RECORDINGS AND FILINGS IN PROGRESS… #RuleOfLawMatters

 

WHAT KIND OF THREATS AND INTIMIDATION ARE APPROVED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT A “BLUE JEANS” MEETING IS IN THE WORLD OF LAW?

IS IT OK TO SAY, “…We anticipate [PLAINTIFF WITH DISCLOSED DISABILITIES] will not cooperate or comply with this – see above re motion practice and possible evidentiary sanctions and that is not even addressing the “DESTRUCTIVE TESTING” which will be conducted out there.”  [Is that a threat for more home destruction?? ]

ARE DEFENSE LAWYERS BEING HELD LIABLE FOR ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL “MANDATES” FOR MASKS?

“Deposition – We anticipate [Plaintiff with Disabilities] will not cooperate or comply with the code re depositions or the mask mandates in effect….” [Copy of deposition not provided to Plaintiff by defense organized Court Reporter, and defense attorneys shared exhibits with one another, and excluded Plaintiff]

[An obvious deficiency in Constitutional law knowledge, trained by the FBI? CIA?  or an Ivy League law school? Refer to basic training,  NonCompliantMovie.com  ]

IS LAWFARE ACCEPTABLE ABUSE AGAINST A SELF-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF?

IS LAWFARE ACCEPTABLE ABUSE AGAINST AN ELDERLY PLAINTIFF WITH DISCLOSED DISABILITIES?

WHAT IS THE INDUSTRY DEFINITION OF LAWFARE AND PRACTICES AGAINST SELFL-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFFS?

IS THREATENING INVASIVE DESTRUCTIVE TESTING ACCEPTABLE ABUSE AND INTIMIDATION AGAINST SELF-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF?

IS IT OK FOR A N.O.R. – NOTICE OF RULING TO OMIT A DUE DATE, THEN USE NOR AS WEAPON AGAINST A SELF-REPERSENTED PLAINTIFF FOR FURTHER LAWFARE?

IT IS OK TO FUDGE TO THE JUDGE ABOUT FACTS WHEN USED IN GASLIGHTING SELF-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF

IS IT OK TO THREATEN WITNESSES AND PLAINTIFF-FRIENDLY EXPERTS WITH DEPOSITIONS AND SUBPOENAS IN EFFORTS TO INTERRUPT ANY ASSISTANCE TO SELF-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF WITH DISABILITIES?

ON MATTERS OF TOXIC MOLD, IS OK TO FUDGE ON A REPORT BECAUSE A CARRIER REQUIRES IT, EVEN IF IT COULD CAUSE SERIOUS ILLNESS AND DEATH TO OCCUPANTS?

IS IT OK TO DENY DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS, THEN MOCK AND TRICK A SELF-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF like a child in kindergarten pulling the chair out from behind a fellow kindergartner, to ensure they fall on the ground, and all the kids laugh?   DOES THAT MEET THE BAR PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND CIVILITY?  FIRM CREATES A CYBERSTALKING ENVIORNMENT THEN BLAMES THE VICTIM FOR THE COMPLICATIONS REQUIRED FOR PROTECTION OF PLAINTIFF, THEN ACCUSES PLAINTIFF OF BEING ‘OBSESSED’ WITH CONDUCT OF ABUSIVE LAW FIRM.  #BlameTheVictim — OR SUPPORT AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION?

“…My swath of paralegals, and experts we pay (for instead of looing on linkedin for free ones), are on stand-by.  The day following every deadline you miss will result in [secretary] hitting the “send button. The more you fail to comply with the code of civil procedures, the evidence code and the Judge [‘s orders, the more you will learn about how the system works.  It will be both exciting and expensive fore you.  Actions have consequences.  You intended to interfere with my career and ability to provide for my family – I have one.  Like I said, you picked this fight but I will end it. Your Move.”  

IS THE ABOVE A DIRECT VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA STATUTES ON THREATS?   

“We will no longer extend the Courtesy of Electronic Service of Documents – October 23, 2021 at 10:33 pm”

“Preliminarily, I note that you have “cc” yourself at your other email, which I am not allowed to use. Please
understand that this practice creates a situation where I may mistakenly click “reply all.” If you want to
restrict me to one email address, you should be likewise restricted in communicating with me to avoid
mistakes, like the one I made earlier when replying to all.”  – March 28, 2022

“Counsel, be advised that the above-referenced document(s) is/are being electronically served ONLY.  If you do not agree to being served via electronic service ONLY, please respond to this email and request paper copies.  Otherwise, no paper copies will be provided.”   October 2022

“I note that you are communicating with my firm from your lindaayres311@gmail.com email, and therefore I am responding to the same email address.”  October 2022

Plaintiff’s response:

NO M’AM.  YOU MAY NOT COMMUNICATE WITH ME AT MY GENERAL EMAIL BOX AND THAT IS TAKEN AS ANOTHER ACT OF DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AND CYBER HARASSMENT THAT HAS BEEN PERPETUATED ON ME SINCE LAST YEAR. IT STOP NOW, M’AM.   CYBER STALKING AND HARASSMENT IS A CRIME, AND MY CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING CONTINUOUSLY VIOLATED BY YOUR FIRM, AND THE PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR OFFICERS OF THE COURT IS BEING REPEATEDLY BREACHED.

https://tinyurl.com/CAstatutesofthreats-BING

https://tinyurl.com/CAstatutesofTHREATS

California Penal Code646.9 PC defines the crime ofstalking as following, harassing, and threatening someone to the point that the person fearsfor his or her safety. Stalking can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. A conviction carries a penalty of up to 5 years in jail or prison.

PC 646.9(a) states that “any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking…”

THE CRIME OF CRIMINAL THREATS UNDER PENAL CODE 422 PC

PC 422 describes the crime of criminal threats:

• Any person who willfully makes a threat to commit a crime that can result in great bodily injury or death to another person, with the specific intent their statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent to actually carrying it out, which was immediate and specific to the person threatened and immediate prospect of execution of the threat, causing the victim to be in fear of their safety or immediate family.

The threat under PC 422 can be verbal, written, or through any form of electronic communication, such as text messages or email.  

Current Rules of Professional Conduct

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Current-Rules

Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rule_3.4-Exec_Summary-Redline.pdf
(Rule Approved by the Supreme Court, Effective November 1, 2018)
A lawyer shall not:
(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence, including a witness, or
unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential
evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person* to do any
such act;

https://www.keglawyers.com/criminal-threats-california-penal-code-422

• Penal Code 368 PC – elder abuse
  • https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=368
  • [CREATING A TOXIC AND LIFE THREATENING HOME ENVIRONMENT SEEMS TO VIOLATE THIS LAW?]
• Penal Code 136.1 PC – witness intimidation
• Penal Code 646.9 PC – stalking

 

RULES OF VERBAL SELF DEFENSE [AGAINST THE CORPORATE PSYCHOPATH ET AL] 

 

Communication with Corporate Psychopaths

 

https://tinyurl.com/LindaAyresCensoredLinkedIn

#BlackMoldMatters – HOW MANY INSURERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION COMPANIES ARE COLLUDING FOR PROFIT AND HARMING AMERICANS ACROSS THE NATION?   DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH; DRAW YOUR CONCLUSIONS; CREATE YOUR OWN SUPPORT GROUPS… like people do on #Facebookhttps://tinyurl.com/BlackMoldMattersOnFacebook

LET’S STAY CONNECTED ON EMAIL TOO….  HERE’S A SIGN UP…  no email funnels yet…  they are in the works.  Losing connectivity with LinkedIn pals was a big hit.. I miss ’em all!  About 10,000,000 between both accounts that were terminated… coincidentally around the same time as Ex Parte Hearing Attacks by Defense counsel in Linda Ayres vs State Farm et al

ANY QUESTIONS?

 

WE ARE THE MEDIA NOW ….  WE DO NOT….FORGET