In Orange County Superior Court case Reiner was determined to be a vexatious Plaintiff under CCP 391. The Court had reviewed and determined that 7 cases were statistically chosen with no review of the underlying cases as being frivolous, refiled or harassment. APPENDIX B2

Instead the court just counted the 7 cases and determined they were not resolved in Reiner 's favor because he had accepted a settlement and did not take each to trial. The Court ignored that a previous Orange County Superior Court Judge had reviewed these cases and determined that Reiner W how was your take a look at that WAS NOT a Vexatious litigant under CCP 391. The Court obviously had a prejudged decision and reverse engineered the opinion. Appellate court created a formulary and a "Constitutional Gordian Knot " that for computing the number of cases determined favorable under CCP 391 determined that all pro per cases have to be taken to trial and a favorable JUDICIAL ruling obtained for the pro per plaintiff from the court. Accepting a settlement by the Pro Per Plaintiff is considered a strike against the Pro Per Plaintiff. The Appellate Court in Appellate Case No. G058487 has "Weaponized " CCP 391 to allow large Corporations to stop Pro Per litigants (and small claims Plaintiffs ) from obtaining economic restitution. This formulary would appear to be contrary to the CCP 391 ethos to "clog" up the court calendar with frivolous cases. If a pro per Plaintiff receives a settlement offer that covers his economic loss, how could the Pro Per Plaintiff not accept that settlement? This is why there are mandatory settlement conferences. When the settlement has been disclosed to the Court, the court has never advised Pro Per Plaintiff that the case settlement court be a strike against the Pro Per Plaintiff for CCP 391 purposes. In several cases the Judge congratulated Reiner for settling the case. APPENDIX B1

Cox has offered Reiner a settlement which covers his economic loss but Reiner cannot accept this settlement because according to the Appellate court formulary Reiner must take this matter to a judicial conclusion or this case will count as a strike against Reiner under CCP391 . Cox has incurred more expenses than the settlement offers and has continued this case for more than two years. Reiner does believe this is how CCP 391 was intended to operate.

Whether the Orange County Superior Court erred in determining that Reiner was a vexatious plaintiff under CCP 391 without reviewing the underlying merits of the 7 cases cited as frivolous, refiled or harassment