Why doesn't there exist Vexatious Litigant laws or procedure that addresses Multiplicity of California's §391 Motion with Conflicting Rulings based on the exact same evidence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Why doesn’t there exist Vexatious Litigant laws or procedure that addresses Multiplicity of California’s §391 Motion with Conflicting Rulings based on the exact same evidence? (Or Multiplicity of the §391 Motion, Period?) 2) Do the Merits of a case take precedence or does California’s Vexatious Litigant Laws whereby a Plaintiff must present “sufficient evidence of a material change in the facts upon which the order was granted” in order to vacate the prefiling order and remove Plaintiff's name from the States Vexatious Litigant list? 3) Do Vexatious Litigant laws violate the 5" & 14" Amendments of the United States Constitution? (It did in my case!). (Double Jeopardy). 4) Should not there exist different “categories” of vexatious litigant code or procedure, one belonging to family and probate cases and another belonging to civil and/or criminal matters? (ex. 2? Degree Murder) 5) When Multiplicity of Vexatious Litigant Motions are in effect, and conflicting rulings arose based on the exact same evidence, which ruling should take precedence, the denial or the granted motion? (Res Judicata didn’t apply in my case because the tentative denial was heard first). 6) Should a litigant, falsely and intentionally convicted of being a Vexatious Litigant be compensated for the Indisputable and Reprehensible harm inflicted upon him? 7) Should attorneys or party(s) that filed false Vexatious Litigant Motions in order to harm a Plaintiff be reprimanded, fined or subjected to disciplinary action? 8) Do Vexatious Litigant convictions in civil matters, excluding Family Court, target Protected Classes (race, ethnicity, 40+, poverty) at a higher rate? 9) Did you know any Vexatious Litigant would be prevented from filing Bankruptcy in Pro Se? (a Federal proceeding). I :