Saturday, 16 June 2012


The End of the beginning-abortionist

 (This is an abortion of an 8 weeks fetus.) this is what you do.
Sometimes the beginning ends before it even starts.
Killed in the fetus itself.
Entangled worlds colliding,
In a wombs space warps.
Tumbles and drowned, ejected self.

So many debates and bills,
In fraction of seconds killed.
Soul on probates still,
waiting in the corridor mills.

To grind, to be hooked,
Never mind scorching soul.
Appointments booked,
They gonna wipe it from the book.

And it comes out,
A he a she?
Without a form,
with a surprised smile,
crushed scorching gnome.

looking with a deformed eye,
Your black and white deed.
It cursed you when you denied,
Always when you plead.

Incestual love its a solution,
Rape its a solution,
but never will it be a solution,
when you agreed,
then when you don't it,
you took a resolution,
to discard it.

To vote or not to vote,
Religion still.
Standing between,
like an Armour of pain.

So many evil are out there,
Religious or not, you got raped.
So religions must abide, in exceptional case,
To abort,
 to escape
terminate, whats living inside.
What is not yours.

So, the conclusion is consent.
When you consent, you keep.

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Joey's Childhood-Comic Strips. Created by Sykes.

Please visit. my comic strips at:


Tuesday, 22 May 2012

9 Extraordinary Human Abilities

This list of extraordinary human abilities was inspired The Top 10 Tips to Improve Your Memory when I began thinking about how some people are blessed (or cursed, depending on your point of view) with the ability to recall a scene as if they were looking at a photograph. And how other people can recreate music from memory, such as Mozart’s famed reproduction of Gregorio Allegri’s Miserere after one hearing. What other extraordinary abilities might humans have? I’ve listed nine of the most well understood (i.e. not paranormal or ‘fringe science’) and interesting abilities rated from most common to most interesting and rare. Bear in mind that most of these unusual abilities are genetic and cannot be controlled by the person affected but are an inherent quality of their physical self.



People who experience taste with greater intensity than the rest of the population are called supertasters. Having extra fungiform papillae (the mushroom shaped bumps on the tongue that are covered in taste buds) is thought to be the reason why these people have a stronger response to the sensation of taste. Of the five types of taste, sweet, salty, bitter, sour, and umami, a supertaster generally finds bitterness to be the most perceptible.
Scientists first noticed the differing abilities of people to taste a known compound when a DuPont chemist called Arthur Fox asked people to taste Phenylthiocarbamide (PTC). Some people could taste its bitterness; some couldn’t – whether people could depended on their genetic make-up (a variant of this test is now one of the most common genetic tests on humans). While about 70% of people can taste PTC, two thirds of them are rated as medium and only one third (approximately 25% of the wider population) are supertasters.
Supertasters will often dislike certain foods, particularly bitter ones, such as brussel sprouts, cabbage, coffee, and grapefruit juice. Women, Asians, and Africans are most likely to have the increased number of fungiform papillae that make them supertasters.

8. Absolute pitch

People with absolute pitch are capable of identifying and reproducing a tone without needing a known reference. It is not simply a better ability to hear but the ability to mentally class sounds into remembered categories. Examples of this include identifying the pitch of everyday noises (e.g. horns, sirens, and engines), being able to sing a named note without hearing a reference, naming the tones of a chord, or naming the key signature of a song. Doing any of these is a cognitive act – it requires one to remember the frequency of each tone, be able to label it (e.g. ‘A’, ‘C#’, or ‘F-flat’), and sufficient exposure to the range of sound within each label. Opinions vary as to whether absolute pitch is genetic or a learned ability that is strongly influenced to one’s exposure to music at crucial developmental stages – much like how a child’s ability to identify colors by their frequency depends on the type and level of their exposure to it.
Estimates of the portion of the population having absolute pitch range from 3% of the general population in the US and Europe to 8% of those (from the same areas) who are semi-professional or professional musicians. In music conservatories in Japan however, about 70% of musicians have absolute pitch. Part of the reason for this significantly larger percentage may be because absolute pitch is more common among people who grew up in a tonal (Mandarin, Cantonese, and Vietnamese) or pitch accent (Japanese) language environment. Absolute pitch is also more common in those who are blind from birth, have William’s Syndrome, or have an autism spectrum disorder.

7. Tetrachromacy

Featherly Colors 
Tetrachromacy is the ability to see light from four distinct sources. An example of this in the animal kingdom is the zebrafish (Danio rerio), which can see light from the red, green, blue, and ultraviolet sections of the light spectrum. True tetrachromacy in humans is much rarer however – according to Wikipedia only two possible tetrachromats have been identified.
Humans are normally trichromats, having three types of cone cells that receive light from either the red, green, or blue part of the light spectrum. Each cone can pick up about 100 graduations of color and the brain combines colors and graduations so that there are about 1 million distinguishable hues coloring your world. A true tetrachromat with an extra type of cone between red and green (in the orange range) would, theoretically, be able to perceive 100 million colors.
Like supertasting, tetrachromacy is thought to be much more common in women than men – estimates range from 2 – 3% to 50% of women. Interestingly, colour-blindness in men (much more common than in women) may be inherited from women with tetrachromacy.

6. Echolocation

Echolocation is how bats fly around in dark forests – they emit a sound, wait for the echo to return, and use that sound of the echo in each ear plus the return time to work out where an object is and how far away. Surprisingly (well, maybe not on this list!), humans are also capable of using echolocation. Use of echolocation is probably restricted to blind people because it takes a long time to master and heightened sensitivity to reflected sound.
To navigate via echolocation a person actively creates a noise (e.g. tapping a cane or clicking the tongue) and determines from the echoes where objects are located around them. People skilled at this can often tell where an object is, what size it is, and its density. Because humans cannot make or hear the higher pitched frequencies that bats and dolphins use they can only picture objects that are comparatively larger than those ‘seen’ by echolocating animals.
People with the ability to echolocate include James Holman, Daniel Kish, and Ben Underwood. Perhaps the most remarkable and well-documented of cases is the story of Ben Underwood, who lost both his eyes to retinal cancer at the age of three. He is shown in the video above (warning: the scene where he puts in his prosthetic eyeballs may be a bit disturbing for some).

 5. Genetic Chimerism

Dna 500

In the Iliad Homer described a creature having body parts from different animals, a chimera, from this mythological monster comes the name of the genetic equivalent – chimerism. Genetic chimerism, or tetragametism, in humans and other animals happens when two fertilized eggs or embryos fuse together early in pregnancy. Each zygote carries a copy of its parents DNA and thus a distinct genetic profile. When these merge, each population of cells retains its genetic character and the resulting embryo becomes a mixture of both. Essentially, a human chimera is their own twin.
Chimerism in humans is very rare; Wikipedia states that there are only about 40 reported cases. DNA testing is often used to establish whether a person is biologically related to their parents or children and can uncover cases of chimerism when DNA results show that children are not biologically related to their mothers – because the child inherited a different DNA profile to the one shown by a blood test. This is what happened in the case of Lydia Fairchild: DNA tests of herself and her children led the state to think that she was not actually their mother.
People born with chimerism typically have immune systems that make them tolerant to both genetically distinct populations of cells in their body. This means that a chimera has a much wider array of people to choose from should they need an organ transplant.

 4. Synesthesia
Imagine consistently associating numbers or letters with certain colours, or hearing a specific word which triggers a particular sensation of taste on your tongue. These are two forms of a neurological condition called synesthesia. Synesthesia is when stimulation of a particular sensory or cognitive pathway leads to an involuntary (i.e. synesthesia is not learnt) response in other sensory or cognitive pathways.
Synesthesia is most often genetic and the grapheme (letters, numbers, or other symbols) to colour form of synesthesia is the commonest. Other synesthetes can experience special-sequence synesthesia (e.g. where dates have a precise location in space), ordinal linguistic personification (when numbers have personalities), or sound to colour synesthesia (where tones are perceived as colours).
Although synesthesia is a neurological condition it shouldn’t be thought of as a disorder, because generally it does not interfere with a person’s ability to function. Most people are not even aware that their experiences of life elicit more sensory responses than other peoples might and the ones that are rarely consider synesthesia to have a negative impact on their lives.
Predictions of the percentage of people with synesthesia vary widely, from 1 in 20 to 1 in 20,000. Studies from 2005 and 2006, using a random population sample, suggested 1 in about 23 people have synesthesia. Examples of people with synesthesia include the author Vladimir Nabokov, composer Olivier Messiaen, and scientist Richard Feynman. Daniel Tammet, who is mentioned in the next section of this list, is a synesthete (in addition to being a mental calculator) who sees numbers with shapes and texture.

 3.Mental calculators

The most extraordinary group of people adept at performing complex mental calculations is those who are also autistic savants. While there are many trained people who can work out multiplications of large numbers (among other calculations) in their head extremely fast – mostly mathematicians, writers, and linguists – the untrained ability of autistic savants is the most interesting. The majority of these people are born with savant syndrome (only an estimated 50% of people with savantism are also autistic), which is still poorly understood, few develop it later in life, usually due to a head injury.
There are less than 100 recognised prodigious savants in the world and of the savants with autism who are capable of using mental calculation techniques there are even less. Recent research has suggested that a blood flow to the part of the brain responsible for mathematical calculations of six to seven times the normal rate is one of the factors that enables mental calculators to work out math much faster than the average person.
Examples of people with extraordinary calculation skills include Daniel McCartney, Salo Finkelstein, and Alexander Aitken. Daniel Tammet is one of few who are also autistic savants.

 2.Eidetic memory

 When a person has photographic memory or total recall this is called eidetic memory. It is the ability to recall sounds, images, or objects from one’s memory with extreme accuracy. Examples of eidetic memory include the effort of Akira Haraguchi who recited from memory the first 100,000 decimal places of pi and the drawings of Stephen Wiltshire (who is also an autistic savant) – his recreation of Rome is shown in the video above. Kim Peek, the inspiration for the autistic (Peek is not actually autistic though) character of Raymond Babbit in the movie Rainman, also possesses eidetic memory – among other things he can recall some 12,000 books from memory.
Whether true photographic memory exists in adults is still a controversial issue, but it is accepted that eidetic abilities are distributed evenly between men and women. One also cannot become an eidetiker through practice.

 1.Immortal cells

There is only one known case of a person having immortal cells (cells that can divide indefinitely outside of the human body, defying the Hayflick Limit) and that is of a woman named Henrietta Lacks. In 1951, 31 year old Henrietta Lacks was diagnosed with cervical cancer, which she died from within the year. Unknown to her and her family (i.e. without informed consent) a surgeon took a tissue sample from her tumor that was passed on to a Dr. George Gey. A scientist for the John Hopkins University Tissue Culture Laboratory, Gey propagated Lacks’ tissue sample into an immortal cell line – the HeLa cell line (pictured above). The cells from Lacks’ tumour have an active version of the telomerase enzyme (telomerase is the mechanism by which cells age or are aged) and proliferate abnormally fast. On the day of Henrietta Lacks’ death, Dr. Gey announced to the world that a new age in medical research had begun – one that might provide a cure for cancer.
HeLa cells were utilised in 1954 by Jonas Salk to develop the cure for polio. Since then they’ve been used in researching cancer, AIDS, the effects of radiation and toxic substances, and for mapping genes, among other things.
Today, the HeLa cells are so common in laboratories that they contaminate many other cell cultures and have rendered some biological studies invalid through their presence. There are also more HeLa cells alive today than when Henrietta Lacks was alive – they outweigh her physical mass by many times. Tragically, Lacks was never told of the immensely valuable contribution her cells made to science and her family was not informed until many years later that her cells were being used for research purposes (a 1990 court ruling later verified Lacks’ hospital as the owner of her discarded tissue and cells). I highly recommend reading this story for a better picture of Henrietta Lacks’ life and the consequences of her cancer.

Tracy's Law: Alabama State Bill Passed Regarding Stalking

In memory of Tracy Lynn Morris, who was brutally assaulted and murdered by Jason Michael Sharp after nearly two years of stalking her without breaking the law as currently defined, her brother, D. Brian Morris, proposed that the State of Alabama make a serious change to existing law within that state and that the state adopt a new law to combat stalking - known as “Tracy’s Law.”

According to her obituary, Tracy was living in Huntsville, Alabama at the time of the stalking, but she was a native of Portsmouth, Virginia and had lived in Madison County since 1981. She was employed with Dunlop Tires and Decatur General Hospital. She was just 33 years old when she brutally murdered by Sharp on January 2, 1999.

Sharp was arrested on Jan. 15, 1999 for the murder-rape of Tracy Lynn Morris. In 2006, Jason Michael Sharp was convicted.

The Crime
Jason Sharp – white, age 21
Sentenced to death in Madison County, Alabama
By: A judge, after an 11-1 recommendation of death by a jury
Date of crime: Jan. 2, 1999
Prosecution’s case/defense response: Sharp was convicted of the rape and murder of Tracy Lynn Morris. Morris was stabbed 37 times by a screwdriver and beaten to death in her bedroom. Semen on her thigh and on the carpet identified Jason Sharp. The defense said that evidence of sexual intercourse did not prove that Sharp raped and murdered the victim. Defense also presented mitigating evidence included that Sharp was abandoned as an infant, was abused by his mother’s boyfriends, and having little criminal history. A mitigation specialist also provided testimony of how Sharp was dropped on his head at eight months old, and the resulting skull fracture caused emotional development.
Prosecutor(s): Robert Broussard, Randy Dill
Defense lawyer(s): Alan Mann, Barry Abston
Sources: Huntsville Times 8/30/06, 9/14/06, 9/15/06

The most pathetic and saddening (shocking actually) part of this story is that in December 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court overturned his conviction based on the (excuse) that the Madison County District Attorney's Office struck too many black jurors from the jury pool, leaving only one black on Jason Michael Sharp's jury. Read the story here.

Her brother Brian, who served on the Huntsville Police Department for seven years, wrote to the judges on their (retarded) decision to overturn Sharps conviction, saying:

"Sharp is a white man who killed a white woman, and I am completely stunned that this confessed, murdering, sodomizing, torturing, rapist actually gets to play a "black race card" that he doesn't hold, and YOU bought it!

"I'm absolutely dumbstruck."

Read more about the familys reaction here.

Good on Brian Morris for deciding to take action and do something about his sisters brutal murder. Option: make changes to the existing laws in Alabama. Working in the law enforcement field firsthand, and likely seeing the failings of the judicial system in protecting his sister (very disheartening for anyone to experience, let alone a police officer), Brian set out to write a letter to his representatives to make a new law to help stalking victims. (Read his proposal here.)

Brian also started a website - Stop My Stalker - therefore I urge you to support Brian as what he is doing (and has done already) will change stalking laws around the world (and perhaps the backwards mentality of the policing and justice systems).

The Law Surrounding Stalking in Alabama
Alabama currently has laws defining felonious Stalking and Aggravated Stalking (Codes of Ala. § 13A-6-90 and 13A-6-91) and they do recognize that lesser offenses occur far more frequently - over longer periods of time - thus resulting in the continuous harassment, invasion of privacy, and psychological abuse of victims. Thus it often leads to the greater felonious offenses against them (physical assault, property damage, murder, etc.).

So Brian proposed that a new, lesser-included offense for Second Degree Stalking, a Class B Misdemeanor, be defined and added to the State Criminal Code of Alabama under 13A-6-90.

Why Stalkers Get Away With So Much
No matter what state or country you reside in the world, it is obvious that no laws exist to stop stalking in the perceived “harmless” stages, and victims are increasingly frustrated with the inability of law enforcement to act in the absence of said laws.

In Tracy’s case, Mr. Sharp – believing that he was “in love” – often drove by her home, knocked on her door at all hours, left many unwanted gifts, cards, flowers, etc., and made many advances toward Tracy even though she had repeatedly told him to stop and leave her alone.

She had no recourse, even though he had a long-established history of said activities before he killed her. In essence, his first criminal act after nearly two years of stalking her was to beat, rape, sodomize, and murder her on January 2, 1999 – stabbing her 37 times with a screwdriver. None of his prior activities were prosecutable offences under the current law.

This is so much the same reality for thousands of stalking victims around the world.

Changing the Law
Brian explained that clearly a new law was needed to help victims take action against stalkers before they turn violent. Tracy’s Law provides a much-needed instrument in law enforcement, enabling the prosecution of stalkers for lesser-included offences. Such prosecutions will serve to remind offenders that their behavior is as inappropriate as it is illegal and they should stop before it climaxes in an act of violence. The ultimate result will save lives.

This bill would designate the existing crime of stalking as stalking in the first degree and the existing crime of aggravated stalking as aggravated stalking in the first degree. And would provide for the crime of stalking in the second degree classified as a Class B misdemeanor and for the crime of aggravated stalking in the second degree classified as a Class C felony.

Sources: Proposal, First Reading of Bill (March 11, 2011)

To amend Sections 13A-6-90 and 13A-6-91 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to designate the crimes of stalking and aggravated stalking in the first degree; to add Sections 13A-6-90.1 and 13A-6-91.1 to the Code of Alabama 1975, to provide for the crimes of stalking and aggravated stalking in the second degree and in connection therewith would have as its purpose or effect the requirement of a new or increased expenditure of local funds within the meaning of Amendment 621 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 111.05 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended.

Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as "Tracy's Law."

Section 2. Sections 13A-6-90 and 13A-6-91 of the Code of Alabama 1975, are amended to read as follows:

(a) A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking in the first degree.

(b) The crime of stalking in the first degree is a Class C felony.

(a) A person who violates the provisions of Section 13A-6-90(a) and whose conduct in doing so also violates any court order or injunction is guilty of the crime of aggravated stalking in the first degree.

(b) The crime of aggravated stalking in the first degree is a Class B felony.

Section 3. Sections 13A-6-90.1 and 13A-6-91.1 are added to Chapter 6 of Title 13A of the Code of Alabama 1975, to read as follows:

(a) A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows, harasses, telephones, or initiates communication, verbally, electronically, or otherwise, with another person, any member of the other person's immediate family, or any third party with whom the other person is acquainted, and causes material harm to the mental or emotional health of the other person, or causes such person to reasonably fear that his or her employment, business, or career is threatened, and the perpetrator was previously informed to cease that conduct is guilty of the crime of stalking in the second degree.

(b) The crime of stalking in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.

(a) A person who violates the provisions of Section 13A-6-90.1 and whose conduct in doing so also violates any court order or injunction is guilty of the crime of aggravated stalking in the second degree.

(b) The crime of aggravated stalking in the second degree is a Class C felony.

Section 4. Although this bill would have as its purpose or effect the requirement of a new or increased expenditure of local funds, the bill is excluded from further requirements and application under Amendment 621, now appearing as Section 111.05 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, because the bill defines a new crime or amends the definition of an existing crime.

Section 5. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

Passing of the Bill - A Success
On May 5th, 2011, Representative Mac McCutcheon presented Tracy's Law (HB 238) to the Alabama House of Representatives.

The bill passed through the house with a vote of 85 - 0 and now moves to the State Senate for approval. After that it will go to the Governor for signature into law (providing it passes through the Senate).

How to Deal with a Vexatious Litigant or Legal Bully

Vexatious litigants and legal bullies are those who engage in legal proceedings without having a legitimate claim. They use the judicial process to annoy, harass or financially punish others.

Vexatious litigants can have a significant effect on the efficient function of the judicial system. They place undue strain on the Courts’ time and resources, which prevents other legitimate claims from being dealt with efficiently. In addition, they force unnecessary stress and expense on those faced with a vexatious claim. Even if the claim is vexatious, the person the claim is made against must still defend the claim or risk losing the case by default.

Even more troubling is that people faced with a vexatious claim may end up settling the vexatious claim to avoid the added expense of defending the matter further.

Historically, those faced with a vexatious claim in Canada had to seek the Attorney General’s consent to bring an application to have a person declared a vexatious litigant before the court. In addition, in Provincial Court, where many litigants proceed without a lawyer and the potential for vexatious litigation is therefore high, those who sought such an application had to do so in the Court of Queen’s Bench or Court of Appeal.

The laws have been changing in Canada in how the justice system deals with vexatious litigation. For example, in 2007, Albertans gained a stronger stance against vexatious or frivolous claims brought against them thanks to the enactment of the Judicature Amendment Act, S.A. 2007, c. 21 by the Alberta Government on June 19, 2007. The Judicature Amendment Act amends the Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2, empowering the judiciary to deal more effectively with applications to have a person declared a vexations litigant.

The amendments have expanded the ability to hear vexatious litigant applications to all three levels of Court in Alberta: the Provincial Court, Court of Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal. In addition, the requirement of obtaining the Attorney General’s consent to make vexatious litigant applications has been removed and replaced with a requirement that the Attorney General be given notice of such applications.

The category of individuals able to bring forth vexatious litigant applications has also been broadened. A vexatious litigant application can be made by a party to vexatious proceedings, a clerk of the Court or the Minister of Justice and Attorney General or, with leave of the Court, any other person.

Previously, in order to be successful in having someone declared a vexatious litigant, the applicant had to rely on common law definitions of vexatious litigation and prove to the court that it was “plain and obvious” or “beyond a doubt” that the claim has no cause of action and that allowing the action to proceed would amount to an abuse of process. This has been clarified by the amendments. A non-exhaustive list of factors that the courts may use as a guide to determine what constitutes vexatious behaviour has been outlined. Vexatious behaviour includes but is not limited to:

Persistently bringing proceedings to determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction;

• Persistently bringing proceedings that cannot succeed or that have no reasonable expectation of providing relief;

• Persistently bringing proceedings for improper purposes;

• Inappropriately using previously raised grounds and issues in subsequent proceedings;

• Persistently failing to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings on the part of the person who commenced those proceedings;

• Persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions;

• Persistently engaging in inappropriate courtroom behaviour.

The amendments allow the judiciary to deal with those placing undue strain and burden on the judicial system, without limiting access to those with legitimate claims. Individuals who file claims without merit or behave unreasonably in furthering their claim can be dealt with by the courts in a more efficient manner, allowing for court time and resources to be devoted to addressing legitimate claims.

Vexatious litigation may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action, or already decided upon.

A single action, even a frivolous one, is not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious, though repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.

Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in the abuse, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and therefore represent themselves in court. Those on the list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions.

Under the Constitution Act of 1867, Section 92, each province is vested with the power to enact and apply laws relating to the administration of justice within its own territory.

In Canada, Section 40 of the Federal Court Act, and in Ontario Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, restrict the ability to introduce or continue proceedings for those who have instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner.

United States
As an example, under California law, a vexatious litigant is someone who does any of the following, most of which require that the litigant be proceeding pro se, i.e., representing himself:

1. In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been:
(i) finally determined adversely to the person; or,
(ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.

2. After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i)the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.

3. In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

4. Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence.

Appeals of an existing action do not count as “final determinations”. Appeals and writs that are related to a current action do not count as “final determinations” or additional determinations, because until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted the determinations cannot be construed as “final”. A judgment is final for all purposes when all avenues for direct review have been exhausted. Interlocutory decisions before a judgment cannot be considered “final determinations”. Docket lists show nothing about qualifying merit of interim motions.

To meet the unspecified criteria for "repeated" motions or litigations, the number must be much more than two, and the rule based on case law seems to be around 12. While there is no bright line rule as to what constitutes “repeatedly,” most cases affirming the vexatious litigant designation involve situations where litigants have filed dozens of motions either during the pendency of an action or relating to the same judgment.

Repeated motions must be "so devoid of merit and be so frivolous that they can be described as a flagrant abuse of the system, have no reasonable probability of success, lack reasonable or probable cause or excuse, and are clearly meant to abuse the processes of the courts and to harass the adverse party than other litigants." Evidence that a litigant is a frequent plaintiff or defendant alone is insufficient to support a vexatious litigant designation. The moving party, in addition to demonstrating that the plaintiff is vexatious, must make an affirmative showing based on evidence that the case has little chance of prevailing on the merits. If the plaintiff is so determined, a bond may be required, and if the bond requirement is not met within a specified time period, a judgment of dismissal is ordered. A finding of vexatiousness is not an appealable order, but a dismissal for failure to post a bond requirement based on a judgment of vexatiousness is appealable.

Habeas petitions do not count towards vexatious litigant determination. Vexatiousness in Probate Actions are governed by a different standard (Cal. Prob. Code s. 1611).

To understand more about vexatious litigation and how to deal with it accordingly, read Vexatious Litigants and Unusually Persistent Complainants and Petitioners: From Querulous Paranoia to Querulous Behaviour by Paul E. Mullen, M.B.B.S., D.Sc. and Grant Lester M.B.B.S., M.M.E.D.

A burning head.


A burning head with strange thoughts.
Fiery red, juggling with deranged jokes.

To make truth known,
some eyebrows frown.

Still the road is long,
But I'm steady and strong.
I'm telling you what you already know.
I'm reaping what you once sowed.
But you will reap too.

Now, its time for you to eat,
Mouthful whatever the heat.
Keep your eyes open thou,
For humans can be your deadly friends or savior foe.

This is mankind.
This is where you live.
Abide to what you like.