As you may have noticed, we created a separate special post today for those of you who wish to discuss the legal aspects of national topics. The same common sense rules apply on comments in that post, except you’re not limited to Las Vegas.
Mental illness is not always so cut and dry. I attended an involuntary commitment hearing for a local professional once. She was maintaining work hours, performing at a high level of proficiency, and a respected member of her profession. She spoke articulately and was coherent. But she had a weird compulsion in her private life that was shocking and when asked about it by the judge, she indicated that it would be better for her to explain it in writing. The writing she submitted was drawings and nonsense. Only one small part of her brain was malfunctioning, but it was such a serious malfunction that she was a danger to herself. She couldn’t control the compulsion and her mind wouldn’t even let her think about, discuss, or justify the compulsion in the abstract. The mind is an amazing thing. But it’s also quite frightening.
Have you ever worked with a pro se? They get the dates right but technical requirements elude them. He is a sovereign citizen level pro se at this point.
But an actual lawyer knows what is ridiculous in a courtroom.
And I totally understand that mental illness reveals itself in many ways. I get that he can be seemingly competent and still have major gaps in his understanding of reality.
BUT I’m just very curious that he is fighting so many losing battles and seems unaware of how weak his position is.
Guest
Former Attorney
September 18, 2025 10:08 am
It should be very concerning that one doctor found him incompetent…
Guest
Anonymous
September 18, 2025 10:19 am
The criminal complaint is that he took a flashlight and busted out the windows, headlights, and taillights of a 1960 Cadillac Deville. The owners name matches the BOXABL CEO’s owner’s name – who also posted back in February with photos of his 1960 Cadillac Deville. I’m curious if Maynarich targeted that specific person’s vehicle?
Bigger than the Ty Maynarich case is the way the courts handle and coddle nutty/dangerous pro pers. The District Court Judges/Justices of the Peace have the advantage of metal detector screenings and armed Court Marshalls to protect them. Those of us who are dealing one on one with the plaintiffs,
defendants and claimants are not so lucky. The courts just need to shut these folks down. Instead they bend over backwards to give them their day in court.
When they should dismiss they postpone and kick the can down the road. Sometimes by just looking at the pleadings they file you can tell the pro se party is off their rocker and has no case. It is a serious and systemic problem.
Then we have the attorneys that are off their rocker who keep getting breaks.
Sorry but this needs to stop. It is putting everyone at risk.
Anyone can file a complaint if they pay the filing fee. Something about constitutional right. How would limit it, a Pre filing hearing that would determine the merits? Just sayin..
I’m not 10:52 but I’ve dealt with my share of crazy pro ses. The fed courts solved the issue with inmates by prescreening their complaints. I’m not saying that should necessarily be extended to all civil pro se plaintiffs, but I would appreciate the courts taking a harder line on the nutty ones. Stay discovery pending MTD to prevent harassment. Dismiss meritless complaints instead of straining to find a viable legal theory. Be quicker pulling the “vexatious litigant” trigger. Etc.
Do it like they do in CA:
“The presiding justice or presiding judge shall permit the filing of that litigation only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay.”
If you’ve filed multiple baseless/harassing lawsuits, this should be the punishment. It’s not a pre-filing hearing on the merits, it’s a low bar that there is *some* merit and not just harassment. They can still file, they just can’t file baseless lawsuits.
It’s like pulling teeth to get someone declared vexatious. I had a motion denied on a pro per who had file 118 cases over three years. It’s nuts. I get access to justice and all of that, but requiring someone have an attorney at that point is not a big deal.
Vexatious doesn’t mean they’re required to get an attorney. Also, yes, it’s an access to courts kind of thing and risk of reversal is very very high so judges aren’t inclined to do it.
The vexatious order can (and should) be narrowly tailored to ensure that it is limited in terms of scope, access, etc. under the guidelines. When I ask for a vexatious litigant order I always leave open that they may file new actions with an attorney because I know attorneys will take meritorious cases, are less crazy to deal with, and won’t risk their careers filing frivolous allegations or complaints without some indication they are supported.
I have found this to be the key. I had a case in front of Commissioner Fontano where the vexatious litigant wasn’t barred from filing, but had to either (1) submit it in chambers for pre-approval; or (2) hire an attorney (in which case the prescreening requirement is waived. I’m not taking credit for this, it was Commissioner Fontano’s idea, however, it demonstrates that if you can be specific and narrow, you are more likely to obtain a vexatious filing.
Overall, I do agree that the finding isn’t made nearly as often as it should be. These nutjobs cost represented parties tens of thousands of dollars and tax the judicial system. They need to be reigned in, which can be accomplished without taking away their access to the courts.
This. I had a judge who will not be named, say in Court that Plaintiff’s claim (plaintiff was an attorney representing himself) did not fit in the statute, but she wasn’t going to dismiss it because “this is how new law is made…” Uh, what? No your honor, you apply the law as written and they can appeal if need be. Now my client gets to pay to defend a case that the judge has already said should have been dismissed, but didn’t. I had another judge that did not grand an smj motion on a claim for defamation when the defendant had not specified what statements were actually defamatory. How do you defend a defamation claim when you don’t know what the basis for the claim is? So yeah, our judges have apparently decided that nothing can be dismissed or ruled on. Just kick the can down the road everytime.
Check out the order in case No. 86284 that slapped down a similar district court ruling. “The district court erred in reaching this conclusion. District courts are bound to follow controlling legal precedent as set forth by appellate courts, not prognosticate about future changes to the law appellate courts might make.”
As a side note, only one opinion for the month? The COA has not resulted in much more opinions from our appellate judges.
Guest
Anonymous
September 18, 2025 5:00 pm
My favorite it when you end up with an out-of-control, entitled, crazy client and you have been asked to represent him/her as a favor to a friend. (Usually their kid or family member). When you say, “I think you forgot to tell me they would be a difficult client,” your “friend” becomes offended. Every time I do a “favor for a friend” I know there is a good chance it will end badly.
When the partner has you represent his mistress in family court. The mistress is not paying and the partner does not count your hours. The case results in a four-day evidentiary hearing. Get a great result for the mistress. Do not get the bonus because of the non-billable hours in the mistress case. Partner does not reward you for your hard work.
Very curious how Mr. Maynarich is managing to make it to appearances but also has (apparently) no awareness that his filings are absolutely bonkers.
Mental illness is not always so cut and dry. I attended an involuntary commitment hearing for a local professional once. She was maintaining work hours, performing at a high level of proficiency, and a respected member of her profession. She spoke articulately and was coherent. But she had a weird compulsion in her private life that was shocking and when asked about it by the judge, she indicated that it would be better for her to explain it in writing. The writing she submitted was drawings and nonsense. Only one small part of her brain was malfunctioning, but it was such a serious malfunction that she was a danger to herself. She couldn’t control the compulsion and her mind wouldn’t even let her think about, discuss, or justify the compulsion in the abstract. The mind is an amazing thing. But it’s also quite frightening.
Have you ever worked with a pro se? They get the dates right but technical requirements elude them. He is a sovereign citizen level pro se at this point.
Lots of pro se experience, unfortunately.
But an actual lawyer knows what is ridiculous in a courtroom.
And I totally understand that mental illness reveals itself in many ways. I get that he can be seemingly competent and still have major gaps in his understanding of reality.
BUT I’m just very curious that he is fighting so many losing battles and seems unaware of how weak his position is.
It should be very concerning that one doctor found him incompetent…
The criminal complaint is that he took a flashlight and busted out the windows, headlights, and taillights of a 1960 Cadillac Deville. The owners name matches the BOXABL CEO’s owner’s name – who also posted back in February with photos of his 1960 Cadillac Deville. I’m curious if Maynarich targeted that specific person’s vehicle?
Well that changes my opinion on the thing. Could not happen to a nicer guy.
Bigger than the Ty Maynarich case is the way the courts handle and coddle nutty/dangerous pro pers. The District Court Judges/Justices of the Peace have the advantage of metal detector screenings and armed Court Marshalls to protect them. Those of us who are dealing one on one with the plaintiffs,
defendants and claimants are not so lucky. The courts just need to shut these folks down. Instead they bend over backwards to give them their day in court.
When they should dismiss they postpone and kick the can down the road. Sometimes by just looking at the pleadings they file you can tell the pro se party is off their rocker and has no case. It is a serious and systemic problem.
Then we have the attorneys that are off their rocker who keep getting breaks.
Sorry but this needs to stop. It is putting everyone at risk.
Anyone can file a complaint if they pay the filing fee. Something about constitutional right. How would limit it, a Pre filing hearing that would determine the merits? Just sayin..
I’m not 10:52 but I’ve dealt with my share of crazy pro ses. The fed courts solved the issue with inmates by prescreening their complaints. I’m not saying that should necessarily be extended to all civil pro se plaintiffs, but I would appreciate the courts taking a harder line on the nutty ones. Stay discovery pending MTD to prevent harassment. Dismiss meritless complaints instead of straining to find a viable legal theory. Be quicker pulling the “vexatious litigant” trigger. Etc.
Do it like they do in CA:
“The presiding justice or presiding judge shall permit the filing of that litigation only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay.”
If you’ve filed multiple baseless/harassing lawsuits, this should be the punishment. It’s not a pre-filing hearing on the merits, it’s a low bar that there is *some* merit and not just harassment. They can still file, they just can’t file baseless lawsuits.
It’s like pulling teeth to get someone declared vexatious. I had a motion denied on a pro per who had file 118 cases over three years. It’s nuts. I get access to justice and all of that, but requiring someone have an attorney at that point is not a big deal.
Vexatious doesn’t mean they’re required to get an attorney. Also, yes, it’s an access to courts kind of thing and risk of reversal is very very high so judges aren’t inclined to do it.
The vexatious order can (and should) be narrowly tailored to ensure that it is limited in terms of scope, access, etc. under the guidelines. When I ask for a vexatious litigant order I always leave open that they may file new actions with an attorney because I know attorneys will take meritorious cases, are less crazy to deal with, and won’t risk their careers filing frivolous allegations or complaints without some indication they are supported.
I have found this to be the key. I had a case in front of Commissioner Fontano where the vexatious litigant wasn’t barred from filing, but had to either (1) submit it in chambers for pre-approval; or (2) hire an attorney (in which case the prescreening requirement is waived. I’m not taking credit for this, it was Commissioner Fontano’s idea, however, it demonstrates that if you can be specific and narrow, you are more likely to obtain a vexatious filing.
Overall, I do agree that the finding isn’t made nearly as often as it should be. These nutjobs cost represented parties tens of thousands of dollars and tax the judicial system. They need to be reigned in, which can be accomplished without taking away their access to the courts.
This. I had a judge who will not be named, say in Court that Plaintiff’s claim (plaintiff was an attorney representing himself) did not fit in the statute, but she wasn’t going to dismiss it because “this is how new law is made…” Uh, what? No your honor, you apply the law as written and they can appeal if need be. Now my client gets to pay to defend a case that the judge has already said should have been dismissed, but didn’t. I had another judge that did not grand an smj motion on a claim for defamation when the defendant had not specified what statements were actually defamatory. How do you defend a defamation claim when you don’t know what the basis for the claim is? So yeah, our judges have apparently decided that nothing can be dismissed or ruled on. Just kick the can down the road everytime.
Check out the order in case No. 86284 that slapped down a similar district court ruling. “The district court erred in reaching this conclusion. District courts are bound to follow controlling legal precedent as set forth by appellate courts, not prognosticate about future changes to the law appellate courts might make.”
That’s brutal. But we need more of that.
As a side note, only one opinion for the month? The COA has not resulted in much more opinions from our appellate judges.
My favorite it when you end up with an out-of-control, entitled, crazy client and you have been asked to represent him/her as a favor to a friend. (Usually their kid or family member). When you say, “I think you forgot to tell me they would be a difficult client,” your “friend” becomes offended. Every time I do a “favor for a friend” I know there is a good chance it will end badly.
Yeah and wait until a partner in your firm demands you represent his/her bratty kid or “dear friend.”
When the partner has you represent his mistress in family court. The mistress is not paying and the partner does not count your hours. The case results in a four-day evidentiary hearing. Get a great result for the mistress. Do not get the bonus because of the non-billable hours in the mistress case. Partner does not reward you for your hard work.
Thats when lawyer gets a new job.
Wow. I am so sorry. Partner forced me to represent coworker he fancied for free. She was a nightmare and i eventually left.
You’ve got to work for yourself. It’s the only way. Figure out how to do that ASAP. Even if you make less initially. 100% worth it.