Charles G. Kinney v. Frances Rothschild, et al.

The vexatious litigant ("VL") laws are being used by state and federal courts to "punish" Kinney. Similar types of punishment have been imposed on listed bankruptcy creditors, attorneys who are not parties, defendants, and plaintiffs in pro se who ultimately prevail. All of those are excluded under the VL laws. In state courts, the VL laws result in a one-size-fits-all solution (e.g. state-wide pre-filing orders for whistleblowers or someone who is in the wrong place at the wrong time). In federal courts, VL orders are "narrowly tailored" but they are not narrowly applied, especially if a VL decision was already made in a Cal. court (which violates the separation of powers doctrine). In Cal., one single case can result in a VL decision if a plaintiff loses against five defendants but wins against the sixth since each defendant requires a separate appeal which counts as 5 losses. The VL laws let one Judge or Justice decide the merits of a complaint or appeal without taking evidence, contrary to First Amendment rights and the Cal. Constitution which requires a 3 justice panel. Here, VL laws are being used to compel Kinney's "silence" as to ongoing nuisances and violations of the ADA, CWA and discharge injunction (11 USC 524). This violates Kinney's rights as a property owner. There is collaboration among judges to punish Kinney (e.g. Grimes, Lavin, Rothschild). On 12/28/17, 8 appeals were dismissed by Circuit Judges Silverman, Bybee and Wallace. Here, on 5/23/18, 3 of Kinney's appeals were dismissed by Circuit Judges Silverman, Bea and Watford. Will this Court stop these ongoing violations of both state and federal law? (A