Charles Kinney v. Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, et al.

Cal. vexatious litigant law is unconstitutionally vague on its face. The language is unclear as to: (a) what is "litigation"; (b) what has or doesn't have "merit"; (c) what are "reasonable expenses" that must be posted for "security"; (d) what can be counted as 5 losses; (e) how far back is 7 years; and (f) which "presiding" justice can rule. The Cal. statute, CCP Secs. 391 etc only applies to plaintiffs "in propria persona", but it has been applied to Kinney as a non-party, as a defendant, and as the attorney for defendants by judges and justices who ruled that Kinney was a "vexatious litigant" ("Vt") in each of those non-pro-per roles. Their rulings were used to justify their violations of Kinney's civil and constitutional rights, to prevent him from challenging "void" orders, to retaliate against him, and to levy excessive fines. At the same time, they also ignored bankruptcy law at 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(1) which "voids" any order by any court that decides or implies that a discharged Chapter 7 "no asset" debtor still has "personal liability" to a listed creditor (e.g. for post-petition legal work by that creditor based on pre-petition contracts). That has occurred here. Bankruptcy law at 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(2) stops motions by a listed creditor which decides or implies that a discharged Chapter 7 "no asset" debtor still has "personal liability" to that listed creditor. That law is being ignored here.