Discovery Abuse in the American Legal System: How the System Fails the Disabled Plaintiff – RICO ADMISSIONS AND DISCOVERY

Admissions and discovery lawfare are used to overwhelm self-represented plaintiffs. They did it again.

 

After the Court granted leave to amend the Complaint by or before February 28, 2023, on December 5 and 20, 2022, one of the defense counsels in Linda Ayres vs State Farm et al has decided upon further lawfare, as a pattern of practice, and has requested admissions from the self-represented Plaintiff in regards to the racketeering cause of action

This is their standard pattern of lawfare over the past nearly two years of apparently extreme billable hours, to overly burden the self-represented plaintiff who is still seeking legal representation and assistance to reduce a bloated 3rd amended complaint.

The Court leave includes reducing and decluttering the TAC from 170+ pages for 10 defendants down to a more acceptable number of pages, with editing assistance, due to cognitive disabilities, and elimination of redundancies and confusion about how the settled defendants should have been eliminated from the Third Amended Complaint, rather than having them rendered ‘anonymous’ in keeping with agreed upon confidentiality sections of settlements of last year.

We believe that this exposure of the insidious lawfare and litigation intimidation will give us the best chance at success and achieving a just outcome.  They have identified areas which they MUST BE COMPELLED TO answer Plaintiff’s discovery and requests for production of documents.  Just because they refused to provide records does not mean they do not exist, as any reasonable person would agree.

An Informal Discovery Conference had been under consideration, pending responses to the TAC.  AEG is apparently attempting to again subvert due process and justice via procedural lawfare as there is no defense for their clients or their co-defendants, for which AEG counsel appears to still be functioning as litigation support.

If you have any information about racketeering under RICO in the world of property insurance, mold, remediation and toxic exposure , please contact this self represented plaintiff immediately. Defense counsel is demanding admissions and this could be your chance to help!

 

One of the five remaining defendants’ Defense counsel’s demands and self-represented Plaintiff’s responses are below.

[Plaintiff has disabilities and formatting challenges with Adobe to Word]

DEFINITIONS

1. 1. As used herein, the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to Linda Ayres.

1. 2. As used herein, the term “LAWSUIT” refers to YOUR lawsuit, Case No. CIVSB2106284.

1. 3. As used herein, the term “RICO” refers to the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt

1. Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 1961-1968.

1. 4. As used herein, the term “SUBJECT PROPERTY” refers to  [ MY HOME]

1. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence that AEG committed any of the enumerated acts of a

1. RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) claim.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s conduct was unlawful.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s unlawful conduct was the proximate cause of

1. YOUR injuries.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG was part of an enterprise.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s conduct was part of a pattern.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s pattern of conduct of predicate acts.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 84:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s pattern of conduct of racketeering activity.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 85:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s pattern of racketeering activity caused injury to

1. YOUR “business or property.”

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 86:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing YOU

1. Harm.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 87:

1. Admit that you have no evidence the harm would have occurred without AEG’s conduct.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88:

1. Admit that YOU voluntarily returned to your home, the SUBJECT PROPERTY in YOUR

1. LAWSUIT, in March 2019.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 89:

1. Admit that YOU have lived in your home, the SUBJECT PROPERTY in YOUR LAWSUIT,

1. since March 2019.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence YOU have been exposed to toxic substances.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 91:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s conduct was a substantial factor in YOUR

1. exposure to toxic substances.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 92:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence YOUR exposure to toxic substances would have occurred

1. without AEG’s conduct.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence that a person from AEG represented to YOU that a fact

1. was true.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 94:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence that person from AEG’s representation was false.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 95:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representation was not true.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 96:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence that although AEG’s representative may have honestly

1. believed that the representation was true, he/she had no reasonable grounds for believing the

1. representation was true when he/she made it.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 97:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representative knew the representation was false

1. when he/she made it to YOU.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 98:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representative made the representation to YOU

1. recklessly and without regard for the truth.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 99:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representative intended for YOU to rely upon that

1. Representation.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 100:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence YOU reasonably relied upon the representation made by

1. AEG’s representative.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 101:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence YOUR reliance upon the representation made by AEG’s

1. representative was a substantial factor in causing YOUR harm.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 102:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representative intentionally failed to disclose facts

1. to YOU.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 103:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence that the facts AEG’s representative intentionally failed to

1. disclose to YOU were known only to the AEG representative.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 104:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representative prevented YOU from discovering

1. certain facts.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 105:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence YOU did not know of the facts which were concealed by

1. AEG’s representative.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 106:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representative intended to deceive YOU by

1. concealing the facts.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 107:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence if AEG’s representative had disclosed those facts, YOU

1. would reasonably have behaved differently.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representative’s concealment of those facts were a

1. substantial factor in causing YOUR harm.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 109:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representative made YOU a promise.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 110:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representative did not intend to perform this

1. promise when he/she made it.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 111:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG’s representative intended that YOU rely on this

1. Promise.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 112:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence YOU reasonably relied upon AEG’s representative’s

1. Promise.

1. DENIED

 

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 113:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence AEG did not perform the act as promised by AEG’s

1. Representative.

1. DENIED

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 114:

1. Admit that YOU have no evidence to support your allegation that YOUR reliance on AEG’s

1. representative’s promise was a substantial factor in causing YOUR harm.

1. DENIED

---

This is JUST ONE EXAMPLE of what it’s like to be self-represented in court and be abused by the defense with abusive discovery. It’s not fair and it’s not right. But, I’m not giving up. I’m going to keep fighting for my rights and for justice.

As a common legal practice, certain defense lawyers use admissions and discovery as a weapon in lawfare to cause  plaintiffs miss deadlines and incur sanctions.

The admissions and discovery lawfare tactic is a move used in order to gain an unfair advantage and dismissal. This is done by burdening the opposition with a lot of work and preventing them from getting any real information. This tactic is often used in order to settle before answering and amendment complaint.

It appears that this is a pattern of practice to deceive the Court and gain unfair advantage over self-represented, retired, elderly and disabled plaintiff. This needs to stop. The Court should be a level playing field for all, regardless of whether they have a lawyer or not.

The court granted self-represented, retired disabled plaintiff leave to amend the third amended complaint on December 5 and 20, 2022, granting the plaintiff with disabilities until February 28, 2023 to continue efforts to find legal representation in California and to serve the amended complaint.  Opposing counsel filed an inaccurate Notice of Discovery falsely stating that the 4th Amended Complaint is due February 20, 2023 and they propounded these demands, as has been their pattern of practice and abuse for nearly two years of extreme billable hours whilst other defense counsels “watch.”

 

Plaintiff’s social media outreach to the Public Adjuster and Plaintiff litigation community is hereby requested from the Court of Public Opinion, including but not limited to the Restoration industry companies and workers, environmental inspection service providers, litigation support providers, district attorneys, public adjusters and/or policy holders.

1. Are you aware of any racketeering activities that have been carried out by the defendant?

2. Are you aware of any illegal activities that have been carried out by the defendant in furtherance of their racketeering enterprise?

3. Are you aware of any victims of the defendant’s racketeering activities?

4. Are you aware of any witnesses to the defendant’s racketeering activities?

5. Are you aware of any evidence that would support the allegations of racketeering against the defendant?

 

Video consultant has recommended efforts to increase YouTUBE audience to reach over 1,000  followers.  Your support would be appreciated.  Recent cable tv interview will be aired in the foreseeable future, too, along with other articles and items related to the First Amendment and the reality that WE ARE THE MEDIA NOW.    See more videos at InsurerWars.com and sign up for email updates at LindaAyres.com

---