(1) The district court did not err when it found Prestwich to be a vexatious litigant when she made numerous filings echoing incoherent assertions of sovereign citizen ideology, sent threatening emails to court staff, demanded large fees, and engaged in over 32 identified instances of prohibited communications.
(2) The district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Watson more relief than he requested in his petition for parentage because the broad scope of Watson’s petition, and the implied consent of the parties, makes Prestwich’s claim of error without merit.
(3) Prestwich did not provide an adequate record and the Court of Appeals declined to disturb the district court’s decision not to admit matters allegedly contained in Prestwich’s request for admissions.
(4) The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a writ of assistance, temporary restraining order, or preliminary injunction.
(5) Prestwich did not preserve the issues related to the district court’s child support and custody determinations.