#vexatious litigation

[agentfascinateur]

“If a blog post is evidence of collaboration, that’s a stance that’s somewhat hostile to the First Amendment”

The company filed in the Northern District of Texas, where it will appear before Judge Reed O’Connor, who holds $15,000 of stock in Tesla, Musk’s other company. (Earlier this week, Media Matters lost its bid to have O’Connor recuse himself.) Media Matters has also filed to dismiss the case, which O’Connor has not yet ruled on; in the meantime, he has ordered that Media Matters must comply with an expansive discovery request from X’s lawyers.

[garudabluffs]

Trump makes DESPERATE move against judge in NY trial AUG.14,2024

[copwatch2024]

Ricky L Pinzon is a weirdo

[mitchipedia]

Debunking Milton Friedman’s claim that the company’s only job is to increase shareholder value: It’s “a charter for doing whatever the fuck a CEO feels like doing”

Cory Doctorow discusses the theory of “shareholder supremacy,”, which has ruled economics, business and politics for more than 50 years, and which is now being walked back even by conservatives. One of the theory’s fatal flaws is that “it’s impossible to know if the rule has been broken,” says Cory.

The shareholder supremacy rule is an unfalsifiable proposition. A CEO can cut wages and lay off workers and claim that it’s good for profits because the retained earnings can be paid as a dividend. A CEO can raise wages and hire more people and claim it’s good for profits because it will stop important employees from defecting and attract the talent needed to win market share and spin up new products.

A CEO can spend less on marketing and claim it’s a cost-savings. A CEO can spend more on marketing and claim it’s an investment. A CEO can eliminate products and call it a savings. A CEO can add products and claim they’re expansions into new segments. A CEO can settle a lawsuit and claim they’re saving money on court fees. A CEO can fight a lawsuit through to the final appeal and claim that they’re doing it to scare vexatious litigants away by demonstrating their mettle.

CEOs can use cheaper, inferior materials and claim it’s a savings. They can use premium materials and claim it’s a competitive advantage that will produce new profits. Everything a company does can be colorably claimed as an attempt to save or make money, from sponsoring the local little league softball team to treating effluent to handing ownership of corporate landholdings to perpetual trusts that designate them as wildlife sanctuaries.

Bribes, campaign contributions, onshoring, offshoring, criminal conspiracies and conference sponsorships – there’s a business case for all of these being in line with shareholder supremacy.

Also:

Boeing management earned bonuses by engaging in corporate autophagia, devouring the company from within.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Re: Harold's security case.

One of the often repeated submissions in the Home Office court papers is that Harold refuses to accept the answer they give him despite explanations/ evidence/ precedent etc because it is not the answer that Harold wants. 

For similar reasons, it is rumoured and occasionally revealed that he doesn't always get security because whatever package RAVEC put together for his visits doesn't meet his DEFCON1 preferred requirements and turns them down while whining to the courts that RAVEC is either leaving him vulnerable by not providing any security at all nevermind that he turned that which was offered or in the case of SJP / recent visit for Invictus service, doesn't completely exclude the public so that God forbid he comes into contact with them nevermind that SJP has DEFCON1 security. 

This is going to run and run until a judge finally says no or Harold runs out of money or he is labelled a vexatious litigant or all 3 options. 

Secondly, your point about Harold suing Charles is based on a misunderstanding. The Monarch is above the law. The only person in the UK and it's realms that can't be sued or arrested. It's part of the privilege of the royal perogative which essentially means that the Monarch's will is un-justicable and un-reviewable that means they can't be sued, arrested, or held to account in any way. 

The only time the Monarch was held to account, arrested and brought to justice was Charles 1, and parliament had to write special laws for that situation. His immediate replacement, Oliver Cromwell, got rid of those laws and the parliamentarian, John Pym, who'd written them.

And when we brought in William of Orange in the glorious revolution, it was reaffirmed in the contract that they made him sign to usher in the constitutional monarchy. 

All to say that even if Harold wins his case and has cast iron reasons and evidence to sue Charles for being stripped of his security or any other reason, he can't sue Charles personally because no court or judge in the land would hear his case. Not the high court nor Supreme court not the EU. I doubt even ICC would hear the case. 

The only way to do it is to do what John Pym did......write new laws in parliament that turn KC3 into an ordinary citizen that can be sued, and hope you don't get the same result that we got with KC1, a 10yr civil war that ended with the death of the King. 

[celticcrossanon]

Jeez, Celta! Harry is a greedy moron! Harry and his lawyers reportedly are asking the judge to ORDER the publisher of the Mirror for £2 million pounds or they'll consider going to court again against The Mirror in another lawsuit (Harry got $140,600 as compensation but has to pay The Mirror's legal fees). *Facepalm* I never thought I'd see the day Harry or Harry's lawyers would threaten the judge AND The Mirror with another lawsuit if they didn't get what they wanted!

From 3 days ago

Hi Nonny,

I am both appalled at the greed displayed by Harry and laughing at his stupidity in thinking that he can tell a judge what to do. I hope they do go for another lawsuit - it will only make Harry look even more stupid and risk him being labelled a 'vexatious litigant'.

[bookworm2things]

Harry, the Vexatious Litigant

[saintmeghanmarkle]

From Talk Tv by u/CheapLingonberry6785

From Talk Tv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQI18GV090EThey don’t hold back !!“ H has too much time on his hands ( unemployed! ) but still wants the status and Royal protection and privileges the others get “ But also make the point that he could now be seen as a “ vexatious litigant “ - I just saw he’s appealing the verdict 🙄 - any legalese here who could weigh in on whether they might allow his appeal or not ? post link: https://ift.tt/0G5WfyB author: CheapLingonberry6785 submitted: February 28, 2024 at 07:44PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

[stroebe2]

Actor who alleges Mia Goth kicked him in the head and called him a “big baby” when filming MaXXXine was accused of threatening to distribute revenge porn, running a rent scam and being a “vexatious litigant,” according to court records.

[onisiondrama]

"Onision Gets A Crazy Call at 6AM (Parody)" August 9, 2024 Onision

He made a sketch about his version of what happened in the phone call.

Makes it appear the call started with Sarah "insane villain" laughing even though we know that is not when the call started. That is when he claims he started recording.

Depicts the conversation starting with Sarah telling him to leave her alone and he is confused because she called him and they haven't spoken in over a year. He calls it "really ironic." [We all know she is referring to everything he posts online about her. We all see it.]

He says vexatious litigation is a form of harassment so he has every right to defend himself. He makes it appear that Sarah is denying litigating him and pretending she doesn't know what he's talking about and calls him crazy. [Again, we know she did not actually say that and she was referring to the fact that she is not involved in the lawsuit. She is locked into it because she signed a contract. He is the one that leaked this information last year.]

In the sketch he asks her if she ever heard of pathological lying. Then "Sarah" changes her voice and says she is litigating him and he's going to lose.

He asks her if she heard of identity disorder, She calls him an old fart and cackles. He asks if he should get a restraining order on her. He says he's blocking her number and she says, "bae wait." Tells him she hopes his skin cancer comes off and his dick falls off "on god."

He calls her "the actual devil" and blocks her number "on god."

[twofacedtrickery]

I'm going to show Professor the vexatious litigants I have been finding.

[dankusner]

in terrorem clause

Terrorized by a clause

The Texas no-contest clause should lead to caution

Who should be afraid of an in terrorem clause?

You, that's who.

An in terrorem clause is a no-contest, or forfeiture, clause often found in wills.

Although the text may vary, the typical wording provides that a beneficiary who challenges or disputes the validity of the will is disinherited.

A quick example:

Mom signs a will that leaves you her house and car, and your brother the remainder of her estate.

The will contains an in terrorem clause.

You think your brother is going to end up getting more than you, so you challenge Mom's capacity to execute the will.

You lose your challenge.

Your reward?

You end up forfeiting both the house and car.

Your brother takes all.

In terrorem clauses, in the words of the Amarillo Court of Appeals, "allow the intent of the testatrix to be given full effect and seek to avoid vexatious litigation among family members."

Your mom clearly did not want the family members fighting each other over their inheritance.

Including the clause in her will was her way of discouraging family discord.

She was essentially urging you to take what you get gracefully.

That's your mom, still parenting from the grave.

You should have listened.

While courts narrowly construe in terrorem clauses to avoid forfeiture, that doesn't mean they ignore them.

A lawsuit challenging testamentary capacity of the testatrix is one type of contest that results in forfeiture.

So is challenging your mom's choice of executor.

Suppose she named your brother as her executor.

You want more control, so you challenge your brother to serve as as executor.

You lose your challenge.

Cue the in terrorem clause.

Your attempt to set aside the part of her will naming an executor was a contest of her will.

You just forfeited the house and car, again.

In terrorem clauses are enforceable unless the contestant shows that just cause existed for bringing the action, and the action was brought and maintained in good faith.

That provision can be found in a statute in the Texas Estates Code.

Nothing is simple, however.

The terms "just cause" and "good faith" are not defined in the statute.

So we turn to case law, which is found in the opinions of the appellate courts.

Returning to the Amarillo Court of Appeals, we find that in a 2023 opinion the Amarillo court defined "good faith" as an action prompted by honesty of intention or a reasonable belief that the action was probably correct.

The court defined "just cause" as bringing actions that are based on reasonable grounds, with a fair and honest reason for the contestant's actions.

The trial court decides on a case-by-case basis whether a contest was brought in good faith and with just cause.

That is a fact question.

If the trial court does not decide that question, then the appellate courts have no jurisdiction to do so.

Here is how it works mechanically:

You file your contest of your mom's will alleging she had no capacity when she executed the will, and further stating that you had just cause to bring the contest and did so in good faith.

Your brother files an answer denying your contest, and further alleging that you violated the in terrorem clause.

The court rules against you, and then you must prove the good faith and just cause elements just to avoid forfeiture.

The in-terrorem clause is meant to terrify you into reasonableness. It does a pretty good job.

[constantinemars]

CONSTANTINE’S BOOK OF LAW

Welcome to the hell 😈

I’m Constantine Mars, author of “Constantine’s Book of Law”, famous Vexatious Litigant from San Jose, who disqualified three bribed crooks (“judges”) from my divorce case during about single year - in a fight for life of my son Max, who those disqualified assholes tried to force to be kidnapped outside of the United States to Ukraine in times of war, and forced to live without father for already two years.

I’ve been in jail for bringing donuts and hot chocolate to my son, was ordered to be arrested by disqualified judges twice, and was personally threatened by Presiding Judge and Executive Admin of court for requesting to officially nullify all orders of three disqualified bribed crooks from their court, and publicly exposing their disqualification and video recordings of them committing fraud on court.

“To the hell and back” - this how I would describe experience with fucked nit nest of Santa Clara County Court.

Kicking ass to fucked crooks in Santa Clara court became my main entertainment during last two years - disqualified fucked crooks squeal like pigs, and angrily retaliate to me by ordering fabricated arrests and permanent restraining order against my son.

You’ll find some notes, templates of legal papers, and law education here, and of course more information about “Constantine’s Book of Law” - which I guess you already read.

If not - here you can get it 😉

[celticcrossanon]

Celta, did you see the news today that Prince Harry abandoned his libel lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday? (The MoS wrote an article basically saying Harry lied about offering to pay for MET royal protection whenever he's in the UK.) Harry now owes the MoS £250,000 pounds in addition to his own lawyers-- a total sum of £750,000. And that's on top of the £48,000 Harry had to pay last month. Harry needs to stop suing the media before he's named a vexatious litigant in the UK.

Hi Nonny,

I did see the news, and I cackled for about five minutes straight over it. The best bit was that the withdrawal of the suit came on the day that the supporting documents were due to the court. My theory is that either Harry ran out of money, or there are things in his supporting documents that he does not want to be made public.

I incline towards the latter theory as one of the articles said that the supporting documents had to be presented no matter how badly the person appeared in them (or words to that effect). That, to me, is a big hint that Harry didn't want to hand in the documents because they reveal things about him that he does not want the public to know.

I am quite happy for Harry to keep suing the media until he bankrupts himself, if that has not already happened. Actions have consequences, and it is about time Harry had some of those consequences come home to him.

[naturecoaster]

Citrus County Clerk Awarded 10 Certificates in Recognition of Excellence

The Citrus County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Office has been awarded 10 Certificates in Recognition of Excellence for Best Practices by Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers (FCCC) in the areas of Appeals, Civil Contraband Forfeiture, Court Record Retention and Destruction, Department of Revenue Parenting Plan Fee Waivers, Determination of Indecency, Marriage Licenses, Public Records Requests, Risk Protection Orders, Service of Documents by Clerks for Pro Se Litigants, and Vexatious Litigants. Citrus County Clerk Awarded 10 Certificates in Recognition of Excellence FCCC established the Best Practices Excellence Program in 2020 as an opportunity for Clerks to receive Recognition of Excellence certificates for completing assessments that evaluate acceptance of and adherence to certain best practices. The 2024 Best Practices Excellence Program evaluated and recognized Clerks for compliance in 10 areas with certificates presented June 19, 2024, during FCCC’s Summer Conference in Orlando, FL. “Collaboration, teamwork, and dedication to excellence are the pillars of professional standards for our office,” said Angela Vick, Citrus County Clerk of Courts. “It is our utmost priority and honor to serve Citrus County and these certifications are a statement to the commitment of my team.”  For more information on services provided by the Citrus County Clerk of Court and Comptroller’s Office, visit www.citrusclerk.org. To learn more about FCCC, visit www.flclerks.com. Read the full article

[weadvocate]

FRANKLIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE JARROD SKINNER IGNORES ALL MOTIONS ON CASE RECORD IN RENT ESCROW SEVERE LANDLORD RETALIATION ISSUE TO PROTECT VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO Case No. 2024 CVR 009565 April Clark Case No. 2024 CVG 012030 Case No. 2024 CVG 015962 v. JURY DEMAND hereon Blueprint Investments, LLC Brysod Anderson Aaron McDaniel Whitney Ramsey MOTION FOR MEETING ZOOM LINK AND TIMELY SERVED NOTICE OF  RESCHEDULED HEARING DATE AND TIME AND REQUEST FOR COURT REPORTER…