Depression, Debt, Default & Destruction in 2025 -Martin Armstrong https://rumble.com/v61fr42-depression-debt-default-and-destruction-in-2025-martin-armstrong.html Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong is back with a new round of predictions, and they are not going to make life easy for President Elect Trump. Armstrong says, “Our computer has been projecting that we are going into a depression in some areas and a recession in other areas. A depression most likely in Europe and a recession in the United States up until 2028. . . . At my November conference, everybody was celebrating after Trump won. I stood up and told my clients, ‘I’m sorry, Trump is not going to have a blissful administration, and he’s not going to prevent the economic decline.’ (Please remember, Armstrong predicted Donald Trump would win in a landslide many months before the November 2024 Election.) Armstrong goes on to say, “We have a serious, serious problem on a global scale. . . . The sovereign debt crisis is really going to start percolating in 2025. It’s probably going to reach a major crisis by 2026 and 2027. Why? They have dictated all these banks and pension funds . . . 70%, generally, must be invested in government bonds. . . . They say it’s ‘safe,’ but it’s the worst debt possible. . . . So, if the government goes into a sovereign default, what happens? You wipe out the banking system and the pensions.” Does Armstrong think the governments around the world are going to go into a sovereign default? Armstrong says, “Oh yeah. How does a government default? We are in this Ponzi Scheme. They have to keep selling new debt to pay off the old debt. . . . When you can’t sell the new debt, that’s when the default happens because you can’t pay off the old debt.” What should the average guy do now? Does Armstrong think people should get to the bank and get cash? Armstrong says, “Yes, cash, physical paper money. We just had two hurricanes here in Florida. This idea of Bitcoin and CBDCs are very nice, but what’s the reality? The internet was down for 10 days. A credit card did not work. You wanted something, it was cash only. It was the same in Canada when they froze all the accounts of the truckers. They could not even buy food. Unless you had cash, you were dead in the water. This is why I am saying to have cash in this point in time.” Armstrong still likes physical gold, too. Armstrong says the digital currencies that are getting a lot of attention lately are only a control mechanism. Armstrong contends digital money will stop bank runs. Armstrong still thinks the world will be at war by April or May of 2025. Armstrong says watch Turkey with its huge conventional army. Armstrong says Jordan and Lebanon may also be taken over, and like Syria, Turkey will be orchestrating this move. Armstrong says the Middle East is setting up for a major conflict starting in 2025, and there will be destruction. Armstrong also predicts Europe will be on the losing end of the next world war. In closing, Armstrong says, “They can’t stop Trump from taking office, but they can delay him with martial law. Martial law has been enacted 60 times in the United States. . . . The neocons are scared to death of Trump and really want to trap him in war before he takes office.”

There are indications that the Pluralistic Ignorance that has characterized the past 4 years is at last coming to an end. More and more people are openly questioning the veracity of our response to Covid. Trust in physicians and hospitals has plummeted. The credibility of our Public Health institutions has been squandered. It will only be regained through a combination of insistence on accountability for past actions, the abolition (not just declaration) of conflicts of interest, the untangling of the influence of Big Pharma on public policy, and reform in organized medicine and medical education. https://brownstone.org/articles/medicine-needs-critical-thinking-not-critical-theory/

Over the past few decades, the dramatic increase in autism spectrum disorders (ASD), now diagnosed in 1 in every 36 children, A closer look at government statistics reveals alarming trends in children’s health that go far beyond better diagnostics. Since the early 1990s, there have been staggering increases in several chronic conditions: ADHD rates have risen by 890 percent. The media compounds the issue by amplifying the official narrative while systematically excluding dissenting voices. This failure of transparency has allowed federal health agencies like the CDC, NIAID, and HHS to evade accountability. https://www.globalresearch.ca/autism-made-usa/5874947

USAA Punished for it Claims Handling Punitive Damages Should be Awarded With Caution and Within Narrow Limits Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/usaa-punished-claims-handling-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-nbp2c, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts. Posted on December 19, 2024 by Barry Zalma DISPUTE OVER HURRICANE DAMAGES RESULTS IN MAJOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR BAD FAITH Although he Mississippi Supreme Court recognized the need to only award punitive damages with caution and within narrow limits, it did not limit its award in accordance with that maxim. After almost 19 years of litigation the last appeal resolved the various disputes. FACTS Hurricane Katrina destroyed Paul and Sylvia Minor’s home on August 29, 2005. The Minors had a homeowner’s insurance policy with United Services Automobile Association (USAA). The USAA policy covered damage caused by wind but excluded damage caused by storm surge or flood. The Minors reported their loss with USAA, which resulted in a years-long coverage dispute. USAA ultimately issued payments for damage it concluded was caused by wind but not for damage it concluded was caused by storm surge or flood. The Minors maintained that they suffered a total loss caused by wind and demanded that USAA pay the policy limits. The case proceeded to trial in 2013, and the jury awarded the Minors $1,547,293.37 in compensatory damages. In United Services Automobile Association v. Estate Of Sylvia F. Minor, Kathryn Minor and Stephen Minor, No. 2023-CA-00049-SCT, Supreme Court of Mississippi, En Banc (December 5, 2024) resolved the bad faith claims. The issue was ultimately presented to a jury. The jury awarded the Minors $10,000,000 in punitive damages and $457,858.89 in extra-contractual damages (solely attorneys’ fees). USAA appealed, raising several assignments of error. Trial To establish its bad faith claim, the Minor Estate introduced various USAA documents, including (1) portions of the USAA underwriting file; (2) the confidential email regarding (a) the engineer’s March 2006 findings and (b) Bergstrom’s conclusion that USAA would be responsible for paying for all the windows and the contents in rooms with windows; and (3) USAA’s letter to the Minors in June 2006 indicating the majority of damage was due to flooding. Punitive Damages Punitive damages are considered an ‘extraordinary remedy’ and should be awarded ‘with caution and within narrow limits.'” The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented at trial demonstrates a type of conduct for which punitive damages were designed. The Minor Estate provided sufficient proof that USAA acted in bad faith, with complete disregard for the Estate’s rights. Whether The $10 Million Punitive Damages Award Should Be Reversed Or, Alternatively, Reduced. USAA alternatively argues that the $10 million verdict should be reduced because it claims that the damages award is a 22:1 ratio and therefore unconstitutionally disproportionate to the extra-contractual damages awarded ($457,858.89). USAA relies on State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 1524, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003), which states that “[s]ingle-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process.” USAA argued that a 1:1 ratio should apply to the damages award here. The Supreme Court found that punitive damages is less than seven times the amount of compensatory damages, which it concluded clearly falls within the guideline provided in Campbell. A punitive damages award not only serves as a deterrent, it also compensates the plaintiff for its public service in bringing the action. The Supreme Court found the trial court’s decision to force the Minor Estate to use nearly half of its award to pay attorneys’ fees does not adequately compensate the Estate for bringing this action against USAA for its bad faith conduct in handling the Minors’ insurance claim from 2005. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred by denying the Estate’s post-trial motion for attorneys’ fees. CONCLUSION In sum, the trial judge did not err as a matter of law by submitting the issue of punitive damages to jury, and the $10 million award of punitive damages is not unconstitutionally disproportionate. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict awarding the Minor Estate $10 million in punitive damages and $457,858.89 in extra-contractual damages as to attorneys’ fees and reverse the judgment of the trial court and render attorneys’ fees on behalf of the Estate in the amount of $4,500,000, plus post-judgment interest at an annual rate of 4 percent from October 3, 2022, the date of judgment, until paid. ZALMA OPINION This case that dragged on through the courts of Mississippi for 19 years and resulted in compensatory damages based upon an interpretation finding coverage for the estate and that the insurer’s conduct was so egregious that the estate was entitled to tort damages plus punitive damages many times more than the compensatory damages. The Supreme Court astonishingly concluded that punitive damages were not limited to punishing the insurer but were payment to the estate for its action on behalf of everyone in the state of Mississippi and that they should not be required to pay their lawyers but that payment should come from the insurer as part of its punishment. The Supreme Court ignored the fact that as a result the estate must pay income taxes on the punishment damages since they are not designed to make the insured whole and punished each member and insured of USAA. In my opinion it’s time the courts of the USA do away with the tort of bad faith to avoid excessive judgments and allow contract disputes to be enlarged into a major amount of punishment for an insurer who rejected a claim based on interpretation of contract terms and the facts of a loss, like this case. In that regard see my book, It’s Time to Abolish The Tort of Bad Faith Available as a paperback here. Available as a Kindle book here. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

Inadequate Litigant’s Cases Dismissed Plaintiff, by her Litigation Appears to Establish the Report for a Mental Health Evaluation Was Appropriate Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gECRyZ-f, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gs_4Bby9 and at https://lnkd.in/g67dDK8q, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts. Post 4950 In Samreen Riaz v. State Of California, et al., F087504, California Court of Appeals, Fifth District (December 2, 2024) the California Court of Appeals found itself asked to resolve suits against an individual and the state of California from an inadequate but excessively litigious plaintiff. FACTS Samreen Riaz was a licensed dentist – she lost her license to practice because of the facts underlying this case. According to her, there is an elaborate conspiracy to harass, stalk, threaten, and ultimately prevent her from testifying in a separate “whistleblower” case involving “OSHA and HIPPA Violations” at a medical facility. Riaz sued raising numerous claims against numerous individuals and government entities. The opposing parties challenged the complaint’s viability through demurrer and anti-SLAPP proceedings. The trial court sustained the demurrers and granted the anti-SLAPP motion, leaving Riaz with no viable claim. Riaz appealed. BACKGROUND The facts underlying this case involve four discrete events. First: Riaz sued a medical facility and suffered an alleged eye injury while attempting to testify in that case. Second: She sought treatment for that eye injury but was refused service and then sued that doctor in small claims court. Third: That doctor reported Riaz to the Dental Board of California which, in turn, initiated mental health competence proceedings against Riaz. Fourth: Riaz’s license to practice dentistry was revoked, and she filed the complaint at issue in this case. Initial Lawsuit Against Medical Facility Acting as a “whistleblower,” Riaz “disclosed … OSHA, Hippa, recruited patient, potential insurance fraud and anti-competent activities in the market” at a medical facility. After filing a lawsuit on that basis, Riaz claimed she suffered “organized harassment,” culminating in “permanent eye damage” after a sheriff-department employee pointed a finger in her face while attempting to enter the courthouse in her “whistleblower” case. Visiting Doctor for Eye Injury Riaz visited Dr. Cantrell to treat an eye injury. She claimed Cantrell became combative, refused to answer Riaz’s questions, and declined to treat Riaz. The next day, Riaz filed a complaint with the Medical Board of California. Several days later, she filed a small claims case against Cantrell, essentially alleging discrimination, negligence, and retaliation. A small claims judgment was eventually entered in Cantrell’s favor. Report to Dental Board Cantrell reported Riaz to the Dental Board. The Dental Board issued an order to Riaz to comply with a mental health examination “to evaluate her fitness to practice safely ….” (See Bus. &Prof. Code, § 820.) Riaz failed to comply with the order. Since Riaz continued to disobey the order, her license to practice dentistry was ultimately revoked. Instant Complaint and Judgment Riaz sued Cantrell, various government entities, and several individuals working for those entities (collectively, the State). The complaint alleged an elaborate conspiracy among all the defendants to injure Riaz, to intimidate her to prevent her from testifying, and to retaliate against her for the “whistleblower” case. The trial court sustained the demurrers and granted the anti-SLAPP motion resulting in total dismissal. DISCUSSION Did the trial court err in granting the anti-SLAPP motion? Did it err in sustaining the demurrers? The California Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not err. Anti-SLAPP Motion In the anti-SLAPP motion, Cantrell argued his furnishing information to the Dental Board was protected activity and defeated claims “for discrimination, fraud, defamation, retaliation[,] and intentional infliction of emotional distress[.]” In opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, Riaz claimed again Cantrell “made inaccurate, knowingly misleading statements to the [D]ental [B]oard to defame and harm [Riaz] based on disclosing patient information.” The trial court concluded furnishing those documents to the board constituted protected activity. ANALYSIS Litigation of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process. First, the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims that arise from protected activity in which the defendant has engaged. Second, for each claim that does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must show the claim has at least minimal merit. If the plaintiff cannot make this showing, the court will, and did, strike the claim. If there is no merit, the claim is stricken. The Court of Appeals noted that Riaz failed to adduce any evidence-including exhibits, declarations, judicial notice, and testimony-to substantiate her allegation Cantrell reported her to the Dental Board for retribution. She failed to adduce admissible evidence on the point. DEMURRERS Both Cantrell and the State filed demurrers to Riaz’s complaint.. Additional Background A small claims plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating the same issue in superior court where the record is sufficiently clear to determine that the issue was litigated and decided against plaintiff in the small claims action. Governmental immunity is an affirmative defense properly raised by demurrer. Government Code section 821.6 immunizes public employees from liability for ‘instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding’ within the scope of their employment, even if the employees act ‘maliciously and without probable cause. Riaz alleged her claims arose in July 2022. Her written government claim was submitted in April 2023, more than six months later. Accordingly, the claims were barred, at least insofar as they stemmed from the section 820 order. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY Riaz failed to allege colorable claims against either Cantrell or the State. The potential claims against Cantrell were either tried and resolved against her in small claims court or dismissed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The potential claims against the State were either barred for failure to timely present them under the Government Claims Act, or the State was immune under Government Code sections 821.6, 818.4, and 821.2. ZALMA OPINION It is axiomatic that a person who represents himself has a fool for a client. The litigation history, the multiple actions, and the lack of consistency and evidence, establish that Dr. Cantrell was correct when he advised the Dental Board that a mental health examination to evaluate her fitness to practice safely…” was correct. She refused to fulfill her obligation to the Dental Board to be evaluated because she was concerned she would not pass. This case is an abuse of Doctor Cantrell and the state and should have resulted in serious sanctions. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

https://lawenforcementtoday.com/wisconsin-parent-suing-after-child-is-denied-school-resources-on-account-of-being-white

Falsely Claiming to Be an Insurer Can be Criminal To Sue for Business Disparagement Evidence is Required Post 4951, Posted on December 17, 2024 by Barry Zalma Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/falsely-claiming-insurer-can-criminal-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-3bwrc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts. See the full video at and at Plaintiff Route App, Inc.’s (“Route”) moved the USDC to Dismiss two counterclaims asserted by OrderProtection.com, Inc. (“OrderProtection”). In Route App, Inc. v. Orderprotection.Com, Inc.; Julian Wilson, et al, No. 2:23cv606 DAK, United States District Court, D. Utah (December 9, 2024) found no evidence supporting a claim of business disparagement or business defamation. BACKGROUND This case involves a dispute between Route, a post-purchase shipping insurance provider, and a competitor, OrderProtection. In its Complaint, Route alleges that OrderProtection and several of Route’s former employees misappropriated trade secrets to create a competing business. In response to Route’s Complaint, OrderProtection filed an Answer and Counterclaims, asserting four causes of action: (1) Unfair Competition in Violation of the Lanham Act; (2) Defamation Per Se/Defamation/Business Disparagement; (3) Tortious Interference with Existing and Prospective Economic Relations; and (4) Negligent Misrepresentation. The facts pertaining to OrderProtection’s claim for “Defamation/Defamation Per Se/Business Disparagement” are essentially that Route employees have allegedly told OrderProtection customers and potential customers that they should work with Route instead of OrderProtection because Route is a “legal insurance provider” and OrderProtection is not. OrderProtection argued that Route is not a licensed insurance company and that, at best, Route affiliates with an insurance producer to procure its own insurance coverage (which does not benefit customers or merchants). More importantly both Route and OrderProtection in essence both self-fund the warranty protection they provide, and thus a customer is no better off with Route’s protection package than with OrderProtection’s competitive offering. DISCUSSION Specifically, while OrderProtection’s Opposition Memorandum does not explicitly state that it conceded its defamation and defamation per se claims, OrderProtection never addresses Route’s argument that it could not properly maintain these causes of action in the context of this case. Even if OrderProtection had not conceded these claims, it failed to establish that these claims are viable in the context of this case. Further, OrderProtection made no argument that Utah law recognizes a “hybrid” cause of action for “Defamation Per Se/Defamation/Business Disparagement,” wherein a business disparagement claim may be analyzed using defamation or defamation per se case law rather than case law pertaining to a business disparagement claim. Business Disparagement The parties agree that to state a claim for business disparagement (sometimes called injurious falsehood), OrderProtection must allege (1) falsity of the statement made; (2) malice by the party making the statement; and (3) special damages. According to Route, while OrderProtection has made allegations of lost customers, it has not named specific individuals, nor has it alleged with particularity any financial losses, which is required under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court declined to recognize a “business disparagement per se” cause of action in which special damages need not be alleged, and it declined to recognize a business disparagement claim that relies on a statement that is “false by implication,” which is a concept that has been recognized in defamation cases. Route’s Motion to Dismiss was granted and OrderProtection’s claims for defamation and defamation per se were dismissed with prejudice. Its claim for business disparagement was dismissed without prejudice, and OrderProtection may file a Motion for Leave to Amend by January 10, 2025, if it is able to allege a proper business disparagement claim, as discussed above. ZALMA OPINION Two businesses claiming to be issuers of insurance who were not licensed insurers claimed to be victims of disparagement by the other. Customers, because of the various claims shifted from one party to the other who, contrary to their claims, were self funding what they alleged was insurance of shipments of goods. The court in a Solomon-like decision ignored the fact that both claimed to be insurers when they were not and used the false claims to take over clients. Both lost and the court gave OrderProtection the attempt to state a business disparagement claim implying that the court did not believe OrderProtection would be able to plead a viable cause of action. The State of Utah Department of Insurance should consider this case. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

Everything is tied to it. Skills integrate and flow together in a way that all of it helps develop your character. I'm not sure any other game can do this better than Runescape and it's likely to be beneficial, considering that because an experience that's been in existence for as long as Runescape has to have a motive for its longevity in the category. Its Ironman mode is a great new feature in an old game. Long may it last. Old school RuneScape players who want to earn new skins and cosmetics through slogging across the classic game's contents can begin doing so today, when the game launches the brand new Quest Speedrunning Worlds. The server is an entirely distinct members-only variant of the game that has specific rules and restrictions. In order to begin a speedrunning session participants will have to choose a challenge upon logging on to the server. This quest they'll need to finish as quickly as they can. To ensure fairness in the competition the character's level will be automatically adapted to the appropriate level for the quest chosen. The quests will only be available when the game launches and ten more will be added in the coming five months. Points and awards for Speedrunning are given based on the speed at which the quest can be completed. These points can be used to purchase a variety of cosmetic and reward items, such as Adventurer's Outfits with different tiers, Speedy Teleport Scrolls, and the Giant Stopwatch item. Quest Speedrunning World is open! Quest Speedrunning World is officially in operation as of this writing to those who wish to tackle the challenge. "Quest Speedrunning Worlds open. Go to the Quest Speedrunning World and smash those bars!" Jagex tweeted. "Show us your fastest times, but above all else, enjoy yourself!" Jagex revealed today as part of the 300 million account celebrations, they'll launch Fresh Start servers for RuneScape and Old School RuneScape on September 12th for RS3 and in October for OSRS. The name suggests that they'll be completely new servers on which players can begin from scratch in the same way as all other players. The servers that are fresh starts are only available for a certain period of time (4 months) and characters will be moved to normal servers following the duration of the event. RuneScape Fresh Start Worlds are set to be available for four months which will allow players to revisit RuneScape in a group as they go back to iconic cities, unforgettable quests, zones of improvement and boss fights and all of them with increased gaming boosts and XP. Players can return to the main game at any time, with their newly-levelled character as well as their abundant rewards, which include new clothing and pet skins, as well as alternative capes for skill and rare tradeable rewards. For those who are competitive, they can also take advantage of an eight-week competition focusing on high scores and world-firsts. Old School RuneScape Fresh Start Worlds will be launched in October, and will offer players an exciting challenge and chance. In contrast to RuneScape, Old School Fresh Start Worlds won't get the XP boost, meaning players must depend on their own wits to make progress. It will provide players with the exact Old School RuneScape experience players are familiar with, but they'll be stepping into the world of new economic system and high scores waiting to be earned. Six months after the launchdate, players will be able to have their avatars transferred to an official game server in order to ensure that they can play for many years to the future. Rsorder.com: The most professional site to Buy OSRS Gold/RS3 Gold, items, accounts, power leveling, and questing services.

US PROMOTES FREE SPEECH ABROAD WHILE USING NGOS TO CENSOR INFORMATION AT HOME. #Trump and every other political #Parasite are lying sacks of feces! They WANT Censorship in violation of the Constitution! Not Trump SAYS he wants Free Speech... Right up until you speak #Truth about a #Jew! THEN he wants you sent to PRISON! Because HE is a Jew! And on top of that, he wants our #Criminal filled #Police Departments to be MORE "ABOVE THE LAW" than they already are! Bullshit! Police have no more rights than ANY other American! And it is time to toss "Qualified Immunity" AND time to ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW... Namely TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 18 U.S.C. § 242! These are laws on the books to hold government accountable! PROSECUTORS are criminal and complicit, so THE PEOPLE need to convene a grand jury THEMSELVES and see that criminal Police are held accountable (Along with Prosecutors who fail to uphold these statutes) It's up to YOU to hold the criminals in government accountable! They are not going to do it themselves! https://old.bitchute.com/video/8KO9xuqOkxDu/