As suits pile up, plaintiff labeled 'vexatious litigant'

NORFOLK

Michael A. Scott has sued people who, by state law, are immune from lawsuits, such as judges and the attorney general. He sued the lawyers who defend their clients against him. He sued the people who bought one of his houses after it was foreclosed upon.

Scott writes and files the complaints himself, despite judges telling him to get a lawyer. He alleges vast conspiracies among large groups of people, and claims the people and companies he sues have broken laws ranging from criminal statutes to the state constitution.

Scott has ignored thousands of dollars in fines and the threat of jail to pursue his claims, attorneys said. The people he has sued have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves.

Judges in federal and state courts have been trying to stop him for years.

Their tool for doing so has been court orders that label Scott a "vexatious litigant" - someone whose complaints are baseless and are designed to harass and cause legal expenses for the defendants. It means Scott must seek permission from the courts before making filings. It's a rarely used measure.

"Within the memory of the incumbent judges of this court, the court has so designated only four people over the past fifteen years," wrote Norfolk's chief circuit judge, Everett A. Martin Jr. "The petitioner is the most persistent and vexatious of the four."

Scott has forced a judge to rule on how many pages of documents he can submit, and in what size type.

Scott declined to be interviewed.

"I am not going to contribute to the story," he said after a hearing in the Virginia Beach courthouse Jan. 6. Six days later, Scott filed papers in federal court saying he had been assaulted and harassed by this reporter.

Scott's litigiousness started more than a decade ago when he sued his former employers at Norfolk Southern in federal and circuit courts. He alleged harassment and retaliation.

He later sued more than a dozen people and businesses affiliated with foreclosures on two properties he owned. His targets include The Virginian-Pilot for printing the foreclosure listing and the person who bought one of the houses after foreclosure.

He's slight of build, with glasses that give him a bookish air. Lawyers say he is polite and respectful in court.

Scott's writings seem knowledgeable and organized, and he cites legal precedents and statutes in pages of arguments to support his claims.

However, dozens of his claims were dismissed. Lawyers who opposed him wrote that his reading of those precedents and statutes was wrong. He persisted, even when nearly every ruling went against him.

In 1997 he scored a victory when a jury awarded him about $10,000 from Norfolk Southern for a claim regarding a workplace injury, according to court documents. The court ordered that Scott receive a little less than half that amount because the jury also found that Scott was 51 percent liable for his injury.

But after years of hearings and back-and-forth filings, state and federal judges found that Scott was using the courts to harass people. Judges ordered him to seek permission before filing any other complaint.

"The judicial process is not available for such vendettas," wrote Norfolk Judge Charles E. Poston.

Meanwhile, several of those being sued by Scott asked for sanctions and contempt rulings. Lawyer Stanley Barr filed an affidavit with the court saying that his clients had spent more than $124,000 in legal fees.

In October 2008, Poston awarded more than $40,000 in sanctions against Scott and held him in contempt.

According to the lawyers defending their clients from Scott, he never paid the sanctions. Clerks for the federal and state courts said they do not track payments for such civil sanctions.

Scott spent 2009 battling with judges, with ruling after ruling going against him. His cases landed in front of Judge Martin.

In one ruling, Martin started off by trying to define just what made Scott's filings intolerable.

"From long experience," Martin wrote in September, "I have come to recognize certain indicia of vexatiousness. Most of those indicia are present here."

Among the 17 points Martin listed: Scott sued people who are immune from lawsuits, including Judge Poston. He sued the lawyers who defended their clients from his claims. He accused defendants of forgeries and other crimes. He sought to declare state statutes unconstitutional. He sought punitive and compensatory damages to the tune of more than $100 million.

And, Martin wrote, Scott scattered his legal net as widely as possible. Martin called it a "blunderbuss approach," after the old-fashioned muskets that sprayed shot through a wide bore. Scott invoked the state's Declaration of Rights, the Antitrust Act, the insulting-words statute, the Consumer Protection Act, criminal statutes and common-law claims, as well as "any other state laws or rules" that would entitle him to relief, Martin wrote.

The only vexatious indicator Scott did not meet, Martin wrote, was sending copies of his complaints to the media, elected officials and the FBI.

In addition to ordering Scott to seek the court's permission before filing any documents, Martin sought to further control what Scott could file.

"The lengthy complaint he attempts to file here took considerable time to review," Martin wrote.

In the next five years, any further pleadings filed by Scott against his already-named defendants could not exceed five pages, double-spaced, Martin wrote. Scott could not file more than 10 pages against those defendants in a 12-month period.

Ten days later, Scott filed a 14-page request for reconsideration.

Martin refused to consider it.

Scott's next filing is absent from the court file. Martin's next order gives a clue as to its nature:

"The Court will not consider any complaint filed that is in smaller than a 12-point typeface."

Scott sent a letter and another filing to Martin, this time in fonts the judge found were "almost illegible."

Martin returned it unread.

Martin issued another order: Any future pleading lodged by Scott must be set in 12-point type and in a common typeface - the judge listed several permissible ones. By the end of October, Martin had had enough.

Scott "has vexed the courts long enough," Martin wrote. "This order is final."

He refused to consider any further filings by Scott regarding the foreclosures.

Scott appealed Martin's order to the state Supreme Court.

The matter is pending.

Michelle Washington, (757) 446-2287, michelle.washington@pilotonline.com