Jonathan Lee Riches, pro se (the \u201cMovant\u201d) filed a motion with this Court on January 12,
2009 (ecf #48) (i) to intervene pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(\u201cFederal Rules\u201d), made applicable herein by Rule 7024 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure; (ii) \u201cfor Brief of Amicus Curaie [sic], friend of the court\u201d; and (iii) \u201cfor Request for
Admission, Rule 36\u201d (which relates to discovery and not admission or intervention into a
proceeding).

Specifically, the Movant, a self-described inmate of the federal prison system, and no
stranger to the federal courts, and having filed over one thousand lawsuits in Federal District
Courts, see Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., No. 02:07-CV-1294, 2008
WL 3271550, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2008), alleges he and fellow inmates invested their
\u201cprison funds\u201d with Bernard L. Madoff (\u201cMadoff\u201d) and that Madoff transferred their funds to a
\u201cSwiss account Ponzi.\u201d Movant asserts that he is entitled to intervene as a matter of right
pursuant to Federal Rule 24(a)(2), or in the alternative, seeks permissive intervention pursuant to
Federal Rule 24(b).

Federal Rule 24(a)(2), \u201cIntervention of Right,\u201d requires the Movant to show, among
other things, that the \u201cdisposition of the action threatens to create a practical impediment to its
ability to protects [sic] its interests\u201d and \u201cno existing party adequately represents its interests.\u201d

FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2). The Movant\u2019s papers fail to satisfy either of these requirements. First,
the disposition of the Securities Investor Protection Act proceeding (\u201cSIPA Proceeding\u201d) does
not hinder the Movant\u2019s ability to protect his interests because the Movant has the ability to file a
claim. The ability to file a claim in the SIPA Proceeding adequately protects the Movant\u2019s
interests. Second, the Movant has made no showing, nor allegation, that the existing party (the
SIPA Trustee) will not adequately represent his interests. Therefore, the Movant has failed to
make a showing that he is entitled to intervene as of right.