Vexatious Litigant.
Surprised me that courts never refused his bullshit suits.
Surprised me that courts never refused his bullshit suits.
November 2, 2026 at 6:11 PM
Vexatious Litigant.
Surprised me that courts never refused his bullshit suits.
Surprised me that courts never refused his bullshit suits.
It does if you're a vexatious litigant
November 1, 2026 at 10:53 PM
It does if you're a vexatious litigant
The courts eventually declare you a vexatious litigant though. Money might buy the press but it is harder to buy the law. Note I said harder, not impossible. They'll be throwing money at MPs for legal changes now.
November 2, 2026 at 5:22 PM
The courts eventually declare you a vexatious litigant though. Money might buy the press but it is harder to buy the law. Note I said harder, not impossible. They'll be throwing money at MPs for legal changes now.
If a pro se litigant did this they would be immediately warned for contempt
Judge Reyes: do you want to correct yourself and say gosh that's not what you meant?
Woodward (very sarcastic): gosh, that's not what I meant.
Woodward (very sarcastic): gosh, that's not what I meant.
October 30, 2026 at 4:37 PM
If a pro se litigant did this they would be immediately warned for contempt
Another suit bites the dust. Why don't they label this asshole a frivolous litigant?
November 1, 2026 at 6:00 AM
Another suit bites the dust. Why don't they label this asshole a frivolous litigant?
There should be a point at which she gets taken to court as a vexatious litigant who is wasting NHS funds, and funds of groups like the RCN who have better things to be doing than fending of crank obsessives.
November 4, 2026 at 11:25 AM
There should be a point at which she gets taken to court as a vexatious litigant who is wasting NHS funds, and funds of groups like the RCN who have better things to be doing than fending of crank obsessives.
At what point does the DoJ get declared a vexatious litigant?
(Kidding-not-kidding.)
(Kidding-not-kidding.)
Just in: Chief Judge Boasberg flat rejects DOJ's attempt to argue plaintiffs violated order in handling list of alleged 20,000 "noncitizens."
"No violation of the Court's Order occurred here."
case: Trujillo/Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v DHS
"No violation of the Court's Order occurred here."
case: Trujillo/Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v DHS
November 3, 2026 at 5:23 PM
At what point does the DoJ get declared a vexatious litigant?
(Kidding-not-kidding.)
(Kidding-not-kidding.)
"DOJ becomes vexatious litigant" *actually was* on my bingo card; what wasn't was seeing judges so generally and consistently treat it is such.
November 2, 2026 at 1:14 PM
"DOJ becomes vexatious litigant" *actually was* on my bingo card; what wasn't was seeing judges so generally and consistently treat it is such.
In a sane world, he would be deemed a vexatious litigant and barred from ever filing any lawsuit without prior court permission.
November 1, 2026 at 2:58 AM
In a sane world, he would be deemed a vexatious litigant and barred from ever filing any lawsuit without prior court permission.
Indeed.
I have seen cases where existing criteria did stop a dodgy judge outright failing a claim but the judge made their displeasure known and was incredibly aggressive to a reasonable, well prepared and justified litigant in person claimant throughout.
It also creates an appeal culture.
I have seen cases where existing criteria did stop a dodgy judge outright failing a claim but the judge made their displeasure known and was incredibly aggressive to a reasonable, well prepared and justified litigant in person claimant throughout.
It also creates an appeal culture.
November 4, 2026 at 4:26 PM
Indeed.
I have seen cases where existing criteria did stop a dodgy judge outright failing a claim but the judge made their displeasure known and was incredibly aggressive to a reasonable, well prepared and justified litigant in person claimant throughout.
It also creates an appeal culture.
I have seen cases where existing criteria did stop a dodgy judge outright failing a claim but the judge made their displeasure known and was incredibly aggressive to a reasonable, well prepared and justified litigant in person claimant throughout.
It also creates an appeal culture.
From the point-of-view of the 5th Circuit, instructing a litigant that they filed the wrong claim and should have filed a Bivens claim is like telling them they should have simply located a genie and wished for freedom
November 2, 2026 at 6:49 PM
From the point-of-view of the 5th Circuit, instructing a litigant that they filed the wrong claim and should have filed a Bivens claim is like telling them they should have simply located a genie and wished for freedom
Officially registered for the 2027 Cherry Blossom 10 miler! (I ran my 10th race last year, giving me skip-the-lottery guaranteed admission forever more)
Does this give me standing as a litigant to sue for them tearing up Hains Point (on which the race route runs)?
Does this give me standing as a litigant to sue for them tearing up Hains Point (on which the race route runs)?
November 2, 2026 at 5:01 PM
Officially registered for the 2027 Cherry Blossom 10 miler! (I ran my 10th race last year, giving me skip-the-lottery guaranteed admission forever more)
Does this give me standing as a litigant to sue for them tearing up Hains Point (on which the race route runs)?
Does this give me standing as a litigant to sue for them tearing up Hains Point (on which the race route runs)?
Ya know, for being such a vexatious litigant, trump doesn't seem to be suing anyone for calling him a pedophile.
November 2, 2026 at 12:33 AM
Ya know, for being such a vexatious litigant, trump doesn't seem to be suing anyone for calling him a pedophile.
Declare him a vexatious litigant and be done with him!
November 1, 2026 at 2:04 AM
Declare him a vexatious litigant and be done with him!
If you’re gonna tell a litigant his only recourse is Bivens, you ought to be vouching for the vitality of Bivens..
November 3, 2026 at 1:45 PM
If you’re gonna tell a litigant his only recourse is Bivens, you ought to be vouching for the vitality of Bivens..
The point of judicial ethics is to reassure a litigant that the jurist will not rule based on something other than the law. Publishing an argument in a theocratic journal that the nondenominational constitution is actually best interpreted through a theocratic lens hardly does that
November 2, 2026 at 2:40 PM
The point of judicial ethics is to reassure a litigant that the jurist will not rule based on something other than the law. Publishing an argument in a theocratic journal that the nondenominational constitution is actually best interpreted through a theocratic lens hardly does that
The Trump Justice Department is… I believe the term is a vexatious litigant. It needs to face consequences for wasting the courts’ time and our money.
www.nytimes.com/2026/11/02/u...
www.nytimes.com/2026/11/02/u...
Supreme Court Rejects Trump Administration Request to Intervene in California Ballot Case
The court’s ruling came just hours after administration lawyers asked the justices to immediately order California to set aside 20,000 mail-in ballots.
www.nytimes.com
November 2, 2026 at 11:43 PM
The Trump Justice Department is… I believe the term is a vexatious litigant. It needs to face consequences for wasting the courts’ time and our money.
www.nytimes.com/2026/11/02/u...
www.nytimes.com/2026/11/02/u...
Chat, is it good when Judge Kasubhai opens his ruling with a quote from @timothysnyder.bsky.social 's "On Tyranny" and closes it out with this:
![The presumption of regularity directs the courts to assume, unless clear evidence indicates differently, that government officials have properly discharged their duties, acted in good faith and followed required procedures. This presumption no longer holds for Defendants. The evidence in this case proves as much. Defendants are held to the same expectation as any other litigant before this Court. One must earn credibility by acting with integrity.
Until that credibility is earned, it is hereby ORDERED [18]:](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:tisp66r56nphvvy3fp5k7cam/bafkreidwynves25lbxjdhaq25wbsaq2v46jerfvw5idsroppy2gigubzji)
November 2, 2026 at 7:40 PM
Chat, is it good when Judge Kasubhai opens his ruling with a quote from @timothysnyder.bsky.social 's "On Tyranny" and closes it out with this:
Yeah, man it‘s a cruel joke to tell a litigant “that door is locked. Here, you should have used this door that we have also locked”
November 3, 2026 at 1:45 PM
Yeah, man it‘s a cruel joke to tell a litigant “that door is locked. Here, you should have used this door that we have also locked”
Vexatious litigant proceedings are AG-only things and I can’t see this or any likely government agreeing that Sex Matters should be one.
November 3, 2026 at 12:23 AM
Vexatious litigant proceedings are AG-only things and I can’t see this or any likely government agreeing that Sex Matters should be one.
Vexatious litigant.
October 31, 2026 at 11:17 PM
Vexatious litigant.
This isn’t a notice of appeal, which must notice _an appeal_. This is the most sophisticated litigant in the United States (snort, chuckle, giggle). We give them the respect of taking their filings exactly as they are.
November 2, 2026 at 12:43 AM
This isn’t a notice of appeal, which must notice _an appeal_. This is the most sophisticated litigant in the United States (snort, chuckle, giggle). We give them the respect of taking their filings exactly as they are.
“In addition, Mr. Trump is a vexatious litigant and a chucklehead in general.”
"Mr. Trump’s allegations “are conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the article, and often irrelevant” to his malice claim, Judge Gayles said. The dismissal with prejudice means Mr. Trump cannot file it again, though a spokesman for the President said he would appeal Judge Gayles’s ruling."
WSJ editorial board weighs in on the court throwing out Trump's lawsuit against the paper: "He failed in this case because the Journal didn’t roll over. A free press requires owners who back editors, and we couldn’t do what we do without that support." www.wsj.com/opinion/trum...
November 3, 2026 at 3:31 AM
“In addition, Mr. Trump is a vexatious litigant and a chucklehead in general.”
A super en banc hearing of the 9th Circuit... that circuit has something like 29 judges on it and normally only 11 (randomly selected) hear an en banc request. A litigant can request a super en banc hearing (all 29) and THAT is what has never happened
November 3, 2026 at 11:32 PM
A super en banc hearing of the 9th Circuit... that circuit has something like 29 judges on it and normally only 11 (randomly selected) hear an en banc request. A litigant can request a super en banc hearing (all 29) and THAT is what has never happened
The judge said that Miller's lawyer, Sandy T. Fox, would be furious if an opposing litigant used the same tactics against him and his clients.
Then, the judge ordered that the information be filed under oath within four days.
That will be only 12 days before trial.
Then, the judge ordered that the information be filed under oath within four days.
That will be only 12 days before trial.
October 30, 2026 at 2:09 PM
The judge said that Miller's lawyer, Sandy T. Fox, would be furious if an opposing litigant used the same tactics against him and his clients.
Then, the judge ordered that the information be filed under oath within four days.
That will be only 12 days before trial.
Then, the judge ordered that the information be filed under oath within four days.
That will be only 12 days before trial.