1. Litigiousness or Numerosity of Litigations Alone is Insufficient to Support the Determination that a Self-Represented Party is a Vexatious Litigant. The California Legislature's Mandate to the Courts at CCP § 391(b)(1) to Require that the Courts Make Such a Determination Absent Other Qualifying Criteria Usurps the Court's Core Inherent Authority and Independence to Make Judicial Decisions "To Do Justice" which Violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Isn't it true that the California Legislature's unconstitutional usurpation of judicial power to impose under statute strict sanctioning criteria restricting a litigant's right of petition and access to the Courts based on numerosity of litigation criteria alone especially where the cases considered include those adjudicated in the federal district and circuit courts an unconstitutional violation of fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution?

2. The Multiple Federal Appellate Circuits Have Established Uniformity in the Precedential Case Law Decisions Concerning the Sanctioning of Access to the Courts for Pro Se Litigants which has Found that Such Sanctioning Represents the "Exception to the General Rule of Free Access to the Courts" which, If Instituted Must be "Narrowly Tailored". Isn't it true that the California Vexatious Litigant Statute's Abject Failure to Follow the Cautious and Conservative Approach Directed by those Federal Appellate Case Precedents which have Served to Create a Requisite Minimum Federal Standard an Unconstitutional Violation Under the Fourteenth Amendment due to the Statutes Permissive and Broad Infringement upon the Fundamental U.S. Constitutional Right of Petition and Access to the Courts?

3. The Separation of Powers Doctrine Found in the California Constitution at Article III, Section 3 Defines a System of Three Branches Legislative, Executive and Judicial which are to be "Kept Largely Separate". Isn't it True that the California Vexatious Litigant Statute CCP 391-391.8 in which the Legislature has Arrogated Critically Important Core Functions of the California Judicial Branch so as to Undermine the Independence and Essential Powers of those Courts an Unconstitutional Violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine Due to the Multiple Provisions Contained Within the Statute Which have Rigidly Imposed Strict Definitions of Vexatious Conduct and Experience Upon the Court which Fully Undermine the Critical Core Functions and Disregard the Independent judgment of the California Judiciary which permits it Core Function "To Do Justice"?

4. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Prohibits the Deprivation by the Many States of Life, Liberty or Property Without Due Process of Law. The Evidence Presented in this Case Provided Irrefutable Confirmation that the California Vexatious Litigant Statute (CCP § 391-391.8 Infringes Upon the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment Right of Petition which Imposes a Minimum Standard that the California Statutes and California Courts Must Maintain. Furthermore, the California Statute Deprives Self-Represented Litigants of the More Expansive Right of Petition Provided Under the California Constitution as Recognized to Exist by the

Whether the California Vexatious Litigant Statute unconstitutionally violates due process and separation of powers by restricting pro se litigants' access to courts based solely on litigation numerosity