Rebecca Wu v. Public Employment Relations Board, et al.

QUESTIONS TO BE PRESIDENTED A. Would a Petitioner from a Public Employment Relations Board five day bifurcated hearing on timely filed the merits from a previously Board issued government Complaint for a Unfair Practice Complaint have the automatic right to appeal a Petition for Writ of Extraordinary as spelled out in A petition fora writ of extraordinary relief shall be filed [ within 30 days] in the district court of appeal " Cal. Gov. Code § 3509.5 or would a petitioner who becomes a listed Vexatious Litigant in state courts after the original Unfair Practice Charge and Complaint be required to file a VL-110 Request to file New Litigation in (third) Court of Appeal with the court's approval to file be excessive and thus impede on due process and equal protection of the laws if No court review of an Administrative Agency is done at all? a. 1 -SHOULD THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL COURTS BE THE SAME FOR STATE COURTS TO RULE A LITIGANT VEXATIOUS WITH PRE-FILING ORDER BASED ON NUMEROUS AND ABUSIVE, SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS, AND NARROWLY TAILORED AND APPLY as in De Long v. Hennessey (1990) 912 F.2d 1144,? b. A.2 THERE most be NO REASONABLE PROBABILITY and NOT a NUMBERS GAME to Deny an Appeal as per CCP 391 -391.7 B. Should the CCP 391 ..391.7 be interpreted to include that automatic right to appeal and CCP 391 .(a) be allowed by courts to interpreted to meaning of an appeal is considered "Maintaining" and thus require a Request for leave under CCP 391.7? a. (McColm v. Westwood Park Assn. 1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1211. Under CCP 391 -391.7 AND SHOULD IT BE OVERTURNED? Would the weight of the impeding on the Constitutional right of due process, speech, and right to petition the government in the 1 st and 14th Amendment weighs in favor or more heavily than the purpose of a vexatious litigant status and a required court approval to file an appeal of a case in pro per?