Boy -- ain't that the truth! Once somebody gets comfortable with the courtroom, there's no end to the mischief they can cause for those not so comfortable. It's enough to make me head over to Boalt Hall...

Easy Mr MacDowell, my sister earned her JD at Boalt and while I'm sure you made your comment in jest, it hit a little close to home.

S.O.

Story in today's Baltimore City Paper:
[url]
http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=19709[/url]

Tragically, for once he actually MAY have a decent idea, towards the end of the article.

You have to give the guy credit for his determination.

But is not one of the "definitions" of insanity "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result the next time"?

If I declared my little piece of property as its own little fiefdom independent of United States control and exempt from its laws, how far would I get and how long would I last? Because, consider, this appears to be the main impetus behind his actions--to avoid local regulation by declaring himself "exempt" as a railroad.

The trash-haulage idea actually sounds halfway plausible, unfortunately. If he managed to get some political support for the concept on "green" grounds, it could actually happen, should they find the political clout to ram the concept down Amtrak's throat re: trackage rights. The best laugh a couple of us had, however, was speculating just what locomotive(s) Riffin & Co. would acquire for the operation. Our nominees include a disused pair of E8's, a Relco high-hood Alco switcher, a Fairbanks-Morse switcher in North Carolina, and the battery-powered four-wheel slug at the B&O Museum.........

Those are funny speculations, but you've forgotten the 44 Tonner he had tied up on a flatcar on BNSF. Unless, of course, they've taken possession of it by now for failure to pay for the move and storage.

Too bad Riffin isn't of American Indian heritage, as he could possibly use tribal rights to establish his railroad. :)



Well, not to sound like I'm defending Riffin too much, but although he is attempting to avoid local regulation by using railroad status, he does appear to be doing so in order to actually establish a railroad, not just to avoid local regulation.

Then again, I could be mistaken, since the article said that his initial unauthorized grading of a railroad line was done partially to protect his historic warehouse from flooding. I think only Mr. Riffin knows what's really going on. Sure is interesting to watch though!

If he does any of these, he'll become a foamer hero.

Bob

Here is a link to the STB filing from NS on 01/29/2010, regarding Riffin and crew buying trackage rights on the CIT:

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readin ... /40525.pdf

...and here is the first of the Board's decisions -
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/fc695db5bc7ebe2c852572b80040c45f/562e04f14aa69b6e852576ee004cdd24?OpenDocument

Mr. Riffin is being told that:
1, He must play the Board's game using the Board's rules;
2, He may not, as a pro se litigant, act on the behalf of his associates; and,
3, As he is considered an experienced litigant before the Board he may not expect to be afforded the same degree of leeway normally accorded inexperienced pro se litigants.

One of the specific issues ruled on was the need for all of the Offerors in an Offer of Financial Assistance to be properly identified. Initially all of the other Offerors were being represented by Mr. Riffin. This has been ruled (correctly I might add) improper both on the basis of Mr. Riffin not being licensed to practice before the Board and the fact they they were not sufficiently identified for their bone fides to be determined.

As a result of this portions of his comments on behalf of his associates, who ever they may be, are being stricken from the record.

One of the purported offerors, Eric Strohmeyer, has since come forward and entered his own pro se appearance.

The following quote is from Norfolk Southern's filing of January 14th, 2010:

...and from March 2nd, 2010:

We also note that in his own filing Mr. Strohmeyer is using the following address before the board:
(I have redacted the street address and the telephone number out of respect for Mr. Strohmeyer's privacy even even though they are readily available in Mr. Strohmeyer's filing)

We are relieved that Mr. Strohmeyer has come forward. The possibility broached by Norfolk Southern that there might actually be more than one of him was more than some of us were willing to bear.

GME

As an attorney myself, I weep with joy at the prospect of billable hours some junior-level associate with NS's in-house law firm, or some firm retained by NS must be racking up due to Mr. Riffin and his "associates"

Back in the spring of '07 I did a quick and dirty calculation of the costs when these two tried to claim the Streetcar Museum. The same formula should apply here.
GME

Looks like Mr. Strohmeyer is a member here too (well, with one post back in 2008):
memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12406

Maybe it's time for me to dust off the 'ole resume and send it off to the folks in Norfolk. In my rather young legal career, I have delt with many pro se litigants. My advice to the junior associates at my firm echoed an old Dilbert cartoon, that you shouldn't discount someone just because they are foolish to be their own lawyer, because "these idiots will drag you down to their level and beat you with the stick of experience"

Just how does Mr. Riffin's partner in grime, Mr. Strohmeyer, get away with representing himself as the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey? When my partners and I incorporated our contract switching operation, Jersey Central Terminal, in 1981, the trustee of the CNJ, Mr. Timpany, was all over us, even threatening legal action. We altered the name by using "Terminal" (since we were swtiching chemical plants) instead of "Lines".

Yet Mr. Strohmeyer is using the CRRNJ name directly. Is this anywhere near legal?