Whether vexatious-litigant laws are being used to punish an attorney who was not a party, pro se plaintiff who ultimately prevailed, defendant, or listed bankruptcy creditor, in violation of their First Amendment rights and due process

QUESTION PRESENTED Vexatious litigant (“VL”) laws are being used by the courts to “punish” Kinney to the detriment of the environment. Punishment occurs even though Kinney is an attorney who was not a party, pro se plaintiff who ultimately prevailed, defendant, or listed bankruptcy creditor. Those categories are excluded from all VL laws. In state courts, the VL law results in a one-size-fits-all penalty (e.g. statewide pre-filing orders for someone who is in the wrong place at the wrong time). In federal courts, VL orders are “narrowly tailored” but they are not so applied to Kinney, especially if a VL decision was already made in state court (and that 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 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 CWA. ADA, and discharge injunction. This violates Kinney’s property owner rights, and there has been collaboration among judges to punish Kinney (e.g. Justices Boren and O’Leary). On 12/28/17, 8 of Kinney’s pending appeals were dismissed by Circuit Judges Silverman, Bybee and Wallace. On 5/23/18, 3 more appeals including this CWA case were dismissed by Circuit Judges Silverman, Bea and Watford. When will this Court stop the ongoing violations of federal law? i