Whether the California Vexatious Litigant Statute unconstitutionally violates due process and separation of powers by restricting pro se litigants' access to courts based solely on litigation numerosity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , The right to a remedy in the courts for wrongful injury holds a revered place in our civil justice system. Lord Coke traced this tight to Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta, which guaranteed: “Every subject may take his remedy by course of the Law, and have justice, and right for injury done to him...” 1 Edward Coke, the Second Part of the Institutes of the laws of England 55 (London, E. & R. Brooke 797). Chief Justice Marshall restated that principle for Americans: The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an , injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. ; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.s. (1 Cranch) 137, 163 , (1803). Thus, our Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process is an “affirmation of Magna Carta according to Coke.” Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 29 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring). , iii This Court has left no doubt that “[t]he Right to sue and ‘ defend in the courts is the alternative to force. In an . organized society it is the Right conservative of all ; rights and lies at the foundation of orderly government.” Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio, R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907). This fundamental right is grounded in multiple constitutional guarantees. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n. 12 (2002). 1. Litigiousness or Numerosity of Litigations Alone is Insufficient to Support the Determination that a Self-Represented Party is a Vexatious Litigant. The California Legislature’s Mandate to the Courts at CCP § 391(b)(1) to Require that the _ Courts Make Such a Determination Absent Other Qualifying Criteria Usurps the Court’s Core Inherent Authority and Independence to Make Judicial Decisions “Jo Do Justice” which Violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Isn’t it true that the California Legislature’s unconstitutional — usurpation of judicial power to impose under iv statute strict sanctioning criteria restricting a litigant’s right of petition and access to the . Courts based on numerosity of litigation criteria alone especially where the cases considered include those adjudicated in the federal district and circuit courts an unconstitutional violation of fundamental rights protected by the U. S. Constitution? 2. The Multiple Federal Appellate Circuits Have Established Uniformity in the Precedential Case . Law Decisions Concerning the Sanctioning of Access to the Courts for Pro Se Litigants which has Found that Such Sanctioning Represents the “Exception to the General Rule of Free Access to ; the Courts’ which, If Instituted Must be | ‘Narrowly Tailored”. Isn’t it true that the California Vexatious Litigant Statute’s Abject ; Failure to Follow the Cautious and Conservative ; Approach Directed by those Federal Appellate Case Precedents which have Served to Create a Vv : Requisite Minimum Federal Standard an Unconstitutional Violation Under the Fourteenth Amendment due to the Statutes Permissive and Broad Infringement upon the Fundamental U. S. Constitutional Right of Petition and Access to the Courts? “ 3. The Separation of Powers Doctrine Found in the California Constitution at Article III, Section 3 Defines a System of Three Branches Legislative, Executive and Judicial which are to be “Kept Largely Separate”. Isn't it True that the California Vexatious Litigant Statute CCP 391391.8 in which the Legislature has Arrogated Critically Important Core Functions of the : California Judicial Branch so as to Undermine the Independence and Essential Powers of those Courts an Unconstitutional Violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine Due to the Multiple Provisions Contained Within the Statute Which have Rigidly Imposed Strict Definitions of Vexatious Conduct and Experience vi . Upon the Court which Fully Undermine the ; Critical Core Functions and Disregard the Independent judgment of the California Judiciary which permits it Core Function “Yo Do Justice”?