USA legal world ethics crisis – NOT ONE DEFENSE COUNSEL OPPOSED FIRST AMENDMENT ATTACK!

THANK GOD FOR THE US CONSTITUTION AND THOSE WHO PROTECT AND DEFEND IT!

 

 

READ ALL ABOUT IT – IT’S PUBLIC RECORD!

2021.10.28 [Proposed] Order Re ex parte for restriction (10.29.21)

2021.10.28 AEG ex parte App re Restriction (10.29.21)

 

 

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 29, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard in Department S-22 of this court, located at 247 W. 3rd St., San Bernardino,
California 92415, Defendant AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP (hereinafter “AEG”) will
apply to this Court ex parte for restrictions being placed on Plaintiff’s social media posts related to
and regarding defense counsel in this lawsuit.
This application is made on the grounds that there is no legitimate purpose for the derogatory
statements made by Plaintiff on either of her two blogs, her Twitter account, her YouTube videos, her
account on “nitter.pussthecat.org,” and any other outlets Plaintiff is publishing on which AEG is

2

AEG EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

RESTRICTING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSEL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unfamiliar with. To be candid, the safety of defense counsel and their respective staff are being
jeopardized by Plaintiff’s claims she is being “stalked” by defense counsel, where she posts links to
their respective firm websites, and that the defendants “have teams of lawyers attempting to terrorize
and terrify me.” Plaintiff regularly posts from email correspondence to-and-from defense counsel
and edits the contents while also editorializing on the content, far afield from being protected by
litigation privilege or within the constraints which attorneys must respect.
This application is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, the papers and records on file with this Court, and such other oral and documentary
evidence as may be presented to this Court at or prior to the hearing on this application.
DATED: October 28, 2021 BOOTH LLP

By: Scott Greene Jason M. Booth
Scott G. Greene
Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

3

AEG EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

RESTRICTING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSEL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint and later in her First Amended Complaint [“FAC”] that her
house “suffered a sudden roof loss,” on or about February 2, 2019. [FAC ¶11.] She contacted her
insurer State Farm Insurance and the claims process was begun. Moving party AEG Holdco LLC
[“AEG”] was allegedly hired by State Farm General Insurance for “environmental testing.” [FAC
¶29.] . Plaintiff’s Complaint is 56 pages long, runs over 136 paragraphs, the Prayer lists 17 items
(including sum of $10,000,000), and purports to allege 12 causes of action against all 10 defendants.
AEG filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike. Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Demurrer, containing
approximately 97 pages of Points-and-Authorities and 108 pages of “exhibits.”

II. DISCUSSION

A. LITIGATION PRIVILEGE DOES NOT PROTECT PLAINTIFF
By statute an action for defamation cannot be predicated on certain privileged oral or written
statements.1

The litigation privilege is codified in Civil Code § 47: “[a] privileged publication or
broadcast is one made … [i]n any … judicial proceeding ….” The privilege recognized in CC §47
derives from common law principles establishing a defense to the tort of defamation.2

“[T]he obvious
purpose of section 47 [is] to afford litigants the utmost freedom of access to the courts to secure and
defend their rights without fear of being harassed by actions for defamation.” 3
The usual formulation is that the privilege applies to any communication (1) made in judicial
or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve
the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action.
[Citations.]” 4

Thus, “communications with ‘some relation’ to judicial proceedings” are “absolutely
immune from tort liability” by the litigation privilege (citation). For the litigation privilege to apply,
the publication must be made in furtherance of the litigation and to promote the interest of justice. 5
The Wilburn court opined that, “the statements allegedly made to ‘persons throughout Northern
1 Fin. Corp. of Am. v. Wilburn, 189 Cal. App. 3d 764, 771, (1987).
2 Oren Royal Oaks Venture, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 1163.
3
Albertson v. Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375, 380 [295 P.2d 405].)
4 Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 212
5 Wilburn 189 C.A.3d 773.)

4

AEG EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

RESTRICTING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSEL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
California’ could be actionable. An attorney will not be protected by absolute privilege as to
actionable words spoken to persons in no way connected with the judicial proceeding. “[emphasis
added]. 6
Here Plaintiff is publishing on her numerous social media accounts disparaging comments
about defense counsel, providing click-through links to their respective law firm websites as well as
the corresponding physical address, email addresses and telephone numbers of those lawyers. There
is no effort being made to limit the readership of those accounts – instead the escalating rhetoric from
this week directed specifically to AEG’s counsel includes;

 “now there’s a lawyer zealously attempting to intimidate and scare the fight of out me
– by any means necessary – FOR FILING A LAWSUIT!
 “When is it ok for Officers of the Court to #ActLikeThugs?”
 ‘That’s all you got?!’ says the lawyer with psychopathic tendancies [sic]?
 I think he probably had a difficult childhood… I can see why nobody would choose
him to be on the team. Meaner than a Junk Yard Dog! Wants to win by any means
necessary… I don’t think he’s even human.
 SCOTTY [Scott Greene] LEFT OFF HALF THE DEFENDANTS? DOES THAT
MEAN HIS ATTACK DOG TACTICS ARE ON BEHALF OF JUST THOSE FIVE
COMPANIES, OR IS IT SOME SORT OF ESOTERIC RULE? THE JUDGE
MIGHT MAKE HIM REDO THEM, PARTICULARLY AFTER THE JUDGES
READS ABOUT THE PERJURY AND SEES THE CLEAR EVIDENCE….
 “Are attorneys ever prosecuted for FALSE PERSONATION AND PERJURY,
DISCRIMINATION, OPPRESSION AND JUST GENERAL BAD ACTING?”
 “For Christmas, I would like some fire arms safety classes and time at the range with
some pals.”
AEG and its counsel see no legitimate purpose for these reckless and disparaging remarks
directed towards AEG’s counsel and asks the Court to instruct Plaintiff to cease and desist from such
publication.

6 Wilburn 189 C.A.3d 778.

5

AEG EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

RESTRICTING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSEL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. PLAINTIFF MUST BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS AN ATTORNEY
“When a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he is entitled to the same, but no greater,
consideration than other litigants and attorneys [citations]. Further, the in propria persona litigant is
held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney [citation]. [Citations.] 7

In other words,
when a litigant accepts the risks of proceeding without counsel, he or she is stuck with the outcome,
and has no greater opportunity to cast off an unfavorable judgment than he or she would if
represented by counsel.”8

In the instant case, Plaintiff is representing herself and continuing to
contact defendants and their respective counsel. However, she is simultaneously waging a war on
social media against these same defendants and their counsel. These efforts include threats to report
attorneys to the State Bar and the American Bar Association, to the Attorney General of California,
and to seek a Temporary Restraining Order in this Court against said defense counsel.
“[W]e make clear that mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient
treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply
equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. (Citation.)…A
doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves
would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” 9
Presently on just one of the Plaintiff’s blogs (GotContractorComplaints) she has posted 46 articles
concerning this lawsuit and the defense counsel. A litigant has a right to act as his own attorney
[citation] “but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is
required of those qualified to practice law before our courts; otherwise, ignorance is unjustly
rewarded.” 10 A lay person, who is not indigent, and who exercises the privilege of trying his own
case must expect and receive the same treatment as if represented by an attorney—no different, no
better, no worse. 11
7 County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444.
8 Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1262, 1267.
9 Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984-985
10 Doran v. Dreyer (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 289, 290
11 Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1009.

6

AEG EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

RESTRICTING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSEL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. PER CCP §128, THIS COURT IS EMPOWERED TO CONTROL THE LITIGANTS
In pertinent part, per CCP §128(a),

Every court shall have the power to do all of the following:
(2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it, or before
a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial
investigation under its authority.
(3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings
before it, or its officers.
(5) To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its
ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner
connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every
matter pertaining thereto.

Courts have inherent power, separate from any statutory authority, to control the litigation
before them and to adopt any suitable method of practice, even if the method is not specified by
statute or by the Rules of Court. 12 AEG is respectfully requesting this Court to address the
disparaging and dangerous rhetoric being published online by Plaintiff regarding defense counsel. A
trial court has power to enforce orderly conduct in its immediate presence by those engaged in
litigation or taking part therein.13

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, AEG respectfully requests the Court to order Plaintiff to cease-and-
desist from publishing disparaging remarks concerning defense counsel in the instant lawsuit.

Additionally AEG requests the Court to order Plaintiff to not publish any communications form any
defense counsel without their authorization to. AEG contends that such a simultaneous “trial in the
media” will not serve the interest of justice, protect the safety of defense counsel, allow for the
orderly litigation of the lawsuit and likely to make empaneling an impartial jury nearly impossible.
DATED: October 28, 2021 BOOTH LLP

By: Scott Greene Jason M. Booth
Scott G. Greene
Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

12 Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, as modified, review denied.
13 Jayne, Occidental Indem. Co., Intervener, v. Morck (App. 1 Dist. 1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 743, 111 P.2d 696.

7

AEG EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

RESTRICTING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSEL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF SCOTT G. GREENE

I, Scott G. Greene, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an
associate with the law firm of Booth LLP, counsel of record for AMERICAN
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP; ( “AEG”) in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the
facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify
competently thereto.
2. Our firm served exparte notice of this application via email on October 27,
2021. True and correct copies of the email notice are attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. I
emailed Plaintiff Ayres shortly thereafter asking her to confirm receipt. I emailed Plaintiff Ayres
again on Thursday morning, asking to confirm receipt – no response.
3. I left a voicemail on Plaintiff Linda Ayres phone, #760-368-5243, on the morning
of October 27, 2021, at approximately 9:45 AM to discuss the social media posts. She never
returned my call. I left another voicemail on Plaintiff Linda Ayres phone on the morning of
October 28, 2021, at approximately 9:45 AM to provide notice of this ex parte application.
4. There is no doubt that Ayres received the ex parte notice because she posted an
article on her ‘Got Contractor Complaints” blog on October 27, 2021, an article with the
headline, “STATE FARM AND ITS PREFERRED VENDORS WANT TO KILL FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS?? OH NOOOOO !!! EMERGENCY HEARING FRIDAY.
STAND BY FOR RESULTS… #RuleOfLaw Matters! #GodBlessAmericans and
#DeliverUsFromTheUnaccountable!”
5. This morning’s article authored by Plaintiff includes an embedded link to
Plaintiff’s Go Fund Me page, links to her You Tube videos regarding this case, and what are
purportedly three online (negative) customer reviews of American Environmental Group (with
highlighting presumably added by Plaintiff), two of defendant ServPro, and many of the same
links to negative articles about State Farm Insurance which she has been posting since December
2019.
4. In Plaintiff’s 10/26/21 blog “Who Ya Gonna Call… When Lawyers Act Like
Attack Dogs?” she writes, “State Farm and it’s Preferred Vendors destroyed my home and my

8

AEG EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

RESTRICTING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSEL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
health when my roof blew of February 2, 2019; now there’s a lawyer zealously attempting to
intimidate and scare the fight of out me – by any means necessary – FOR FILING A
LAWSUIT!” She continues, “When is it ok for Officers of the Court to #ActLikeThugs?” There
is no doubt based upon her other postings that I am the “lawyer” and the “Officer of the Court”
she is referring to.
5. In Plaintiff’s 10/23/21 blog she writes, “LEGAL ALERT! HOLY MOLY! STATE
FARM AND IT’S TEAMS OF CROOKS* ARE ON THE PROWL – OR IS IT PHISHING
EXPEDITION? CHECK OUT THIS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.”
She includes embedded links to the discovery propounded by my office and the direct inference
is that I am one of the “crooks.”
6. In Plaintiff’s 10/21/21 blog she writes, “Sure, he wants his clients out… I think he
probably had a difficult childhood… I can see why nobody would choose him to be on the team.
Meaner than a Junk Yard Dog! Wants to win by any means necessary… I don’t think he’s even
human.” She continues, “SCOTTY LEFT OFF HALF THE DEFENDANTS? DOES THAT
MEAN HIS ATTACK DOG TACTICS ARE ON BEHALF OF JUST THOSE FIVE
COMPANIES, OR IS IT SOME SORT OF ESOTERIC RULE? THE JUDGE MIGHT MAKE
HIM REDO THEM, PARTICULARLY AFTER THE JUDGES READS ABOUT THE
PERJURY AND SEES THE CLEAR EVIDENCE….” There can be no doubt she is referring to
me.
7. In Plaintiff’s 10/26/21 blog wherein she is launching a fundraising effort, she
writes “They destroyed my home and caused extreme toxic exposure, now they have teams of
lawyers attempting to terrorize and terrify me.” She continues, “For Christmas, I would like some fire
arms safety classes and time at the range with some pals.” Additionally, ““If you can help me out, it
would be much appreciated. I can promise that I will continue to Fight the Good Fight, to the best of
my abilities. WHERE WE GO ONE, WE GO ALL.” Moreover, there can be no question that she is
referring to me in her post, ““My blogs and video channel are being stalked by one of the attack
lawyers, and he wants all subscriber info….”

9

AEG EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

RESTRICTING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSEL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8. In her 10/26/21 post on Nitter.pussthecat.org – “@WorkCompLinda”, she writes, “Those
guys destroy my home and make me sick from toxic exposure and clean out my bank accounts…
AND THEY STALK ME???” ‘Is there any plausible deniability

 

DO YOU SEE WHAT I AM UP AGAINST?

#PPE #GotContractorComplaints #TeamsOfCrooks

Welcome to My Home! See What State Farm and its Preferred Vendors did when my roof blew off

AEG WAS ASKED BY STATE FARM TO PROVIDE A MOLD CLEARANCE AFTER APPROXIMATELY 40 DAYS OF UNABATED WATER INTRUSION – DESTROYING 65% OF THE HOUSE.

THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATION CHALLENGES BETWEEN #StateFarm Arizona Adjuster and some of the #PetContractors aka Preferred Vendors assigned to the project.  Perhaps the adjuster was not clear that a LEGITIMATE MOLD CLEARANCE WAS BEING REQUESTED.

MONTHS LATER, AFTER EXTREME MICROBIAL GROWTH, AEG WAS CALLED OUT AGAIN FOR FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING, WITH REFERENCE TO MULTIPLE REPORTS SHOWING THAT THE HOUSE WAS BEING TURNED IN TO A TOXIC DUMP.  AEG REQUIRED AUTHORIZATION BY STATE FARM BEFORE TAKING THE ORDER FOR INSPECTION FROM POLICY HOLDER.

ALAS, THE AUGUST 2019 AEG REPORT SUPPORTED THE MARCH 2019 REPORT, WITH A SLIGHT MODIFICATION THAT THERE WERE AREAS OF *UNACCEPTEABLE AIR QUALITY (ASTERISKED)… WHEN POLICY HOLDER ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION OF WTH ” *UNACCEPTABLE MEANT IN THEIR REPORT, THEY MODIFIED THE REPORT TO SUGGEST SOME SURFACE CLEANING MIGHT FIX IT.

IT NEVER DAWNED ON THEM THAT THE UNMITIGATED UNREMEDIATED WALLS IDENTIFIED BY SERVPRO, PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION AND STATE FARM FIELD ADJUSTER IN FEBRUARY 2019 MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION.  ANOTHER STATE FARM #PETVENDOR provided an estimate for $10,000 to ‘surface clean’ the interior.

MULTIPLE REPORTS BEFORE AND AFTER THE AUGUST 2019 AEG REPORT STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THE UN-ROOFED HOUSE, SUBJECTED TO WATER INTRUSION FOR APPROXIMATELY 40 DAYS, WITH A TARP OF PAINTER PLASTIC QUALITY USELESS COVERING…

SECOND DEMOLITION TOOK PLACE IN MARCH 2020 — RAPID DRY RESTORATION BASED ON A PROTOCOL BY GEO-EARTH ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING..  THEY WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL IN COMPLETION OF THE REMEDIATION AND ALSO APPARENTLY OBTAINED A FALSE CLEARANCE TO BUILD BACK, EVIDENCED BY FURTHER REPORTS.

IS IT ANY WONDER WHY COUNSEL MIGHT WANT TO MUZZLE ME AND VIOLATE MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE TEAMS SUGGESTED THAT IT NEVER RAINS IN CALIFORNIA… D’OH!

NUCLEAR VERDICTS ON THE HORIZON.   #BlackMoldMatters

 

 

 

GO FUND ME?   LindaAyres.me

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2021 — ANSWERS ARE DUE FROM ALL DEFENDANTS — lots of demurrers and strikes being tossed around, with suggestions and objections to a second amended complaint.  In the meantime, defense counsels are burying in the In Pro Per plaintiff with oppressive demands for production of documents and other discovery matters.  Plaintiff has to get her demands for Production of Documents out asap — without their concealed evidenced, they might get away with the cover up of these heinous crimes.  I think they may be banking on that?

WE ARE THE MEDIA NOW —-  PRESS RELEASES COMING SOON…   If you are in the restoration industry, or if you’re a policy holder, you might want to stay tuned.

MORE INFO HERE TOMORROW……………… Press Releases work for #45 post censorship — Let’s try that strategy, too!

GOOGLE IT:

linda ayres vs state farm

linda ayres vs aeg

linda ayres vs contractor connection

linda ayres vs paul davis restoration

linda ayres vs servpro

linda ayres vs rapid dry cleaning and restoration

linda ayres vs geo-earth environmental sampling professionals

linda ayres vs savage construction

 

AM I ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THEY TALK ABOUT ON LINKEDIN …  A TARGETED INDIVIDUAL?    Who gave LinkedIn the order to killl my account, and why does one of the defense attorneys want this story shut down?

ON TOP OF THAT, SSA CUT OFF MY INCOME IN RETALIATION FOR ASKING CONGRESSMAN JAY OBERNOLTE FOR ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING EVIDENCE AND RECRODS WITHHHELD BY SSA SINCE 2015 OF INCOME UPON WHICH THEY HAVE BASED THEIR FALSE ALLEGATIONS THAT I WAS OVERPAID IN 2015 AFTER A WORKPLACE INJURY THAT HAPPENED 1/91/2012.  MALFEASANCE OR WORSE THAN THAT?

#SocialSecurityAdministration has UNLAWFULLY TERMINATED MY INCOME SINCE 9/3/2021 AND WILL RESUME PAYMENTS IN MARCH 2022, BASED ON FRAUDULENT CALCULATIONS AND COVER UP FOR EDD FRAUD IN A RETRO-PAY DISPUTE SINCE 2015, WHERE IN SSA has wildly, and without evidence, falsely claimed I was overpaid anywhere from $5,000 to $44,000 in retro pay, when in fact, and in evidence, I was cheated out of $40,000 or $50,000 in retro pay in 2015.  COULD THIS BE PART OF THE EDD $30 BILLION FRAUD SCAM IN CALIFORNIA?  WHY ARE THERE INCREASING REPORTS OF SSA SCAMMING BOOMERS WITH FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF OVERPAYMENTS, CAUSING HOMELESS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS?   #AskingForSomePatriots

GOD BLESS THE USA!!!  DELIVER US FROM THE UNACCOUNTABLE!

15 comments

  1. See What State Farm and their Preferred Vendors caused when my roof blew off in 2019 – LITIGATION TODAY

    #NotGoodNeighbors

    GOOGLE IT: Linda Ayres vs State Farm

    #Cahoots! #InsurerFraud #PetVendors

    CA CIV SB 2106284

    #GFM – Linda Ayres.me

    Remember remember.. #WeAreTheMediaNow and the #ConstitutionMatters!

    Like

  2. “Structural Property Damages
    Structural property damages, depending upon the structure and size, settlements can range from one hundred thousand dollars to several million dollars. The key to effective mold litigation on behalf of the property owner is to identify the negligent party. For example: improper mold remediation, faulty roof installation or repair, improper plumbing installation or repair, or a negligent neighbor. After establishing a negligent party, the next step is to identify causation (what action, lack of action, or service was faulty). The negligent party’s insurance carrier will often be a factor in this process.”

    https://moldlawgroup.com/mold-property-damages/

    Like

  3. Disability Rights California 😭

    #BrainCheck 🤕 🏈💥 #TBI #Concussion #Brains #DisabilityRights #DisabilityDiscrimination #ADA ##Lawfare #Chicanery #MoralTurpitude #NotGoodNeighbors to target & abuse #DisabledAmericans

    🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄
    “As we are in the holiday season where we are inundated with lights, social functions, and other extra activities that overwhelm us, I thought I would pass along some tips on how to avoid/minimize neuro fatigue.

    – Have a healthy sleep routine.
    – Practice energy conservation.
    – Organize daily activities.
    – Improve health and wellness.
    – Keep a fatigue journal. “

    source: https://www.biausa.org/public-affairs/media/fatigue-after-brain-injury

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s