Whether state court judges and justices are ignoring bankruptcy law that voids any order implying a discharged Chapter 7 'no asset' debtor still has personal liability to a listed creditor

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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. 11 US.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 (“VL”) law is unconstitutionally vague on its face, it was used to justify their actions against Kinney fe.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 (HM 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. 1