civil procedure, and on Sept. 1 the prisoner litigant appealed to the 7th Circuit. The Federal Prisoner Litigation Reform Act applies and the appellate court has suspended proceedings until he pays the required fee. Meanwhile, the case plays on at the District level without Riches – or Gekko -- as the state tries to collect the $108 million judgment.

Is there any question what his intentions are here in clogging the courts? One of his filings offers some insight into the serial prisoner litigant’s mind. The motion comes from the Southern District of New York, which declined his request to represent Martha Stewart.

“Jonathan Lee Riches will be in every local, state, federal court in the world, then when my name gets banned or flagged, the 100’s of AKA’s of mine kick in and refile,” the motion says. “I’m Murphy’s Law, the Plague, Cyrus the Lawsuit Virus. I swine flu suits with tainted pork in the courts. I appeal. Anyone is welcome to write me. I appeal.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT