Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Christopher Hadsell, Petitioner v. Catherine Isham

No.

EEE

Jn the Supreme Court of the United States

of PLR 2 No

IN RE ESTATE OF CHARLES HADSELL,

Deceased,

CHRISTOPHER HADSELL,

Petitioner,

-y-

CATHERINE ISHAM,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

o

Service on States’ and Territories’ Attorneys General

Sd

Christopher Hadsell

Petitioner In Propria Persona

9000 Crow Canyon Rd., S-399,

Danville, CA 94506

@ (925) 482-6502 e CJHadsellLaw@gmail.com

————

I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Are States’ Vexatious-Litigant Law (“States’ VL

Law”), and specifically, California’s Vexatious-

Litigant Law (“CA VL Law’, Cal. Code Civ. Proc.?

§§391-391.8), unconstitutional facially because they

do not involve an actual, compelling state interest, or

are not narrowly tailored?

2. Are States’ VL Law, and specifically CA VL Law,

unconstitutional as applied?

3. Is the Supreme Court of the United States’

(SCOTUS”) writ of certiorari process (“Writ

Process”) unconstitutional facially because it violates:

i) U.S. Const. art. III, §2, cl. 2 (“Congressional

Regulation of SCOTUS’), or ii) U.S. Const. amend. |

(“1st Amend.”).

4. Is SCOTUS’ Writ Process unconstitutional as

applied?

1 “States” includes the 50 States, D.C., and the 5 inhabited U.S.

Territories.

2 Subsequent references to the Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. will be

designated “CCP”.

i

Il. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner is Christopher Hadsell (“Hadsell”). He

was:

Petitioner in the Superior Court of California,

Contra Costa County (“Trial Court’).

Appellant in the Court of Appeal of the State of

California, First Appellate District, No Division

Assigned, (“1DCA”).

Petitioner in the Supreme Court of California

(“Cal. Sup. Ct.”).

Respondent is Catherine Isham (fka Porter, Howard,

Hadsell, “Isham”), real party in interest. Isham was:

Respondent in the Trial Court.

Respondent in the 1DCA.

Respondent in the Cal. Sup. Ct.

ill

III. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED .............:::eeeeeeeeees i

II. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ................. i

III. TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........:eeeeceeeeseeeeees il

IV. TABLE OF AUTHORITIEG..............:::eeceees vii

V. JUDGMENTS BELOW. ............ccceseeeeeeeeeennees 1

VI. JURISDICTION ivwvsssssssssccecssssencccsevessasssscaves 1

VII. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS ........:ccccseeceesseeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesenes 1

VIII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE...........000cceeeeeeee 2

A. INTRODUCTION scvssssesassacsnsoacenneneonassensersennonrsonase 2

1. Access to the Courts is The People’s Most

Precious Judiciary Right ............:::sseeeeeeeees 2

2. States’ VL Law Is Unconstitutional............ 3

3. Constitutional Checks and Balances.......... 5

4, SCOTUS’ Writ Process...........sccceeeeeeeeeeeeeees 6

B. THIS COURT HAS IDENTIFIED FOUR FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS ESSENTIAL TO THE FUNDAMENTAL

PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE .........0scesereeeeee 9

1. The Four Fundamental Rights Cannot Be

Abridged ..............cccsecceeeesereerrereaeseeenennens 10

lv

2. Notwithstanding No Abridgement,

Legislatures Can Prohibit Abuses That

Arise from The Four Fundamental Rights 11

C. THIS CASE IS THE POSTER CHILD FOR THE

UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF CA VL LAW ..........0000e5 11

1. CAVLLaw’s History Provides the

Necessary Context for Constitutionality

AmallySis..........:cccccsssssssceeeseeeeseeneneaneseenens 12

2. CAVL Law Is Unconstitutional Facially ... 20

Applied .....sccesseccersccsessnssdesessreseesssvesscons» 29

D. CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKS AND BALANCES ...........++ 39

E. SCOTUS’ WRIT PROCESS ..........csscssecsecveseeseserees Al

IX. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION 44

A. WHEN TYRANNICAL STATES OBLITERATE

FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,

ADDITIONAL LAWS GOVERN GRANTING CERT ......... 44

B. THEISSUES ARE IMPORTANT AND RECURRING......... 45

X. CONCLUSION... ..ssroreccecccerrerecerenssssesssescesa 45

APPENDICES

Court Opinions:

Appendix A

Cal. Sup. Ct.: Judgment (8/13/25) ........ccssccceeseereeeeees la

1DCA: Judgment (5/6/25) .....cccccssscseceressssssereeeeseneees 2a

1LDCA: Judgment (5/6/25) ssisnsssssssscssesesseoncovennsoeressone 3a

1LDCA: Judgment (4/17/25) .......ccccseeceeseeseeeeeseeeeeeeens 4a

Constitutional Provisions/Statutes:

Appendix B

Constitutional Provisions and Statutes

Involved in this Case ..........cccsssccseeeeeeeeesrereereeereeeetens Ta

States’ VL Law:

AYUZONA ooo secccecesesssseeseessssneeeseseesenscenecescesensenpanseeeeseesens 9a

California sseressoseescoovassveoenceropnevseneencenseesensenssersoncessees lla

PIOvICA’ . sciaveisannsnnsaacuacinacdacnssyeskocstsvnuhenoubaasemssbaseseeneneens 16a

Hawaiil...........01.0000steesvesdeuasnseusscadasnssneennnansnomawensorens 21a

TL GIAUTO ressesasscossnarmcmncecnennernmmcmoicg ae ea emnteanst 26a

TOW diensneornvenenesesnasenconenensindcanepadsvesdesese weuassemibeseseeasatiens 30a

Michigan .gisscssissensaseswaceancavansiesesstvcsiaswercecsassonsssues 30a

Mil NCS 6 tateswesswexcocowavsncssnanweceansevsaecsnnennronsyererteneonunts 33a

vi

Nevada...ccccccscccccssssstscssnsecescostecceneeseeeeesseneneeeeseesegeens 34a

New Hampshire ........-ccossssssccsscnssscvsvesasessnertssdcossonas 37a

North Dakata ........ccccssssccscccccesseccesersceeeveseesseseeereveee 38a

Northern Mariana Islands............ccesssseseeeeeeeeeeeees 40a

ON I0.........01:000000- cagnnannavensleniinapnaugeneegnens teasubpnnlasedeoeeas 46a

Pennsylvania ........scccsscescsssvessecesssesesstnecsseneesneesreraes 53a

TOXAS sisscsvsiunsasswasnnwnseasnnsenaanaweoanekermenenmenemnnnnnxsennes 54a

Utah ssaavecorannonsenseverennnnvenensonenyysnnagienaooass (wed uasasd oss ises 59a

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1

Newspaper Bibliography .........c:sscceeesessseseereeeeenes 66a

Exhibit 2

California Senate Calendar ........ccccccccccseeeesesseneees 78a

Exhibit 3

Reporter’s Transcript 4/28/16 Excerpt .........0s00 79a

Exhibit 4

Judge Mockler Reversal Examples .........:.:ceees 80a

vil

IV.TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

BE&K Constr. Co. v. NLRB (2002)

536 U.S. 516. .nnissssavenusenscesnuyatacevsnsuesactesesetscevececaasss 21

Bill Johnson's Rests. v. NLRB (1983)

AGB1 U.S. 731........cccccsseeesasipanaabiepeseeatarenccansererones 9, 25

Boddie v. Connecticut (1971)

AOL U.S. 371. céssisssissecacsesseccatassssecsassavenveansoeesveccvnes 26

Bounds v. Smith (1977)

430 U.S. 817... ccccecccsseccctseeestevarceeneescesspecssaanerecauess 25

Christopher v. Harbury (2002)

B36 U.S. 4038.........ccscsesscccsssssrrssossssneesssoeennseseerenseeees 9

City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center

(1985)

AT3 U.S. 482... ..cccssccccsssssceccessssseecerssessenesensneessssaneees 22

Cruz v. Beto (1972)

AOB U.S. B19... cceccccnesereeeeenseseeensctenenscessesseecneenes 21

De Jonge v. Oregon (1937)

299 U.S. 3538... ..cc.sssssebdsesenaviewennacensus.. 9, 10, 11, 41

Difani v. Riverside County Oil Co. (1927)

201 Cal. 21 Ossvccssssussusesevevesescasssssvssvivennseiesasccsavevens 36

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)

397 U.S. 254.... .ccrssscessussswcnwesswscawnvessamennes 8, 22, 30, 45

Griffin v. Illinois (1956)

BBL U.S. 12. ccccccccccsscceneesanenenessseesateneesceesseneeeanees 26

In Re Thomas Schmidt (2025)

No. SCPW-24-Q000356 .....cccovscsovecccnereccncracerseecens 38

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and

Mun. Employees, Council 31 (2018)

138 S.Ct. 2448.........ccccccsssseeeetinaioniasbasuacsssuvasenaussvess 26

vill

John v. Superior Court (2016)

63 Cal Ath 91 6.........csscccssccssceccssvseecnnescesseneceneeess 22, 35

Johnson v. California (2005)

BAS U.S. 499 ......cccsccsscescesevscccasovceesuscosscceeedeseeseseeess 25

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America (1994)

511 U.S. 375. ...... sescgessscstessastestectenssavansscevecassisewsess 42

Lefebvre v. Southern California Edison (2016)

244 Cal. App.4th 148 oc eesseeeeseerreeeeteeeneenenes 36

Los Angeles v. Morgan (1951)

105 Cal. App.2d. 726 .......ccccsccsssseeceseseeseeeereeteresenes 33

Marlow v. Campbell (1992)

T Cal. App.4th 921 ssiusssessesoneoasessovesnnooresneecennmnnones 36

Nelson v. Tucker Ellis LLP (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 827

Spee cesar rarer gonna NEnoINe-comeLco asta these terteaees 34

Parker v. Bowron (1953)

AO Cal 2d 844.0... cceccceseccnseereeseeesersscuenecseeeeesensenees 36

People v. Lind (2014)

230 Cal. App.Ath 709 ......cccsssssrsessesstveeracseosscnesees 30

Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke (1978)

ABB U.S. 265.......ccsccssascevseceverncesccacecectonccsscsvecesssssers 25

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923)

263 U.S. 4138 ........ccceeececsvasectasesenceasacensscaesvecwessewssves 42

Speiser v. Randall (1958)

B57 ULS, 518 wc ecccscctsscccnececeeecesecnssesaseosctseneneeseaees 10

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005)

35 Cal. 4th 180 vu... ccccsesecseeeeveneeeesneeesaneeseerees 33, 36

Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5109...........ccssssosovesegnesssesenssesoeses 39

2B U.S.C. §1257 ccssccccrerosescnorevcssvergecesovecessceronsorensoansss 42

DS U.S.C. §1257(a) seseccssssssessssesssesssecsuecssecsnseseensenneensees 1

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§170.4(a)(1) to (6) .cccececeeeeeeee 30

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§391(b)(1)-(5) ....ceccceseseceeeeeeeeees 20

ix

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§391-391.8...1, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20,

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §10138...........cceeseeseeeeereeseerenerenens 30

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1088.......cccesssesrereeeeeeetesetenees 26

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §128.d.wsisssicsssssussacacsssossneovnsasonnns 26

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §170......... ce eceecsseeseserecreeesesenenees 37

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1 70.1 ......ccceeceeeseceeseveverenseneeas 30

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §170.8(d) ......ccsceccsceceeeseeseeeeeeees 30

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §170.5(f) .......eceescsesescesveceeseeeeees 37

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391(D)(1) uu... ee eeeceesserreeeeeee 20, 27

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §891(0D)(5) ...... ce cccccsccesceseestneeeeees 21

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391(C)...cccecccesessesnenneeeeeeees 24, 32

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §891.3(8) ....ccccccssercseeeeeeserreeeeeees 32

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391.4........ccscccseeeeeeeeeeeeesereeneees 24

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391.7(a) ......sccsesseerreeeees 22, 23, 28

Cal. Const. art. VI, §14......... ce eesseseeseeeeeseeseesereeereees 37

Cal. Const. art. VI, §2......sssssessisscconcssveisersssvonssossaaesis 37

Cal. Elec. Code §13109(4)........ccesssseeeeerteeeeeeretnnes 23

Cal. Gov. Code §§68200-68202 ........::cssceeceeeeereetereee 23

Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 826., 41

Haw. Rev. Stat. §634d-Lissscscccsccssscsnsssscccssevereeseessseees 38

Judiciary Act of 1925, 43 Stat. 936 ......ccceeseeeeeeees 42

Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988, 102 Stat.

66 QD csccrrssnccsaccsscineupeueneisivenessteaxcanssnsacssweseasserecnunssene 42

U.S. Const. ccsccvssisansiasscasmenssescsesstanastaaseretecnerencrnneacs 44

U.S. Const. amend. I..............06 i, 9, 10, 25, 26, 41, 44

U.S. Const. amend. V ......ccesesessseecsesssrseseerenneeneeeeeeennens 9

U.S. Const. amend. XIV ......ccecececeeeeeeeeeeee 9, 10, 21, 22

U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 18 .......cssssssssssssassnanecnnsaneees 40

U.S. Const. art. TIT, §2, cl. 2 voc. cccesccssseeeeeeeeees 1, 41, 42

U.S. Const. art. IV, §2, cl. 1 ....ccssssisvsssossscsssntsaceetsoceess 9

Other Authorities

A Few Good Men (Castle Rock Entertainment 1992)

sibccndidav sSEGAIN TRENCH ONES WeaRUsaERNa sa eVRUANNS TeareNEAKMRNEAN TIER EKOND EES 32

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, ET AL., THE FEDERALIST (‘The

Easton Press ed. 1979) (10/27/1787—4/2/1788) ....40

Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)... eee 12

Born Yesterday (Buena Vista Pictures 1993)........... 12

Final Senate History (19638) ........ccceecesesssesseseeeeeeenenes 19

Judicial Council of California, 2015-2024 Court

Statistics Reports (2015-2024) oo... eee Ol

Judicial Council of California, 2022 Court Statistics

Report (2022)....jssseisssivenssaconisscvrcavevnanvensrarevesssevsss 27

Lee W. Rawles, The California Vexatious Litigant

Statute: A Viable Judicial Tool to Deny the Clever

Obstructionists Access? (1998)

72 So.Cal. L. Rev. 275....ssssoscssasicnswstassesacswaccsassunewbs 13

Oxford English Dictionary 1190 (2d ed., CD-ROM

VEL. 4.0) rsrrerorasnnassssviendsrsseaasddedbovessacseusishavounadineersvees 27

PAULINE MAIER, RATIFICATION, THE PEOPLE DEBATE

THE CONSTITUTION, 1787-1788.......ccccccseeseseseeeeeeees 40

Staff Writer, Mosk Criticized, Ukiah Daily Journal,

Sep. 25, 1962, 1 sivsisseawcssesasesccvewinsswanssreeceessvsanvesses 17

U.S. Department of Transportation

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50intersta

te2.cfm (last visited February 19, 2024)........... 14

U.S. Inflation Calculator

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ (last visited

February 19, 2024)................-sssaseseadaboceesnvereaceceetes 15

V. JUDGMENTS BELOW

The Cal. Sup. Ct.’s judgment is reproduced as follows:

Judgment (8/13/25) ....sscscscscccceccseeeerersrerecesssesrersees la.

Estate of Estate of Hadsell (Aug. 13, 2025, No.

$290917)__Cal.5th__.

The 1DCA’s judgments are reproduced as follows:

Judgment (5/6/25) ..ssssssssscssesesesssssesssneeessnecenneeeesneeees 2a.

Judgment (5/6/25) csscsesssssecsscssssesecseessueeesneeesneeesee 3a.

Judgment (4/17/25) ..essssssssssssesssscsssnecesnecsnuteessnesen da.

VI.JURISDICTION

On 8/13/25, the Cal. Sup. Ct. issued its Judgment

(8/13/25).

This Court’s jurisdiction is timely invoked under 28

U.S.C. §1257(a).

VII. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS

Relevant constitutional and statutory provisions are

at 7a et seq.

VIII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. INTRODUCTION

1. ACCESS TO THE COURTS IS THE

PEOPLE’S MOST PRECIOUS JUDICIARY RIGHT

This Court identifies four fundamental rights as

essential to the fundamental principles of liberty and

justice that lie at the base of all our civil and political

institutions: i) freedom of speech, ii) freedom of the

press, iii) peaceable assembly, and iv) redress of

grievances, (“Four Fundamental Rights”). This Court

recognizes that “redress of grievances” includes “the

right of access to the courts”.

This Court has held that the Four Fundamental

Rights cannot be abridged by legislatures.

Notwithstanding, because exercising these inviolable

rights can result in abuses, the legislatures, can, and

should, prohibit such abuses.

Thus, there is a bright-line rule between abridging the

Four Fundamental Rights (unconstitutional), and

prohibiting abuses that arise from the exercise of the

rights (constitutional).

This case is the poster child for when state

legislatures have unconstitutionally abridged the

right of access to the courts.

2. STATES’ VL LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

States’ VL Law comprises four major concepts:

e Vexatious Litigant (“VL”) definition;

e Inapplicable to defendants;

e Absent prior-court approval, VLs are banned

for life from access to the court;

e If allowed access, VLs must post security equal

to the opposing party’s predicted costs

(including attorney’s fees);

o If a VL loses his/her cause, the security is

forfeited to the opposing party; or

o A VUs cause is dismissed if the security is

not posted.

This case arises in California, so will focus primarily

upon CA VL Law. That presents no problem because:

e CAVL Law includes all four major VL concepts;

e California implemented VL Law _ first;

therefore,

e All subsequent states adopted some or all of

California’s concepts, typically verbatim; thus

e If CA VL Law’s quicksand foundation fails, so

does every other state’s VL Law; and

e Numerous examples from other states’ failures

are also provided.

Regarding a facial challenge, CA VL Law:

Thus,

Abridges the right to access courts;

There is no actual, compelling state interest;

and

It is not narrowly tailored.

CA VL Law cannot survive the strict scrutiny

standard applicable to laws that infringe fundamental

rights.

Regarding an as-applied challenge:

It is undisputed that Hadsell has never violated

any CA VL Law;

Yet, it is undisputed that a judge, without

subject matter jurisdiction (“SMJ”)—therefore,

her actions were ultra vires, and legal

nullities—illegally placed him on the California

Vexatious Litigant List (“CA VL List’);

The Law of the Case is that Hadsell is the

“defendant” in these proceedings, and CA VL

Law doesn’t apply to defendants;

Yet, 1DCA refused to file Hadsell’s appeal solely

because his name illegally appears on the CA

VL List;

And when 10 Concerned Citizens filed motions

with the Cal. Sup. Ct. that required the court to

resolve the CA VL Law issues;

e The Cal. Sup. Ct. refused to file the 10-

Concerned-Citizens’ motions; thereby keeping

its record intact for refusing to address the

constitutionality of CA VL Law’s preventing

access to the court;

e Ofthe 227 VLapplications to file a pleading, the

Cal. Sup. Ct. has granted none.

Thus, CA VL Law cannot survive an as-applied

constitutional challenge because:

e There is no valid court order making Hadsell

subject to CA VL Law;

e He is a “defendant”; thus, CA VL Law is

inapplicable;

e Although required by law to file, and

adjudicate, the 10-Concerned-Citizens motions

regarding CA VL Law, the court refused; and

e The Cal. Sup. Ct. has never granted a VL

application to file a pleading.

The facial, and as-applied, challenges to CA VL Law

equally apply to other states’ VL Law, and significant

non-Californian examples are provided.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKS AND

BALANCES

Power checks power. That is the Constitutional

lifeblood behind how “checks and balances” prevent

government tyranny.

In addition to the checks and balances within

government (viz., among the three branches of

government), checks and balances also exist between

governments (viz., the federal and _ states’

governments).

Thus, as required by the U.S. Constitution, and each

justice’s two Oaths of Office to “support and defend”

and “bear true faith and allegiance” to the

Constitution, this Court is required to resolve the

unconstitutionality of the States’ VL Law—especially

since, despite numerous opportunities, all the States’

highest courts have refused to address it.

4. SCOTUS’ WRIT PROCESS

The Constitution establishes SCOTUS’ appellate

jurisdiction and Congress’ power to regulate SCOTUS’

appellate jurisdiction. However, as with all

enumerated powers, Congress’ power is circumscribed

by the Constitution.

Here, Congress’ power is limited to creating

“Exceptions” to SCOTUS’ appellate jurisdiction. And

no such “exception” can include abridging The People’s

right to redress of grievances.

Here, Congress not only passed statutes abridging

The People’s right to access a federal court to redress

an unconstitutional-state-court judgment (unconstitutional facially), but in combination with SCOTUS

case law, the statutes make SCOTUS’ appellate

jurisdiction entirely discretionary for unconstitutional-state-court judgments, and likewise for

federal-court review except for three-judge-district-

court judgments. Thus, in combination, Congress and

SCOTUS eliminated the only opportunity a person

has to invoke a federal court’s power to check the

states’ tyrannical power of eliminating access to state

courts.

In the 2023 term, SCOTUS ’ “discretion” resulted in 60

out of 4,223 cases (1.4%) being granted cert. For all

practical purposes, that is elimination of review and

therefore, unconstitutional facially.

Assuming arguendo that eliminating 98.6% of all

cases from SCOTUS’ review isn't effectively

elimination rather than an “exception”, of the 60 cases

granted cert, each case involved one or more of the

following highly placed government employees:

e Current Solicitor General (“SG”) employees.

e Former SG employees.

e Former SCOTUS law clerks.

e Current State Attorneys General.

Lest one think that a former SCOTUS law clerk is not

“highly placed”: i) not a single word of a cert gets read

by a justice until it has first been approved by the law

clerks; ii) for more than the last 20 years, all but 1 of

the last 8 SGs was a SCOTUS law clerk; iii) 6 of the

current 9 justices were SCOTUS law clerks; iv) 56 of

the 60 cases involved at least one former SCOTUS law

clerk; and vi) a total of 151 former SCOTUS law clerks

were involved with the 60 cases.

While having a highly placed government employee

doesn’t guarantee cert being granted, what is true, is

that not a single cert was granted without one, and

not a single civilian-only cert was granted.

Therefore, by shutting out civilians, SCOTUS’ Writ

Process was unconstitutional as-applied.

Because four VL-Law states are populous states,

about 150 million Americans have the Sword of

Damocles hanging over their heads regarding access

to the courts. Nine of 16 states maintain a VL List.

They list about 4,000 Americans who are banned for

life from access to the courts. None of them deserved

to be banned when the courts have a plethora of tools

to manage bad actors: summary judgment; sanctions;

penalties; awards of attorney’s fees and court costs;

malicious prosecution; and contempt of court. While

many deserve punishment, many others have violated

no law, yet have been deprived of their most precious

judiciary right.

This Court should find that situation intolerable—

especially when it occurs, as here, without due process

of law because throughout these proceedings, in

violation of Goldberg, 267, not a single hearing was

held on any application to file a pleading, yet Hadsell

has been denied his fundamental rights when he has

not violated any law.

For these reasons, this case is certworthy and Hadsell

prays that the Court grants certiorari.

B. THIS COURT HAS IDENTIFIED FOUR

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ESSENTIAL TO

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE

The 1st Amend. lists the Four Fundamental Rights: 1)

freedom of speech, ii) freedom of the press, iil)

peaceable assembly, and iv) redress of grievances.

This Court stated (De Jonge v. Ore 1937) 299 U.S.

353, 364, emphasis added):

Freedom of speech and of the press are

fundamental rights which are safeguarded by the

due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

of the Federal Constitution. [Citations.] The right of

peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of

free speech and free press and is equally

fundamental. As this Court said in United States v.

Cruikshank...: “The very idea of a government,

republican in form, implies a right on the part of its

citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in

respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress

of grievances.”

This Court recognizes that “redress of grievances”

includes “the right of access to the courts”, Bill

Johnson's Rests. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731, 7413;

and that the lst Amend., is applicable to the states,

[see Speiser_v. Randall (1958) 357 U.S. 513, 530

3 As stated in Christopher v. Harbury (2002) 536 U.S. 403, 415,

fn. 12, besides the 1st Amend., this Court has grounded “the right

of access to courts” in the Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S.

Const. art. IV, §2, cl. 1), the Sth Amend,, and the 14th Amend,

10

(concurring) where Justice Black collects 15 of this

Court’s cases where the 14th Amend. makes the 1st

Amend., “applicable in all its particulars to the

States.”

Access to the courts is the sine qua non to The People’s

access to the judiciary—civilization’s refuge from:

vigilantism, might makes right, and mob rule.

Therefore, it is The People’s most precious judiciary

right.

1. THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

CANNOT BE ABRIDGED

Immediately following the first De Jonge quote supra,

this Court states (De Jonge, 364, emphasis added):

The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution

expressly guarantees that right against abridgment

by Congress. But explicit mention there does not

argue exclusion elsewhere. For the right is one that

ented it iolati

fund [orincipies of Ii 1 facts hicl

lie at the base of all civil and political institutions, —

principles which the Fourteenth Amendment

embodies in the general terms of its due process

clause. [Citations.]

Thus, no legislature can abridge the Four

Fundamental Rights.

11

2. NOTWITHSTANDING NO

ABRIDGEMENT, LEGISLATURES CAN

PROHIBIT ABUSES THAT ARISE FROM THE

FOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Despite an absolute prohibition against abridging the

Four Fundamental Rights, any abuse from exercising

the rights can, and should be, prohibited.

Immediately following the second De Jonge quote

supra, this Court states (De Jonge, 364-365, emphasis

added):

These rights may be abused... to incite to violence

and crime. The people through their legislatures

may protect themselves against that abuse. But the

legislative intervention can find constitutional

justification only by dealing with the abuse. The

rights themselves must not be curtailed.

Thus, there is a bright-line rule between abridging the

Four Fundamental Rights (unconstitutional) and

prohibiting abuses that arise from the exercise of the

rights (constitutional).

C. THIS CASE IS THE POSTER CHILD

FOR THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF

CA VL LAW

Regarding a facial challenge, CA VL Law: i)

abridges/curtails the right to access courts, 1i) is not

narrowly tailored, and ili) there is no actual,

compelling state interest.

Regarding an as-applied challenge, the undisputed

facts are: i) the law of the case is that Hadsell is the

12

defendant in these matters—thus, CA VL Law is

inapplicable, ii) Hadsell has never violated any CA VL

Law, and iii) a rogue trial judge, with no SMJ, illegally

placed Hadsell on the CA VL List. Other than the one

1DCA instance holding Hadsell is the defendant in

these matters, not a single California court judgment

has acknowledged any of these facts. Instead, it has

ignored the facts and used boilerplate as pretext to

deny Hadsell access to the courts.

1. CAVL LAW’S HISTORY PROVIDES THE

NECESSARY CONTEXT FOR

CONSTITUTIONALITY ANALYSIS

a. The False History

Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) defines

common knowledge as, “A fact that is so widely known

that a court may accept it as true without proof.”

There is no time to fully research everything. So,

common knowledge is a wonderful thing—except

when it’s wrong, as it is here.

An entertaining film, Born Yesterday (Buena Vista

Pictures 1993), starred Melanie Griffith as Billie

Dawn, John Goodman as Harry Brock, and Don

Johnson as Paul Verrall.

Harry is a wealthy businessman who takes beautiful

Billie on an extended business trip to Washington D.C.

where she promptly embarrasses Harry socially

13

because she’s uneducated. Harry hires Paul* to

“smarten her up”. And boy does he. Billie proceeds to

charmingly skewer the wealthy, well-educated, elite of

Washington D.C. when the newly educated Billie

enlightens the Washington elites that the common

knowledge (that they take for granted) is wrong.

That is exactly the situation here.

Read any California court opinion, treatise, or article,

they all say the same wrong thing: CA VL Law was

enacted to stop the “clogging” of courts with VLs. Not

only is that light years away from the actual, sordid

truth, but, as discussed infra (p. 27), it is

mathematically impossible to be true. Additionally,

discussed infra (p. 19), no factual support has been

found in any history—legislative or otherwise. The

only case-law reference is to Lee W. Rawles, The

California Vexatious Litigant Statute: A Viable

Judicial Tool to Deny the Clever Obstructionists

Access? (1998) 72 So.Cal. L.Rev. 275. Yet, the article

itself states that there is a, “[T]otal absence of studies

specifically tracking vexatious behavior...”, id. 310, fn

20.

b. The Actual History

CA VL Law was enacted on 7/13/63. This was right in

the midst of what the U.S. Department of

Transportation calls, “The Greatest Decade 1956-

1966” for building the Interstate Highways,

4 His last name, Verrall being a play on the Latin veritas (truth)

meaning his character is all truth.

14

US. Department of Transportation,

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50interstate

2.cfm (last visited February 19, 2024).

Unfortunately, with massive funding, comes massive

corruption (id., emphasis added):

[T]he press regularly repeated tales of alleged

corruption and bungling that the former President

[Eisenhower] considered “almost hair-raising.” A

sympathetic article in The Cincinnati Enquirer for

July 3, 1960, summarized the criticism:

Now critics are proclaiming it “our great big

highway bungle,” a “nightmare,” a “rat hole” of

waste and extravagance, and a scandal of such

potential that Teapot Dome [a scandal during the

early 1920s] will be peanuts by comparison.

Mendocino County was so rife with government

corruption that it had a standing, annual, grand jury

for government corruption. (See Exhibit 1,

“Newspaper Bibliography’, p. 66a for newspaper

articles regarding the history.)

The political weaponizing of the grand jury into the

“Warrant War” ostensibly began with Deputy Robert

Morton (“Morton”). However, given Morton’s

involvement with County Supervisor Oscar Klee

(“Klee”) and Judges Glenn Evans (“Evans”) and

5 There is nothing new under the sun. Weaponizing government

is as old as Ancient Rome with Cicero v. Cataline, and as current

as President Trump, and President Biden, and his son, Hunter

Biden.

15

Maurice Tindall (“Tindall”) within the Volunteers for

Good Government organization (“VGG’), this history

properly begins with Klee.

Prior to becoming County Supervisor, Klee was a

judge. He requested law books for his office totaling

$720 [about $7,200 today, U.S. Inflation Calulator,

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ (last visited

February 19, 2024)]. His books arrived, but his pay

was docked the $720 to pay for them (from his $2,277

annual salary). This began political bickering that

escalated into Klee being indicted twice by the grand

jury—the most serious being for six counts of

misappropriation of funds totaling $50.85. Even at

$500 today, it’s a trivial amount.

Thus, the issue wasn’t becoming wealthy at the

government’s trough, it was the penalty of legal

defense fees and potential imprisonment.

Fortunately for Klee, he was acquitted both times, and

a legal defense fund covered his legal fees.

But, he also fought back. At the 1/17/62 Annual Grand

Jury meeting with the Board of Supervisors, Klee

introduced a letter accusing DA Frank Petersen

(“Petersen”) of “aiding and abetting the board of

supervisors and the county road department in

wasting a million dollars of the taxpayers' money.”6

6 Nothing much came of the charges—especially after Road

Commissioner, Walter Severance, after 34 years of service, had

his three-sentence resignation letter (viz., Mr. Severance’s

16

These and other Klee travails were certainly impetus

for his involvement in VGG.

This is where Morton and VGG intersect.

1962 was an election year. Sherriff-Coroner Reno

Bartolomie (“Bartolomie”) was up for re-election.

Morton found a hand-written list with his name, along

with four other deputies’ names. Morton confronted

Bartolomie stating that the deputies on the list were

to be fired if Bartolomie won re-election.

Morton’s suspicion about being fired was because he

had been making noises that Bartolomie was not

running a good ship by, inter alia: i) failing to serve an

arrest warrant on a suspected wife-beater, ii) failing

to report embezzlement in his office by an employee,

and iii) failing to arrest teenagers drinking alcohol.

Morton’s concerns ended up being well founded for at

least the first two concerns since: i) the suspected

wife-beater was later convicted and his marriage

annulled, and ii) Bartolomie’s employee indeed

admitted to embezzling about $300, or $3,000 today.

In a public display, during an election year, Morton

and the four other sheriffs on the list resigned en

masse at a public County Supervisor’s meeting at

which Bartolomie was speaking.

severance letter) read to the Board of Supervisors by the clerk in

his absence while he was on vacation.

17

Morton then unsuccessfully approached Petersen to

indict Bartolomie.

Unsuccessful with Petersen, and likely spurred on by

his friends at VGG, Morton utilized an obscure law

where a judge can issue a warrant based upon a

complaint from a private citizen.

Morton was unsuccessful with two judges, but with

Judges Evans and Tindall (members of VGG) he was

successful in obtaining about 50 arrest warrants for

Bartolomie, Petersen, and a few others.

Amongst this flurry of warrants, Petersen, as the

sitting DA, was humiliated by being arrested, and

booked, on four separate occasions.

Notwithstanding, obtaining the warrants resulted in

a debacle.

Based upon Attorney General Stanley Mosk’s (“Mosk’”,

later, Cal. Sup. Ct., Associate Justice) public

statements about the warrants, and an affidavit from

Klee, Tindall issued a summons for an order to show

cause why Mosk shouldn’t be held in contempt of

court.”

This was a bridge too far. Mosk not only put aside his

state duties to insert himself into Mendocino county’s

7 Judge Comstock dismissed the contempt charge, however, he

admonished Mosk stating, “ ‘If Mosk’s remarks had been made in

court he would have been liable for contempt.’ ”, Staff Writer,

Mosk Criticized, Ukiah Daily Journal, Sep. 25, 1962, 1.

18

affairs to win a successful motion to have Tindall

disqualified from his case, he continued beyond his

case to have all charges stemming from any of the

warrants dropped, and then he convened a special

session of the Mendocino grand jury® that indicted

Evans, Morton, Ms. Shon Salisbury®, and Tindall.

All four were found guilty. The sentences were: i) Ms.

Salisbury received 30 days in jail; ii) Evans and

Tindall both received 5-years’ probation and fined

$2,000 and $4,000, respectively ($20,000 and $40,000

today), both lost their judgeships; and ii) Morton

received 5-years’ prison probation and one year in

county jail.

But this sordid, political mess doesn’t end here. As an

election year, Petersen became the newly elected,

first-time, and single-term, State Senator.

8 A rare exercise of AG powers.

® Strangely enough, the former wife of the convicted wife-beater,

the homeowner where the teenage drinking occurred, and

girl-Friday for VGG; the last item being the offense for her

indictment.

10 On 7/30/63, the Anderson Valley Advertiser ran a cartoon that

seemed to capture the moment of Mosk’s involvement in local

county affairs. It depicted a California Penal Code book wearing

a pirate’s eye patch with the line, “Must it be hidden behind a

Mosk?”

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-58]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]