Talk:Vexatious litigation

message: Recently I added the text of the judgment in Grepe v Loam to the Vexatious_Litigant website - someone might like to link it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.101.224 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Removed the following line:
"It can last for years as in Varian v. Delfino, a case that ended in the California Supreme Court.  "
kmccoy (talk) 08:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Varian text 

message: in propria persona occurs three times; if it has an English equivalent, use that.  If it's a special and useful term it should have its own entry.  If it's a one-shot special term it should be explained parenthetically after its first usage.  --AC 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  in propria persona 

message: Why was the Cleanup template added? The article is not great but it's workable.Cutler 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Does this exist in other part of the United States besides California?  Having the article mention a lawsuit in Washington DC seems to imply that it does exist in other parts of the US, but the "Law by jurisdiction" section seems to imply otherwise.Ricree101 (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: Cleaned up and completed discussion of California law, and added a discussion on Controversies.
-- I clarified that the California vexatious litigant standard applies to pro-se, or self-represented, litigants only.  The use of Latin in the definition needed clarification.  Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to make a separate subheading for this.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't apply only to pro se.  The first three do, but the fourth (filing a suit on the same subject matter for which the litigant has been declared vexatious in another jurisdiction) does not. TJRC (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's technically true, but not very helpful.  There is no further explanation or discussion of the 4th category in the body of the article.  It doesn't seem to be a large category of people.  Unless you've already been found to be a vexatious litigant elsewhere, you can't be declared a vexatious litigant in California unless you're appearing pro se.  Furthermore, the way the California section of the article is structured is extremely difficult to understand at a glance -- there is a heading and then a statutory citation that is cumbersome at best.  I thought that it would be helpful to emphasize the otherwise-mostly-ignored-by-the-article role that pro se plays in the California vexatious litigant statute.  It's nice that you linked to the pro se article but I still think it would be appropriate to mention pro se in this article.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean by "not very helpful."  Misinformation is less helpful.  I added a clause on the intro to clarify that most cases of vexations litigation require pro se, and a short explanation of it.  I have to continue to disagree with including a statement that all vexatious litigants must be pro se, because that's just wrong. I agree the California section is, in general, in need of improvement.  It looks like someone just dumped the text of the statute into the article.  I may take a stab at rewriting it into prose, if you don't get to it first. TJRC (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, of course, I didn't mean to be snarky.  I think it's a lot more clear now.  The reason I added it in the first place was because of a law review article I'd just read discussing how you need to be pro se to be vexatious under CA law.  But that's a definite oversimplification.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, it never occurred to me that you were being snarky; so don't worry about it.  TJRC (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  California Cleanup and Added Controversies Section 

message: The note does not show that the MENZIES, Rowan Gavin Paton listed by HM Court Service as a vexatious litigant is the same person as the author of  1421: The Year China Discovered the World. 84.23.155.88 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: seems different to me, I've moved the  entry from the article to here:
*Gavin Menzies, author of 1421: The Year China Discovered America.  User: RJFJR 09:39, December 23, 2009 
Here's a good secondary source: Goodman, David S. G. (2006). "Mao and The Da Vinci Code: Conspiracy, Narrative and History". The Pacific Review 19 (3): 359–384. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a757572630~frm=titlelink.  Jojalozzo 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MENZIES, Rowan Gavin Paton  

message: Is it the purpose of this section to list those VLs who are notable other than as VLs or it it to list those who are notable as VLs or both? Jojalozzo 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable vexatious litigants 

message: I don't think that the link from this article to Liebeck v. McDonalds, in the "see also" section, is appropriate or helpful.  While I know that some people assert (in my view, incorrectly, but that's not relevant) that that case is an example of frivolous litigation, I don't think there's any reason to characterize Ms Liebeck as a vexatious litigant.  The article certainly doesn't mention any other cases she's brought.
Does anyone object to me removing this link?  AgnosticAphid talk 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not, so here goes!  AgnosticAphid talk 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  see also Liebeck v McDonalds 

message: Red.com vs Epic Games 8:2008-cv-00494 
Red.con vs LG Electric 8:2008-cv-00504 
Red.com vs Netcast 8:2008-cv-01030 
Red.com vs Sony 8:2013-cv-00546 
Red.com vs Andrew Reid 8:2010-cv-01505 
Red.com vs p Pixellexis 8:2011-cv-01155 
Red.com vs Arri 8:2011-cv-01972 
Red.com vs Tom Jordan 8:2012-cv-00380 
Red.com vs Uniqoptics 2:2011-cv-03611 
Red.com vs Nightsky Hostings 8:2012-cv-00034 
Red.com vs Wooden Camera 3:2012-cv-01336 
Red.com vs 24P,LLC 8:2007-cv-01013
Would someone please look into Oakley, Inc. Same original owner. Same attorneys.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.12.184 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't do original research (or ought not to, anyway; sometimes it happens, but in those cases should be corrected) on Wikipedia.  If it's noted in other sources as a vexatious litigant, it can be noted here. TJRC (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Red.com as a notable vexatious litigant

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vexatious litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100822144857/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071107.wfabrikant1107/BNStory/National/home to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071107.wfabrikant1107/BNStory/National/home
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Vexatious litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110224005003/http://lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_vexlitstable to http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_vexlitstable#10
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721124946/http://www.jsijournal.ie/html/Volume%201%20No.%201/1%5B1%5D_Moore_Isaac%20Wunder%20Orders.pdf to http://www.jsijournal.ie/html/Volume%201%20No.%201/1%5B1%5D_Moore_Isaac%20Wunder%20Orders.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110606073745/http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc93573.pdf to http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc93573.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Vexatious claims include those where the claimant is themselves a notorious lawbreaker using litigation to subdue or harass opponents, especially those unable to match the claimant's legal funds. Clearly this needs to be referenced with established examples - can someone please help me here?--Richard Comaish (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Vexatiousness' is not just about frivolous claims 

message: In the current WP:LEAD, the sentence , taken in the context of the sentence that follows it, seems to say, without saying so explicitly, that vexatious litigation only occurs in common law countries. This is highly dubious, because unreasonable people exist all over the world. Probably the intended meaning is . If there are any reasons against changing to , then please state them. Boud (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is trying to say that the specific phrase "vexatious legislation" is used in common law countries? Anyway, I agree that is confusing and possibly incorrect. I'm not sure whether we need that paragraph in the lead at all. Your change would still leave it saying  and I'm not even sure that that is correct. Should we remove the whole paragraph?DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious