Author Archives: admin

Wolfe v. George – Judge Kleinfeld’s Judicial Shortchange

Posted on December 8, 2014 by admin

[First published Oct. 23, 2013 – 216 views until now] California’s so-called “Vexatious Litigants” Statute” (“VLS” – California Civil Procedure Code Section 391 et seq) was passed by the California Legislature in 1963. The VLS permits a defendant to move … Continue reading →

Posted in Vexatious Litigant Statutes | Tagged | Leave a comment

What’s wrong with Taliaferro v. Hoogs?

Posted on December 8, 2014 by admin

[First published Nov. 10, 2013 – 231 views] What’s wrong with Taliaferro? Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 521 is an appellate court opinion widely cited for upholding the constitutionality (of the original version) of California’s so-called “Vexatious Litigants” statute … Continue reading →

Posted in Vexatious Litigant Statutes | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How vague is “frivolous”? – Part 1

Posted on February 20, 2014 by admin

[First published Feb 20, 2014 – republished Dec 8, 2014 after 629 views] How vague is “frivolous”? – Part 1 In 1995 – in the Los Angeles County probate court – in the course of a proceeding for petition for … Continue reading →

Posted in Vexatious Litigant Statutes | Leave a comment

Equal Protection Errors in Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo

Posted on December 12, 2013 by admin

[First published Dec 12, 2013 – republished Dec 7, 2014 after 593 views] Equal Protection Error in Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Wolfgram v Wells Fargo Bank (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 43, is often cited as authority for upholding the constitutionality of … Continue reading →

Posted in Vexatious Litigant Statutes | Leave a comment

Equal Protection Error in Wolfe v. George

Posted on December 10, 2013 by admin

[First published Dec 10, 2013 – republished Dec 8, 2014 after 261 views] Equal Protection Error in Wolfe v. George Under our Constitutional Equal Protection doctrine, all persons, or classes of persons, shall be treated equally “in the same place … Continue reading →

Posted in Vexatious Litigant Statutes | Tagged | Leave a comment

Scottish “Not Proven” Verdict & Zimmerman trial

Posted on July 15, 2013 by admin

“Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. . . .. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction (“guilty”) and two of acquittal (“not proven” and “not guilty”). … Continue reading →

Posted in Criminal Law | Leave a comment

Life in Prison for Stealing Tube Socks

Posted on June 27, 2013 by admin

Video Description Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi on his new article on California’s three-strike rule. http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2276178587001/life-in-prison-for-stealing-tube-socks/?intcmp=sem_outloud#sp=show-clips

Posted in Three Strikes Laws | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Lawyers’ Fees

Posted on May 21, 2013 by admin

The following copies of email messages are self explanatory: Thank you for responding to my email message. Although I am not a lawyer (or rather I should say BECAUSE I am not a lawyer) I have a strong personal interest … Continue reading →

Posted in Lawyers' Fees | Leave a comment

Solomonic Procedure: Repeat Litigants’ Facts & Arguments

Posted on April 21, 2013 by admin

Solomonic Procedure: A Suggestion for Reform of Litigation Procedure Suggestion: Judges should be required to repeat each litigant’s facts and arguments before giving a decision.

Posted in Litigation Procedure | Leave a comment

From LA Co. Law Library database re Pro Se litigants

Posted on February 28, 2013 by admin

The following sources regarding pro se litigation are from the librarian at LA Co Law Library as of Feb. 28, 2013….

Posted in Pro Se Litigation | Leave a comment