Charles Kinney v. Michelle R. Clark

Expansion of vexatious litigant law Canstate appellate court justices improperly expand the scope of the vexatious litigant law using their "inherent powers" in direct conflict with the Calif. statute CCP Secs. 391 et seq and recent decisions by the Cal. Supreme Court (contrary to separation of powers of the branches of government)? Denial of First Amendment rights Canjustices improperly deny Kinney's right to fair and unbiased appeal process when he is represented by counsel? Judicial waiver of immunity - Since the justices were acting as prosecutors by expanding the vexatious litigant law, have they waived judicial immunity? The vague vexatious litigant law Is the - vexatious litigant law vague as applied to persons for whom the law was never intended to apply (e.g. to the attorney for the appellant; to an attorney who was notpart of the case or appeal)? Violation of bankruptcy law - Are the justices expanding the vexatious litigant law to enable discharged debtor Clark and her attorneys Marcus etc to continue to violate bankruptcy law with respect to unenforceable prepetition contracts?