Charles Kinney v. Michele R. Clark

State court judges and justices continue to ignore bankruptcy law [11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(1)] which "voids" any order by any court that 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. ii U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(2) precludes any 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 bankruptcy law is also being ignored here. Even though the Calif. vexatious litigant ("VT]') law is unconstitutionally vague on its face, it was used to justify their actions against Kinney [e.g. retaliation]. That VL 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 (1) which "presiding" justice can rule. The Calif. 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 both state and federal courts who have ruled that Kinney was a "VL" in each of those non-"in pro se" roles. These ongoing acts cause continuing violations of Kinney's civil and constitutional rights.