Vexatious Defendant?

What is a Vexatious Defendant?

A Pro Se Experience


The Pro Se Litigant as a “Vexatious Defendant”: A Lived Experience;

The formal legal definition of a Vexatious Litigant—one who files numerous frivolous motions—often diverges sharply from the reality experienced by citizens representing themselves.

In systems like the Maricopa County Superior Court and the Arizona Appellate Court, a vexatious defendant is, in practice, anyone who is a litigant Pro Se (pro per).

This classification begins not with a pattern of frivolous filings, but with the mere fact of self-representation.

Because you are “pro se” or “pro per”, the court system treats you differently for that sole purpose, imposing a heightened level of scrutiny and procedural hostility that rapidly turns into an adversarial relationship.

If a self-represented litigant refuses to accept this marginalized treatment or aggressively seeks to adhere to the rules that represented parties violate with impunity, things will get worse—much worse.

This punitive treatment can lead not only to the loss of litigation but as experienced by many, to catastrophic personal consequences, including the loss of property, assets, and the imposition of crippling financial judgments.

The “Good Ol’ Boy” Network and the Corruption of Due Process:

The true mechanism behind this disparity is often described as the “Good ol’ Boy” network, where lawyers and judges operate in concert, ensuring professional courtesy and protection within their ranks.

This network functions to marginalize, undermine, and stub out the efforts of anyone outside the system, especially pro se litigants who learn the law and procedures well enough to threaten the interests of represented parties.

The underlying professional scorn held by this network is rooted in the belief that pro se litigants are slow, dumb, ignorant, or basically an ignoramus.

This contempt allows them to rationalize judicial bias.

The “Good ol’ Boys” system operates under the tacit belief that no citizen should be allowed to prevail over a represented party, regardless of the merits of the case, because their fragile egos cannot comprehend a citizen knowing the law as well as—or better than—the educated esquires.

Judicial Outcomes and Catastrophic Personal Loss:

The combination of facing a baseless lawsuit and encountering the structural bias of the “Good ol’ Boy” network creates a system where judicial outcomes become catastrophic.

For the pro se defendant, a lawsuit that began as a mere legal action can rapidly destroy a life:

Financial Ruin:

The failure to secure impartial rulings, the sanctioning of questionable litigation tactics by the opposition, and the judicial indifference to fundamental legal errors leads directly to massive financial burdens.

This process resulted in the loss of a home, all possessions, and a multimillion-dollar judgment in a case that many believe was without merit.

The Element of Corruption:

When the loss of a case and property is preceded or accompanied by illegal acts, such as the arson that destroyed all possessions—with evidence the perpetrator was connected to the opposing side (the plaintiff’s attorney, Bryan Eastin)—the line between civil litigation and outright corruption is tragically blurred.

When law enforcement then appears to target the victim rather than the alleged perpetrator, it underscores the terrifying reality that the victim is isolated and defenseless against a powerful, self-protecting system.

The Ironic History of “Ignoramus”

The very word used to deride the pro se citizen—Ignoramus—has an origin that satirizes the legal profession itself:

The word is defined as an utterly ignorant person or a dunce.

Its popular use originated from a 1615 farce by George Ruggle, where the title character, Ignoramus, is ironically a lawyer who is foolish and ignorant.

The word is Latin for “we do not know,” previously used in judicial proceedings to indicate insufficient evidence.

The fact that this label, used to silence and disrespect citizens, was born from a historical critique of an incompetent lawyer highlights the deep-seated irony of the system’s professional arrogance.