Big brief, big record, no merit

There's little to be gained by highlighting the appellate failures of pro pers and vexatious litigants -- a sad and daily occurrence. But now and again, there's a "spectacular" failure worth a peek. This 4/3 unpub here today does a good job of pointing out the problems and nicely explaining why the pro per must lose.

Spectacular fail!

•  In an 82-page brief and a record of 2,768 pages, [Appellant], in propria persona, offers seven separate reasons why the order should be reversed, none of which have any legal merit whatsoever.
• "II. Discussion A. Fundamentals of Appellate Procedure" [A nice heading, followed by clear explanations.]
• It is also the appellant’s duty to comply with the California Rules of Court, a duty [Appellant] has failed in rather spectacularly. She grossly overdesignated the record, which is sanctionable conduct. [Etc., etc.]

[1/17/19 update: Along these same lines, here's a new one, using the pro per's empty TOA against her: "Here, [Appellant]’s table of authorities is blank—except for the word, “None”—as

she fails to cite to any legal authority in the appellant’s opening brief."]