And now, "The Riffin Story" covered by the media!

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:21 pm

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=14634

There are a couple minor quibbles I could have with the story, but by and large it appears that they did the legwork to hang the guy by his own rope. Read all the way through to the surprise ending.

More on the Cockeysville Industrial Track decision:

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readin ... enDocument

More on the simultaneous decision on the other attempted Ma & Pa acquisition:

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readin ... enDocument

I should note that one of the illustrations accompanying the article is of a tunnel up near Frostburg, Md., which I don't think is actually part of the George's Creek line in question. But I could be wrong.

Let's see, how to start the "Letter to the Editor"..............

UPDATE: The City Paper originally posted an original draft of the article; a corrected final version was posted later and is up now. And, yes, a long letter to the editor is en route to publication, as well as a late update to the story by Van Smith.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:19 pm

Caboose 904032, 1996 photo:

http://www.trainweb.org/marcrailfan/b&o904032.jpg

Painted by the B&O Museum on behalf of CSX, later in local Baltimore service out of Curtis Bay and apparently sold to Riffin and sitting way up on a remnant of that Cockeysville spur......

Now, if I could only find those two ex-VIA Rail coaches he allegedly purchased and has somewhere in the area allegedly awaiting shipment to that same spur.......

Trainlawyer · **Posted:** Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:23 am

Note: The following was written before the City Paper article came out.

The Surface Transportation Board has finally spoken on the issue of the Baltimore Streetcar Museum / Ma & Pa / Northern Central / Falls Road Bikeway “Oops, you forgot to cross an ‘i’ and dot a ‘t’ so now I can have your property because I am a railroad” controversy, FD 34982 0 James Riffin D/B/A the Northern Central Railroad – Acquisition and Operation Exemption – in Baltimore City, MD, and has rejected the notice.

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readin ... enDocument

The decision was based on: 1. the lack of substantive information concerning NCR’s bona fides given in Mr. Riffins original Notice of Exemption and in his reply to the Petition to Revoke; and 2. that there was “significant uncertainty as to the accuracy” of at least some of the information provided by Mr. Riffin [id. at 2]. This was a very dignified way of saying that with the record in front of them they simply did not believe at least some of his assertions.

The board side stepped the issue of whether the exemption notices published for non-operating non-entities, i.e. the Raritan Valley Connecting Railroad, create a “railroad” for purposes of regulatory preemption. As this is a much larger issue than just Mr. Riffin and will almost certainly be dealt with in one or both of AB 290 293 X Norfolk Southern Railway Company –Abandonment Exemption – in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, VA., in which NS has extended the question to include possession of a non operated property (specifically the Frostburg Southern where Mr. Riffin replaced Gerald Alitzer of WMS as the purchaser) and/or EP 673 0 Information Required in Certain Notices of Exemption, which is a rulemaking proceeding which has resulted not so much from behaviour such as Riffin’s but from serious commercial attempts to use the Federal Preemption doctrine to evade state regulation of health and safety issues (think garbage transfer) and in at least one instance, the purchase of firearms.

A companion decision in FD 34975 0 Maryland Transit Administration – Petition for a Declaratory Order clarifies that an agency such as the MdTA may purchase the physical assets of rail line without ICC/ STB authority so long as such common carrier freight service as exists is not materially effected. This is should at least start to provide closure to the idea articulated by Mr. Riffin in his original filings that the light rail is an “illegal” use of the property and that a new common carrier can simply claim the rights to operate over it.

I doubt that there was any grave danger of the Museum being compelled to lay a third rail for standard gage freight service or of the joggers on the trail along Falls Road having to share space with a wheezy old 4-6-0 towing a civil war era coach and mail car while it switches the condominiums in what was once Morgan Millwork. I will however admit that the fan in me would have enjoyed watching either one, and I would have even volunteered to design the special track work.

Written after my third reading of the city paper article –

Very well done, very balanced profile which appears factually accurate. The really telling point is that the only person who the author could find who would make positive comments was Eric Strohmeyer of Somerset Terminal/CNJ Rail/ I-will-rescue-the-rotting-cars-in-Boonton fame. We need not belabour Mr. Strohmeyer's own sterling record of non-performance here. None of the support was from any of the potential shippers.

It also raises many questions about who James Riffin is or maybe is not. I would like to see some verification of his academic credentials as he has claimed in a filing in the Virginia Beach matter that he has an “eye doctor degree” with minors in physics and chemistry from the University of California Berkley, an LLM (Master of Laws), JD, and MBA from the University of Pennsylvania and a Ph.D from the Wharton School.
http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ ... 220364.PDF footnote at page 7.

I feel a trip to Philadelphia coming on.

GME

Tim Moriarty · **Joined:** Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 372

"Now, if I could only find those two ex-VIA Rail coaches he allegedly purchased and has somewhere in the area allegedly awaiting shipment to that same spur......."

Page 43 of the July 2007 Railpace featured the paragraph below. Perhaps these cars belong to Riffin?

New Passenger Cars on MMID?
Two ex-Canadian coaches (one each from BCR and VIA) were recently spotted on the Maryland Midland in Glyndon, MD. Spray-painted "MDRX 103" and "MDRX 104," the well worn duo would need quite a bit of TLC before going back into service.

Pictures can be found here:

http://rr-fallenflags.org/misc-m/mdrx103amm.jpg

http://rr-fallenflags.org/misc-m/mdrx104amm.jpg

MDRX is now listed as belonging to:

MDRC-1 LLC
Mr. James Riffin
1941 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093
PH 443-414-6218
FAX 410-452-6208

Trainlawyer · **Posted:** Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:58 am

Those cars match the reporting marks of cars mentioned in Riffin's STB filing of September 28th. The UMLER mailing list at RailInc gives the following information:

Quote:

MDRX Mdrc I LLC 1941 Greenspring Drive, Timonium, MD 21093 (443)414-6218 (410)452-6208

This is the same address that Mr. (or is is it Dr.?) Riffin (or is it Griffin or is it Cohen?) uses in his STB filings.

As an addendum to my earlier comment on the article - it would be interesting to find out what track in New Jersey (outside of that in Daddy's basement) is being referred to by Mr. Strohmeyer.

GME

Ray Reter · **Posted:** Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:36 pm

The Greenspring Drive address is in an office park/retail area near the fairgrounds. (Not to be confused with Greenspring Avenue, a street that runs through an affluent suburban residential area also in Baltimore County.) -- Ray

Trainlawyer · **Posted:** Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:55 pm

For those who really wish to read it and do not have access to PACER, quoted below is the entire text of the Memorandum supporting the Order issued by Judge Bennett barring Mr. Riffin (aka Dr. Whoever) from bringing further removals before the Court without the Court's permission.

While I have some quibble with the Judge Bennett's characterization of the actions as "civil rights complaints", since Mr. Riffin has characterized himself in his pleadings before the Court as "a federally licensed Class III rail carrier", it is not totally inappropriate, in fact I am not sure how else I might characterize it while maintaining a proper judicial demeanor. I can see it some day - "shall be without regard to race, ethnicity, skin colour, national origin, or mode of common carriage."

GME

Quote:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND :
Plaintiff :

v
JAMES RIFFIN
Defendant

Civil Action No. RDB-07-2361
Related Cases: RDB-04-1342; RDB-04-2789; RDB-04-2848; RDB-04-2964; RDB-06-2989; RDB-07-1229; RDB-07-1623; and RDB-07-2573

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The above-captioned case was removed to this Court on September 4, 2007. For the reasons that follow, the matter must be remanded to the state forum from which it was removed.

The substance of the underlying case Mr. Riffin seeks to remove involves a long running dispute between the parties concerning Baltimore County, Maryland’s enforcement authority over Riffin’s activities as they relate to his “railroad maintenance-of-way facility” located in Cockeysville, Maryland. See State v. Riffin, Civil Action No. RDB-06-2989 (D. Md. 2007) (Paper No. 5). Removal of this case is improper and it will be remanded. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), only actions “brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Here the underlying case is a civil citation proceeding over which this Court does not have original subject matter jurisdiction. Further, Mr. Riffin’s attempt to insert a federal issue into the case by claiming the state’s authority is preempted by federal statute does not convert the proceeding into a federal case subject to removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). See Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983).

Riffin has made numerous attempts to disrupt valid state proceedings by filing civil rights complaints seeking injunctive relief against Baltimore County and by removing proceedings to this Court, forcing state proceedings to a grinding halt.1 Riffin’s use of federal litigation to stonewall efforts by local authorities to enforce state law is abusive and this Court declines to facilitate those efforts any further. "[F]ederal courts have the power and the obligation to protect themselves from abusive filing of frivolous and repetitive claims." McMahon v. F.M. Bank-Winchester, 45 F.3d 426, 1994 WL 719695 (4th Cir. Dec. 30, 1994) (unpublished) (per curiam), cf. Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1070-71 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Before Riffin will be permitted to file another pro se civil action in this Court he will be required to seek leave to do so. In so doing, Riffin will be required to state succinctly how the original complaint or removed case differs from other actions filed and dismissed or remanded by this Court. In the event the claim is accepted for filing and it is revealed that Riffin misrepresented the nature of the proceedings, he will be required to show cause why he should not be subject to sanctions.

A separate Order follows.

October 4, 2007
RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Riffin has attempted to remove cases involving his dispute with Baltimore County on numerous occasions. See State v. Riffin, Civil Action No. RDB-04-1342 (D. Md. 2004); State v. Riffin, Civil Action No. RDB-04-2789 (D. Md. 2004); Maryland Dept. of the Environment v. Riffin, Civil Action No. RDB04-2848 (D. Md. 2004); Riffin v. Snyder, Civil Action No. RDB-04-2964 (D. Md. 2004); State v. Riffin, Civil Action No. RDB-06-2989 (D. Md. 2006); and Baltimore County v. Riffin, Civil Action No. RDB07-1229 (D. Md. 2007). In addition to his attempts at removal, Riffin has filed numerous civil actions seeking injunctive relief concerning the same matters. See Riffin v. Wisnom, et al., Civil Action No. RDB-07-1623 (D. Md. 2007) and Riffin v. Baltimore County, Civil Action No. RDB-07-2573 (D. Md. 2007). Baltimore County v. Riffin, Civil Action No. RDB-07-1229 (D. Md. 2007) is an open case in which a Motion to Remand and for Attorney Fees is pending.

superheater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2605

1.) Has this individual essentially been deemed a "vexatious litigant"?

2.) Why does the limitation apply only to pro se filings? Is this normal? Why would such a specification be necessary?

DrewA · **Joined:** Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:27 pm **Posts:** 24

The pro se designation in this instance assumes no attorney would take any of his cases. Attorneys habitually check potential clients for past actions and criminal records. Given this litigant's history, it is doubtful he will be able to find or afford one (or a decent one).

This is actually a pretty mild restriction. I know of both pro se and attorneys who are required to submit all filings for a review to see if it is frivolous before filing it, and some who are required to post cash bonds to prevent them from wasting the court's time.

EDM · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:34 pm

I don't think he needs a attorney. With the three or four names that he has allegedly used, he can be his own firm: RGCM, LLP.

As I have asked on another venue, when will this all end?

superheater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2605

I was kind of wondering if there was some kind of required due diligence by a lawyer retained to represent Mr. Riffin (in any future preceedings that he might be inclined to pursue) that would allow the court to assume that representation by counsel would be a reliable "junk filter".

Thanks.

superheater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2605

Unfortunately, if the current sentiments to reorganize and expand the FRA and bring back some ICC style rate regulation (one must always love when the agenda of the people's business is driven by the naked attempt to have government enhance one industry at the expense of another-in this case a cabal led by the chemical industry) are successful, we can assume that their will be plenty of filings in the future, if not by Mr. Riffin, then by others.

Perhaps what'll be really interesting will be that when the GAO (Government Acountability Office-which should be busy in addressing the myriad of defiencies IN the government) delivers a report on rail charges-IF it finds rates to be excessive, how that reconciles with study after study, including some of the GAO's about how railroads aren't making enough money

http://www.railcure.org/2007CUREmembers.htm

you really have to love this list of "consumers". What was it Adam Smith said over two hundred years ago about when firms gather its usually at the public's expense

Trainlawyer · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:44 pm

EDM wrote:

I don't think he needs a attorney. With the three or four names that he has allegedly used, he can be his own firm: RGCM, LLP.

Riffin Griffin Cohen Moran? With one of the degrees assigned to each of the personas? I think that you have been breathing Alco smoke too long...

My view is that Judge Bennett very wisely limited the restriction to the specific actions which he felt were abusive and either the judge himself if Riffin does beg leave to file another pro se removal or the outside counsel will indeed act as a "junk filter". I also see the order as applying to the specific, discredited claim that his ownership such as it may be of the Frostburg Southern and exemption for the Raritan Valley Connecting somehow makes any of his actions if related in any way, no matter how remote, to the railroad immune from state regulation.

I can think of a couple of attorneys who would probably be willing to represent him. One because he has his own agenda that railroads need to be immune from anything and the others because of the simple and correct belief that everybody is entitled to petition the courts for relief. They would want their retainer up front as the client here is clearly not a charity and I do not believe they would express boundless optimism for the successful removal of a Motor Vehicle Summons to the Federal District Court on the basis of the driver being a railroad or for that matter a successful resolution of the case-in-chief once it was before the District Court.

GME

Tim Moriarty · **Joined:** Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 372

Riffin's back in the news again.

www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=14657

adammil1 · **Posted:** Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:16 pm

Having read the articles I found them rather interesting to read and I think some issues he touches upon, in the wrong way, with the totally wrong presentation are very relevant and very good points to be made.

The nation's road infrastructure in many urban areas is indeed being stretched to the limit and in many areas removing trucks from the road would indeed be a huge benefit for the common good.

However a railroad relies on having long routes of continuously owned narrow land that may have little benefit other then building a railroad.

There seem to be two major gripes in all of this, gripe #1. that Riffin wants to recapture land that has since been broken off of now abandoned lines, and #2. that Riffin wants everyone else to pay to rehabilitate the old line.

As for the first issue, it seems to me that the unique structure and the demands of a railroad, would require the taking of land with eminent domain policies and may indeed be a legitimate use of such law. If we don't ever start to apply those laws for cases like this, how will we ever get more freight running on rails, and less on roads. In the end it could come down to a real boost in national productivity and efficiency. Just think of how much money each year is wasted on extra truck fuel, truckers stuck in traffic jams etc... Railroads are really a vital piece of modern infrastructure. So along those lines I do have quite some sympathy. In modern urban areas if one guy won't sell you a piece of land here, you may not be able to simply reroute the line!

The next thing though that I seemed to see is this guy sounds like a complete a**hole in his approach! Is he really being serious about trying to push a museum trolley line off its land so he can take it for a buisness? It seems to me that any museum or nonprofit rail group would be stupid to turn down an offer to extend the trackage in some sort of shared right to use policy.

What I am wondering, is if Riffin worked with people rather then against them, worked to arrange an agreement with the MTA to run his trains over their lines at off time of day, and sought to rebuild the own line with his own funds would that be possible? If a guy wants to build a railroad in this day and age where property is owned everywhere, or better yet wants to revive an old line, can he do so relitively easily? I just picture some guy building a line, he gets all the way to the connection point with a class 1, and a guy there owns a piece of property on the old rightaway, refuses to move and his whole plans are foiled!

Does anyone know if the laws would favor a guy who wanted to do such a thing?

Adam