Key Points
-
The website www.vexatious.us focuses on challenging California’s vexatious litigant laws and related legal abuses.
-
There is no current case before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) involving this website or vexatious litigants, based on available research.
-
California law defines a vexatious litigant as someone filing multiple frivolous lawsuits, with courts able to restrict such filings.
Website Overview
The website www.vexatious.us is part of the AXJ ® Global News Network, advocating against vexatious blacklisting, defamation, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process lawsuits, especially in California. It challenges the constitutionality of California’s “vexatious litigant” statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §391 et seq.) and promotes compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) through organizations like America United International (AUI). Contact information is provided for Dr. Zena Crenshaw-Logal, Co-Founder & Executive Director of the National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc., and includes links to related resources and social media.
Vexatious Litigants in California
In California, a vexatious litigant is someone who abuses the court system by repeatedly filing frivolous or unmeritorious lawsuits or motions, often without legal representation. This includes individuals who:
-
Have commenced at least five litigations in the past seven years without a lawyer (in propria persona) that were either finally determined adversely or unjustifiably left pending for two years.
-
Repeatedly file unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or engage in tactics that are frivolous or intended to cause delay.
-
Have previously been declared a vexatious litigant in any state or federal court based on similar facts. Courts can impose restrictions, such as prefiling orders, requiring permission to file new cases, and may punish violations with contempt of court.
Supreme Court Involvement
Research suggests there is no current case before SCOTUS specifically related to vexatious litigants or involving www.vexatious.us. While the website references historical Supreme Court cases (e.g., Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Boddie v. Connecticut) to support its arguments about constitutional rights and due process, none are currently pending before SCOTUS as of April 17, 2025.
Survey Note: Comprehensive Analysis of www.vexatious.us and Vexatious Litigants
This survey note provides a detailed examination of the website www.vexatious.us, its focus on vexatious litigant laws, and the legal context, including potential Supreme Court (SCOTUS) involvement, as of 08:03 AM PDT on Thursday, April 17, 2025. The analysis is grounded in a thorough review of the website content and relevant legal definitions, ensuring a comprehensive understanding for readers interested in legal advocacy and court procedures.
Website Overview and Purpose
The website www.vexatious.us is a component of the AXJ ® Global News Network, dedicated to addressing legal issues surrounding vexatious blacklisting, defamation, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process lawsuits. Its primary focus is on California, where it challenges the constitutionality of the state’s “vexatious litigant” statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §391 et seq.). This statute is critiqued for potentially infringing on constitutional rights, particularly those related to access to courts and due process, as acknowledged by the U.N. Human Rights Council in October 2018.
The website promotes compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) through America United International (AUI), accessible at https://www.americaunitedinternational.net. It encourages engagement through a related Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/countdown for AUI outreach details and organizes Zoom meetings for AAF members, with the next scheduled for Wednesday at 6 pm PT, 8 pm CT, 9 pm ET.
Contact information is provided for Dr. Zena Crenshaw-Logal, Co-Founder & Executive Director of the National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc., located at 3274 Mount Gilead Road SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30311, with contact details: (o) 404.590.5039, (e) crenshaw-logal@njcdlp.org. The website includes a disclaimer stating it is for informational purposes only, with all material protected by respective owners, and access confirms users are over 18, agreeing to AXJ ® Privacy and Legal Sections. It is not responsible for published content.
Additional resources include links to external sites such as http://axjusa.ning.com/, https://axjni.com/, and social media profiles like http://www.facebook.com/AXJ.NEWS, http://twitter.com/#!/AXJPRESS, and https://sites.google.com/site/axjintheusa/axj. Help, About Us, Contact Us, Jobs, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Service are available at http://axj.com, with copyright noted as © Copyright 1998-2022 AXJ ®, with web design and development by AXJ ®.
Legal Context: Vexatious Litigants in California
Vexatious litigants, as defined under California law, are individuals who abuse the court system by repeatedly filing frivolous or unmeritorious lawsuits or motions, often without legal representation. This definition is supported by multiple sources, including the Judicial Branch of California and various legal articles. Key criteria include:
-
In the immediately preceding seven-year period, the person has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been:
-
Finally determined adversely to the person, or
-
Unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.
-
-
In any litigation, while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
-
Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence.
Courts can impose measures such as prefiling orders under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, prohibiting the litigant from filing new litigation in California in pro per without first obtaining permission from the presiding justice or presiding judge. Violations may result in contempt of court, ensuring the court system is protected from abuse.
Examples from legal resources, such as Vexatious Litigants | Superior Court of California | County of Lassen, highlight the burden on courts and defendants, with strategies like those discussed in Muzzling a Nuisance: Vexatious Litigants in California | Law Offices of David H. Schwartz, INC. emphasizing the need for legal assistance to address such cases.
Historical Supreme Court References
The website www.vexatious.us references several historical U.S. Supreme Court cases to support its arguments about constitutional rights and due process, particularly in the context of vexatious litigant laws. These cases, summarized in the table below, are cited to illustrate the potential overbreadth and chilling effect on First Amendment rights, access to courts, and due process protections:
|
Case Name
|
Citation
|
Context
|
|---|---|---|
|
Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn.
|
(1987) 484 U.S. 383, 392-393
|
Discusses chilling effect on First Amendment rights, cited for overbreadth doctrine.
|
|
Secretary of State of Md. v. J. H. Munson Co.
|
(1984) 467 U.S. 947, 956-7
|
Cited for allowing facial challenges to overly broad statutes affecting First Amendment rights.
|
|
Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment
|
(1979) 444 U.S. 620
|
Referenced in context of similar statutes affecting First Amendment rights.
|
|
Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp
|
(1949) 337 U.S. 541
|
Discussed in relation to stockholder derivative actions, distinguished in Boddie.
|
|
Boddie v. Connecticut
|
(1971) 401 U.S. 371
|
Cited for striking down filing fees for indigents, impacting access to courts.
|
|
Fuentes v. Shevin
|
(1972) 407 U.S. 67
|
Referenced for due process violations in temporary deprivations.
|
|
California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited
|
(1972) 404 U.S. 508, 510
|
Cited for right to sue as part of First Amendment petition rights.
|
|
Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.
|
(1907) 207 U.S. 142, 148
|
Mentioned for the foundational right to sue and defend in courts.
|
|
N.A.A.C.P. v. Button
|
(1963) 371 U.S. 415, 430
|
Cited for litigation as a means to petition for redress of grievances.
|
|
Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.
|
(1969) 395 U.S. 337
|
Referenced for due process in temporary property deprivations.
|
|
Bell v. Burson
|
(1971) 402 U.S. 535
|
Cited for due process requirements in license suspensions, fault consideration.
|
|
Stanley v. Illinois
|
(1972) 405 U.S. 645, 647
|
Discussed for prohibiting presumptions without individualized proof, impacting due process.
|
|
Jenkins v. McKeithen
|
(1969) 395 U.S. 411
|
Cited for government actions affecting reputation, requiring due process.
|
|
Wieman v. Updegraff
|
(1952) 344 U.S. 183, 191
|
Referenced for due process in government stigmatization.
|
|
Skinner v. Oklahoma
|
(1942) 316 U.S. 535
|
Cited for equal protection in discriminatory sterilization laws.
|
|
Carey v. Brown
|
(1980) 447 U.S. 455, 461-2
|
Discussed for equal protection in public forum speech regulations.
|
|
Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn
|
(1983) 460 U.S. 37, 55
|
Cited for constitutional right of access in public forums.
|
|
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund
|
(1985) 473 U.S. 788, 800
|
Referenced for public forum access rights.
|
|
Douglas v. California
|
(1963) 372 U.S. 353
|
Cited for wealth as a suspect classification, impacting access to courts.
|
|
Griffin v. Illinois
|
(1956) 351 U.S. 12
|
Mentioned in context of wealth discrimination in legal access.
|
|
Burns v. Ohio
|
(1959) 360 U.S. 252
|
Referenced for wealth discrimination in court access.
|
|
Freedman v. Maryland
|
(1964) 380 U.S. 51, 58
|
Cited for procedural safeguards in licensing schemes, avoiding censorship.
|
|
Carroll v. Princess Anne
|
(1968) 393 U.S. 175, 182-3
|
Discussed for adversary hearing requirements in prior restraints.
|
|
Niemotko v. Maryland
|
(1951) 340 U.S. 268, 271
|
Cited for invalidating permit requirements without clear standards, as prior restraint.
|
|
Near v. Minnesota
|
(1930) 283 U.S. 697, 712-713
|
Referenced for censorship through prior restraints on publications.
|
|
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
|
(1963) 372 U.S. 58, 69-70
|
Cited for improper regulation circumventing criminal process protections.
|
|
Solem v. Helm
|
(1983) 463 U.S. 277
|
Discussed for Eighth Amendment proportionality in punishments.
|
|
Robinson v. California
|
(1961) 370 U.S. 660
|
Cited for unconstitutionality of punishing status without blameworthy conduct.
|
|
Haines v. Kerner
|
(1972) 404 U.S. 519, 520
|
Referenced for holding pro se filings to less stringent standards.
|
|
Connally v. General Construction Co.
|
(1926) 269 U.S. 385, 391
|
Cited for invalidating vague statutes under due process.
|
|
Manley v. State of Georgia
|
(1928) 279 U.S. 1, 6
|
Discussed for arbitrary presumptions violating due process.
|
|
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
|
(1951) 341 U.S. 123, 143-144, 179
|
Cited for bills of attainder in government blacklists and procedural due process.
|
|
United States v. Brown
|
(1964) 381 U.S. 437, 441-449
|
Referenced for separation of powers, bills of attainder.
|
|
United States v. Lovett
|
(1945) 328 U.S. 303, 315-316
|
Cited for bills of attainder in civil sanctions.
|
These cases are referenced to argue against the potential overreach of vexatious litigant laws, emphasizing protections for access to courts and due process, but none are indicated as currently before SCOTUS.
Current Supreme Court Involvement
Extensive research, including direct browsing of www.vexatious.us and web searches for related SCOTUS cases, indicates no current case before the U.S. Supreme Court specifically involving vexatious litigants or the website. The website’s content, as of April 17, 2025, does not mention any ongoing SCOTUS proceedings, focusing instead on historical legal precedents and advocacy efforts. Web searches for “vexatious litigant Supreme Court case” and “vexatious.us Supreme Court” yielded results discussing general legal principles and state-level cases (e.g., Serafine v. Crump in Texas, not SCOTUS), but no active federal Supreme Court cases were identified.
This absence suggests that while the topic is significant for legal reform, it has not reached the level of a current SCOTUS docket item. The user’s reference to “YOUR CASE IS BEFORE #SCOTUS” may reflect a misunderstanding or anticipation of future legal action, but current evidence does not support an active case as of this date.
Conclusion
In summary, www.vexatious.us serves as an advocacy platform challenging California’s vexatious litigant laws, with detailed references to historical Supreme Court cases supporting constitutional arguments. However, there is no evidence of a current case before SCOTUS involving this website or vexatious litigants. California law provides clear definitions and restrictions for vexatious litigants, aiming to protect court resources while balancing access to justice, a balance reflected in the historical cases cited.