Theory on framework issues

Monday, November 23, 2009

2.1.1 Abolish vexatious-litigant security deposits

Like every witch-hunt, the persecution of the litigious damages general jurisprudence. In California the judiciary's self-serving ratification of the vexatious litigant statute's security-deposit procedures has done the worst damage. The statute permits the court or other party to move to condition the vexatious litigant's right to prosecute the action on his posting a security deposit to cover the opposing party's reasonable expenses, including attorney fees. To grant the motion for a security deposit, the court must find that the plaintiff doesn't have any reasonable probability for success on the merits. In the California Supreme Court case dealing with the provision's constitutionality, the court erroneously held the trial court can weigh the evidence to condition civil trials on vexatious-litigation security deposits without violating California's state-constitutional right to trial by jury. (See Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson (2007) 40 Cal.4th 780.)

The right to a jury trial is the strongest argument against allowing the court to weigh the evidence at a summary proceeding, but the Supreme Court was cursory in analysis and fatuous in conclusion: "The grant of a [motion for plaintiff to post security] does not preclude a trial; it merely requires a plaintiff to post security." (Moran, supra.) The court ignores settled law holding that "while the Legislature can adopt reasonable procedural requirements for the enforcement of [a self-enforcing constitutional right such as to a jury trial], it can do nothing which would unreasonably curtail or impair it." (Vinnicombe v. State (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 54, 56.)

California's anti-SLAPP statute provides for a summary procedure for lawsuits potentially aimed at inhibiting exercise of basic rights. A SLAPP suit is a kind of vexatious lawsuit, and other potentially vexatious lawsuits shouldn't face obstacles exceeding those imposed by the anti-SLAPP statute, which prohibits weighing the evidence. The most coherent way to adjudicate potentially vexatious litigation summarily is to expand the anti-SLAPP statute to include lawsuits that are demonstrably part of a vexatious pattern.


  1. I worked the last 6 months of my job when I was made Temporarily totally disabled but the medicals where hidden from me for 5 1/2 yrs while the Ins and Employer never told me that last 6 months I was to be off and my low back gave out on top of the chemical poisoning they where hiding from me. They never followed the laws concerning MSDS's yet we recently found out that even the Statute of Limitations claim was false and the Worker's Comp. Judge hid the truth adn then when I was to prove negligence by the employer which negates The Statutes of Limitations claim the judge did not allow the subpoenaed witnesses present to testify in my behalf and then judged against me and now because we figured out that it was already filed in the WC court to begin with and claimed that all the parties including my own lawyers where in conspiracy to defraud me of my rights I get claimed Vexatious Litigant based on hearings won by fraud? I know have Multiple Sclerosis or MS caused by environmental causes and they claim I am the bad guy here. This whole Vexatious Litigant stuff is illegal and unconstitutional and made for the Crooked and corrupted system that is causing people to have to fight for their own rights because even their own lawyers back stab them and get paid under the table or side with the defense for whatever bribe they get? One of my lawyers even admitted it was filed within the time frame of my statute of limitations but then after the WC Judge was added to the case denied it and they all filed the same exact papers afterward as if they where all working together back in that co-conspiratorial association headed by the Worker's Comp Legal system itself.

    So I am declared something I am not. I have a clean legal history. The worst I have ever done legally was a DUI back in 1982. I never break the laws if I can avoid it for the most part. Of course there are laws I may not be aware of like this bogus legal ploy created by the large corporations and Insurance Companies to stop people from getting real justice. I never got my Jury to fight this false claim! I have a legit case and because I am going against the state legal system of Worker's Comp in California they took Judge Mahoney off the case who saw the truth and put this other ringer on it who works for these guys. Then they declare me Vexatious when I have written proof of fraud and declarations of truth from others showing I am not lying and etc. This is unconstitutional in that when you figure out the truth and realize what really went down behind the scenes you are already lost due to that fraud and conspiracy of these large corporations and this corrupted judicial system.

    I still have to live with the injury they caused me plus not the humiliation of being called this for trying to get justice. This is corruption at it's finest denying me my rights to a fair trial and due process. They know I can not come up with a security deposit of $40K on social security disability. SO where is due process here and who are they do judge whether a jury will see it my way or the defenses without the jury seeing it? This needs to be over ruled by the people themselves who are done wrong every day by this corrupted judicial system.

  2. Correction of First Sentence, last paragraph "I still have to live with the injury they caused me plus not the humiliation of being called this for trying to get justice."

    It should read "plus now the humiliation"

  3. One other point. The real reason the courts are so bogged down with Pro Say plaintiffs is because the courts are not prosecuting the wrong doers which is the real Insurance Fraud people, the insurance companies themselves and anyone that conspires with them to hide their frauds and defraud the injured workers and individuals. The court system acts like they are worried about costs to the People. Well what about when the insurance companies defraud them of their benefits and they have to rely on Social Security to help them and Medicare and other Government assistance because the insurance companies lied and denied them what is suppose to be a no fault claim system for benefits? The court system is siding with the criminals and causing the legal back log themselves! We proved fraud more than once to the judge by the defense and they did not even get a slap on the hand. Instead the judge worked with them to sabotage my case in bias against my case and then destroyed the evidence in the files by completely destroying the files before copying them to microfiche or digitally as was the procedure.

    Then saying they rebuilt it but they got all the new records from the defense only! Talk about illegal destruction of evidence? That is what happened in my case because the defense altered one doctor report we know of and the WC Judge destroyed the original to hide their illegal activity. We have a declaration of truth by someone else who saw the original before words where removed and remembered those words in the original that are not gone. As we remembered them and everyone acts like we are lying! This is a conspiracy with the very judicial system a part of it.

  4. This keeps changing the word "now" to "not". In the sentence on this last comment again the last paragraph it says "We have a declaration of truth by someone else who saw the original before words where removed and remembered those words in the original that are not gone."

    In the second to last word in this sentence it was suppose to read "original that are now gone."

    It is weird that every time it should say "now" in crucial places it says "not", changing what I typed.

    I hope you get the point. I am bushed and it is late. Take care.


Blog Archive

About Me

Joshua Tree, California 92252-2141, United States
SUPPLIER OF LEGAL THEORIES. Attorneys' ghostwriter of legal briefs and motion papers, serving all U.S. jurisdictions. Former Appellate/Law & Motion Attorney at large Los Angeles law firm; J.D. (University of Denver); American Jurisprudence Award in Contract Law; Ph.D. (Psychology); B.A. (The Johns Hopkins University). E-MAIL: Phone: 760.974.9279 Some other legal-brief writers research thoroughly and analyze penetratingly, but I bring another two merits. The first is succinctness. I spurn the unreadable verbosity and stupefying impertinence of ordinary briefs to perform feats of concision and uphold strict relevance to the issues. The second is high polish, achieved by allotting more time to each project than competitors afford. Succinct style and polished language — manifested in my legal-writing blog, Disputed Issues — reverse the common limitations besetting brief writers: lack of skill for concision and lack of time for perfection.