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/

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 Fourth: Riaz’s license to practice dentistry was revoked, and she filed the complaint at issue in this case.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

December 13, 1952 – Transporting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, an armored Marine Corps personnel carrier made its way down Constitution Avenue, accompanied by two light tanks, four servicemen carrying sub-machine guns, and a motorcycle escort. A color guard, ceremonial troops, the Army Band, and the Air Force Drum and Bugle Corps were also part of the procession. Members of all the military branches lined the street. Inside the personnel carrier were six parchment documents. The records were in helium-filled glass cases packed inside wooden crates resting on mattresses. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were going to the National Archives. In 1926, $1 million was appropriated for a national archives building, and in 1930 President Hoover appointed an Advisory Committee for the National Archives to draw up specifications for the building. John Russell Pope was selected as architect, and a year later, ground was broken. By 1933, the cornerstone of the building had been put in place by President Herbert Hoover. Staff were working in the unfinished building by 1935. But despite this flurry of activity, the vault-like building did not house the founding documents that we call the “Charters of Freedom.” The documents had been shuttled around to various buildings for various reasons. They started out in the Department of State, and as the capital moved from New York to Philadelphia to Washington, DC, these documents moved too. Eventually they were turned over to the Library of Congress. With exception of a short stay at Fort Knox during World War II, the Declaration and the Constitution remained at the Library of Congress from 1921 to 1952. The Bill of Rights had been given into the safekeeping of the National Archives in 1938. In 1952, the Library of Congress agreed to transfer the Declaration and the Constitution to the National Archives. The Bill of Rights would finally be in the company of the two other founding documents. With great pomp and ceremony, the six boxes were carried up the steps. The tall bronze doors—now used only on July 4—were opened, and the six sheets of parchment were carried into the Rotunda, where they remain today.

Intent to Move is not a Residence Residence Premises Requires the Insured to Live in Residence Post 4944 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intent-move-residence-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-qmlxc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. In Paul Villalobos v. Clear Blue Insurance Company, No. 24-20125, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (December 10, 2024) the the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissa of Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Villalobos’s breach of contract claim following a coverage dispute between himself and his insurer, Clear Blue Insurance Company, because he admitted he did not live in the insured premises. FACTS Villalobos is named on a Clear Blue homeowners’ policy, which provides coverage for property located at 7503 Muirwood Lane in Houston, Texas (the “Property”). The policy’s “Property Coverages” section states in pertinent part: “We cover . . . [t]he dwelling on the ‘residence premises’ shown in the Declarations.” The policy defines “residence premises,” also in pertinent part, as “[t]he one-family dwelling where you reside . . . on the inception date of the policy period shown in the Declarations.” The Declarations page lists Villalobos as the insured, his mailing address as the Property, and the inception date as September 21, 2021. In mid-November 2021, Villalobos reported to Clear Blue that wind and hail had damaged the Property’s roof earlier that month. Clear Blue denied coverage after Villalobos admitted he lived in Colorado and had never resided at the Property. Villalobos sued Clear Blue, alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Insurance Code, fraud, and ongoing conspiracy to commit illegal acts. ANALYSIS During his deposition, Villalobos testified that he lived in Colorado for over nine years and did not reside at the Property when the Clear Blue policy went into effect. Clear Blue moved for summary judgment on Villalobos’s claims, arguing there was no insurance coverage for Villalobos’s property damage as a matter of law. Applying Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit has previously determined that an identical residence requirement in a homeowners’ insurance policy required “more than purchasing a home or intending to move into it.” GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co. v. Joachin, 964 F.3d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 2020). Applying Joachin the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Property did not satisfy the policy’s residence requirement and was not a covered “residence premises” because: it is undisputed that Villalobos did not reside on the Property on the inception date of the Clear Blue policy; and Villalobos’s only material argument on appeal is that he intended to move onto the Property. Joachin held that “intending to move” is not enough. The Fifth Circuit concluded that there is no coverage under the policy. Accordingly, Villalobos’s breach of contract claim failed and the USDC’s judgment was affirmed. ZALMA OPINION That something as obvious as a home in Texas cannot be the residence premises of a person who lives full time in Colorado. Insurers issue property insurance policies providing coverage similar to a homeowners policy to the owner of a rental property while a homeowners policy limits coverage to the person who actually resides at the property. That this case went to the Fifth Circuit was the waste of Plaintiff’s time and money, the waste of the time of the trial court, and the waste of the time of the Fifth Circuit who rendered a concise and clear opinion. A less kind judge or appellate court would have imposed sanctions on the party plaintiff and his counsel. (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

Shit Hits Fan When Trump Takes Office – Larry Klayman - Greg Hunter https://rumble.com/v5vpftk-shit-hits-fan-when-trump-takes-office-larry-klayman.html Renowned Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch, is back with an update on the crime and violence cooking with the commie Dems, RINO’s and Deep State. First, the crime coverup is the pardon of Hunter Biden that spans 10 years of alleged crime. First Lady Jill Biden is elated about the pardon for son Hunter. Klayman says, “The fact that Jill Biden is so happy about this is because she is one of the actors and conspirators in the bribery, which took place with regard to communist China, Ukraine and Russia. She benefitted by it. Who was the money launderer? Her son, Hunter Biden. She could have been indicted along with Hunter as well as brother James of the Biden crime family for the bribery and money laundering. . . . I think his brother James will get a pardon because he’s dead to rights with what has been uncovered. I think more pardons are coming. Joe Biden does not care at this point. The guy has no legitimate reputation.” Klayman predicted just about three weeks ago, “The communists, the atheists, the radicals and the Left . . . are going to get violent, and we better be prepared for that.” What happened recently is there have been multiple death threats against Donald Trump’s cabinet picks. Klayman says, “The same is true with Kash Patel. The fact they want to take his head off means he is perceived to be a threat. It’s the same thing in regard to Pete Hegseth. It’s the same thing in regard to Tulsi Gabbard. They don’t like these people because they cannot be controlled. They don’t like Musk and, God forbid, I hope it does not happen, but I think the Left is going to try to kill Musk along with Trump again. I have had death threats myself recently, and this is where we are. You got to do what you got to do. The Founding Fathers did not worry about it. They did it under the Grace of God. Divine Providence is what they talk about in the Declaration of Independence.” This is just the opening act from the Left. Klayman says “They are the disciples of Karl Marx, which are disciples of the devil. . . . As I predicted in our last podcast, the violence is just beginning once Trump takes office and starts implementing what he says he is going to do with regard to the border, the criminal justice system, with regard to the Middle East and many other things. . . .Trump just threatened Iran if the hostages are not released. You are going to get all these radical terrorist sympathizers that will come out of the woodwork on that. Already, Iran has sent hit squads to try to kill Trump. This has not come to fruition yet . . .but once he becomes President, all hell is going to break loose. You can bet that is going to happen. . . . Trump is up against a number of individuals in the House and in the Senate that will do whatever they can to block Trump. So, whenever he actually takes executive action and pushes things through, excuse the French, the shit is going to hit the fan. You are going to see them in the streets, as we saw in the last few weeks, with the reported attempts to kill the Trump nominees. It’s there.”

South Korean president says he will lift martial law: shortly after he announced his intention to withdraw the measure. President reverses martial law declaration after immediate opposition from parliament.

Zalma's Insurance Fraud Letter - December 1, 2024 ZIFL Volume 28 No. 22 Post 4939 Read the full article at Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdfand at https://zalma.com/blog. Subscribe to ZIFL at https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 28th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud: The EUO is a Material Condition Precedent A Key Tool in the Effort to Reduce Fraud Claim Properly Denied for Refusal to Testify at EUO I spoke recently at the Conference of the Southern California Fraud Investigators Association on the Examination Under Oath as a tool to help insureds prove their losses and what happens when an insured fails or refuses to testify. This case emphasizes the purpose of my talk. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Thanksgiving Wishes from the Zalma Family My family and I have much to be thankful for this year. My first born daughter, Stephanie Zalma, continues to care for my wife 24 hours a day 7 days a week with love and patience as Thea continues as Nana to our two grandchildren and the loving mother of our three children. After receiving a new Aortic Heart Valve I am personally in good health, walking about 25 miles a week. Exercising my, apparently unusual mode of retirement, I work only six to eight hours a day doing what I love the most, writing about insurance, insurance claims, insurance law and acting as an insurance claims consultant and expert witness. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf More McClenny Moseley & Associates Issues This is ZIFL’s thirty eighth installment of the saga of McClenny, Moseley & Associates and its problems with the federal courts in the State of Louisiana and what appears to be an effort to profit from what some Magistrate and District judges may be criminal to profit from insurance claims relating to hurricane damage to the public of the state of Louisiana. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Ethical Behavior & Insurance Insurance, from the time of its first agreement to the present day has always been a business requiring ethical behavior between the insurer and the insured and between the insured and the insurer. The concept of ethical behavior refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues, all of which are essential to the lawyer. Ethics refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from murder, rape, theft, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that imply virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. There are rights presumed to exist such as those described in the Declaration of Independence submitted to King George of England in 1776 that held: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The unalienable rights also include the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to liberty. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Health Insurance Fraud Convictions Michigan Woman Convicted of $1.4M Health Care Kickback Scheme Mary Smettler-Bolton, 71, of Oakland County, Michigan was convicted November 22, 2024 for her role in a conspiracy to defraud the United States and receive illegal health care kickbacks. According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Mary referred Medicare beneficiaries to several Metro Detroit home health companies in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks paid by the owners and operators of the home health companies. Over the course of four years, she and her co-conspirators caused over $1.4 million of loss to Medicare. Smettler-Bolton was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and receive illegal health care kickbacks and one count of violating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. She is scheduled to be sentenced on March 3, 2025, and faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison on the conspiracy count and a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on the kickback count. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. Read the full article about dozens more convictions at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Convictions of Other Than Health Insurance Fraud Creative Fraudster Guilty of $229K Insurance Fraud Schemes Justin Mack, a native of Buffalo, New York, and a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, was sentenced on November 25, 2024 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Mack, an Ohio man was sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay restitution for filing 24 fraudulent claims with multiple insurance companies, totaling more than $229,000. An extensive investigation uncovered Mack’s pattern of submitting altered documentation, falsified claims, and using other people’s identities to fraudulently secure payouts from multiple insurance companies. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf The Examination Under Oath Is Not Part of a Judicial Process Although the EUO is a formal proceeding it is not part of a judicial process nor is it subject to the rules set out by codes of civil procedure. There is no right to object to questions and never a judge present to rule on the objections. The testimony at the EUO is required to be presented in accordance with the obligation imposed on an insured to deal fairly and in good faith with the insurer. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Barry Zalma Barry Zalma, Inc., 4441 Sepulveda Boulevard, CULVER CITY CA 90230-4847, 310-390-4455. Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome. Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; https://www.zalma.com; https://zalma.com/blog. He publishes daily articles at https://zalma.substack.com, Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ to consider more than 50 volumes written by Barry Zalma on insurance and insurance claims handling. Go to Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/; Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ and GTTR at https://gettr.com/@zalma

When Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwt49KRg, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggwkMJ_U and at https://lnkd.in/gbFpkHtK and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. When Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage Post 4939 Karina Monasterio appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of Progressive Express Insurance Company on Progressive’s complaint for declaratory judgment and Monasterio’s counterclaim against Progressive, and in favor of Rasier-DC, LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc. on her crossclaim against those defendants. In Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Karina Monasterio, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier – DC, LLC, No. 24-11256, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (November 18, 2024) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the USDC. FACTS Progressive sued for declaratory judgment. Monasterio counterclaimed seeking a declaration that Florida’s TNC Act required Progressive, Rasier-DC, and Uber to provide uninsured motorist coverage for her accident. Florida’s TNC Act required insurance coverage may be maintained by the TNC, the TNC driver, or the TNC vehicle owner, or it may be provided by a combination of their policies. FLORIDA UM/UIM COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS Florida Statutes provide that no motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” registered or principally garaged in this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto. Neither Rasier-DC nor any other named insured paid the premium for uninsured motorist coverage. THE APPEAL The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the statutory text is clear. The policy was not issued for any “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” registered or garaged in Florida. So, the requirements of the statute did not apply. Because statute did not require uninsured motorist coverage for the auto insurance policy the TNC Act did not. ZALMA OPINION It is always important for a court to read the language of the applicable statute and the policy to determine coverage on an automobile insurance policy. Here the TNC, Raiser-DC rejected UM/UIM coverage and coverage was clearly not required by the statute. The only question I have is why the parties thought it was worth their time and effort to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. (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://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

🚨🚨 From a friend **Please READ the following to the end … It will open your understanding of what the World as a whole suffered in the past four years … and Still Suffer …** **Their Plandemic Failed … but don’t worry … They Still Have PLAN B … starting in 2025 … that will last at least to 2030 …** **Unless We The People … ACT … Immediately …** ***“CDC Planned National Quarantine Camps”*** ***By Jeffrey A. Tucker November 7, 2024*** ***“The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.”*** ***“No matter how bad you think COVID-19 policies were, they were intended to be worse. Consider the vaccine passports alone.*** ***Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.*** ***The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.*** ***It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialled back.*** ***Features of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous ‘six feet of distance’ and ‘mask mandates’.*** ***It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.*** ***Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps.*** ***People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services.*** ***The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.*** ***The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023.*** ***During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.*** ***It was called ‘Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings’.*** ***‘This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. …’*** ***‘This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings.’*** ***‘The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data.’*** ***‘Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.’*** ***By the absence of empirical data, the meaning is: that nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided.*** ***The meaning of ‘shielding’ is:*** ***‘To reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (‘high-risk’) and the general population (‘low-risk’).’*** ***‘High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting. … They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.’*** ***In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.*** ***Who are these people who would be rounded up? They are ‘older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions’. Who determines this? Public health authorities. The purpose?*** ***The CDC explains: ‘physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population’ allows authorities ‘to prioritize the use of the limited available resources’.*** ***This sounds a lot like condemning people to death in the name of protecting them.*** ***The model establishes three levels. First is the household level. Here high-risk people are physically isolated from other household members’.*** ***That alone is objectionable. Elders need people to take care of them. They need love and to be surrounded by family. The CDC should never imagine that it would intervene in households to force old people into separate places.*** ***The model jumps from households to the “neighborhood level.” Here we have the same approach: forced separation of those deemed vulnerable.*** ***From there, the model jumps again to the ‘camp/sector level’. Here it is different:*** ***‘A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together.’*** ***‘One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.’*** ***Yes, you read that correctly. The CDC is here proposing concentration camps for the sick or anyone they deem to be in danger of medically significant consequences of infection.*** ***Further: ‘to minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile. Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune’.*** ***The plan says in passing, contradicting thousands of years of experience, ‘Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity’.*** ***Therefore the only solution is to minimize all exposure throughout the whole population. Getting sick is criminalized.*** ***These camps require a ‘dedicated staff’ to:*** ***‘Monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.’*** ***The people housed in these camps need to have good explanations of why they are denied even basic religious freedom.*** ***The report explains:*** ***‘Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.’*** ***Further, there must be some mechanisms to prohibit suicide: Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures and loss of livelihoods.*** ***Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind.*** ***Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.*** ***The biggest risk, the document explains, is as follows: “While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.”*** ***It should go without saying but this ‘shielding’ approach suggested here has nothing to do with focused protection of the Great Barrington Declaration.*** ***Focused protection specifically says:*** ***‘Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home.’*** ***‘Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.’*** ***In four years of research, and encountering truly shocking documents and evidence of what happened in the COVID-19 years, this one certainly ranks up at the top of the list of totalitarian schemes for pathogenic control prior to vaccination. It is quite simply mind-blowing that such a scheme could ever be contemplated.*** ***Who wrote it? What kind of deep institutional pathology exists that enabled this to be contemplated?*** ***The CDC has 10,600 full-time employees and contractors and a budget of $11.5 billion. In light of this report, and everything else that has gone on there for four years, both numbers should be zero.”*** https://brownstone.org/articles/the-cdc-planned-quarantine-camps-nationwide/ **Here are some links to this article:** - ***“U.S. Developing Vaccine Passport System Using Complex Web of Big Tech Partnerships”*** https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/us-developing-vaccine-passport-system/ - ***"Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings*** ***Updated July 26, 2020"*** https://web.archive.org/web/20200728203549/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html

No Breach of Contract no Bad Faith Happy Veterans Day to My Fellow Veterans Some Claims Proper Some Not Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/happy-veterans-day-my-fellow-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-ovpec, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/happy-veterans-day-my-fellow-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-ovpec and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Post 4929 Vepo Design Corporation and its officers (collectively, “Vepo”) appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on their breach of contract and bad faith claims against American Economy Insurance Company (“AEIC”). Vepo’s claims relate to AEIC’s denial of coverage following a fire in a laundromat, known as the “Central Laundromat,” which Vepo was developing. In Vepo Design Corporation, et al. v. American Economy Insurance Company, No. 23-55634, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (November 4, 2024) the issues were resolved serially. DECISIONS Business Income The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AEIC on Vepo’s business income claim, which concerns income Vepo contends it would have earned operating the Central Laundromat if the fire had not occurred. AEIC argued that Vepo’s claim for lost income was too speculative given that the Central Laundromat was still under construction and Vepo had not secured additional financing to own and operate it. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Vepo as the non-moving party the Ninth Circuit concluded that there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact and that Vepo’s claim for lost business income is not unduly speculative. There is evidence that Vepo was contemplating an arrangement under which it would own and operate the Central Laundromat for a period of time before selling it, and that Vepo later engaged in similar arrangements for other laundromats. Vepo, which was experienced in the laundromat industry, also demonstrated that it had a history of securing financing for its laundromat projects and that it intended to refinance the Central Laundromat once a certificate of occupancy was received. Although Vepo had not secured refinancing for the Central Laundromat as of the time of the fire, Vepo’s Principal Owner stated in her declaration and confirmed at her deposition that it was too early to do so in the project timeline. That Vepo had yet to refinance does not render its claim too speculative as a matter of law and its losses are for a jury to decide. Extra Expense The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AEIC for the extra expenses that Vepo allegedly incurred in storing laundry equipment in a warehouse owned by Vepo’s sister company following the fire. While the policy only required the expense to be incurred, not paid, there was insufficient evidence to create a triable issue over whether the expense was incurred at all. No payment changed hands between the two entities, and there is no accounting record showing that Vepo was liable for the storage amount. When the same person signed as representative of both entities, does not create a genuine dispute of material fact. Lost Profits The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Vepo’s claim for lost profits on the prospective sale of the laundromat. Even assuming that such a loss would be covered under the policy, the claim fails because the policy limited coverage to losses that occur within one year of the incident. Vepo’s plan called for it to own and operate the Central Laundromat for at least one year after opening, which would place any hypothetical sale more than a year after the pre-opening fire. Individual Personal Property Claims The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for AEIC on the claims by the individual plaintiffs for their own personal property that was allegedly lost in the fire. As the district court correctly found, Vepo did not identify what individual property was lost or its worth. The individual plaintiffs’ claims were too unsupported to create a triable issue. Bad Faith The Ninth Circuit partially reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Vepo’s bad faith claim, to the extent of the single insurance claim it allowed to go forward-the business income claim. The district court may permit any further motions practice on the bad faith claim as it deems appropriate. However, it affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the bad faith claim insofar as that claim is premised on any of the other breach of contract claims to which AEIC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There is never a claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing if there was no improper denial of coverage under the policy. ZALMA OPINION The importance of this case is the reiteration of the law that there can never be a viable tort of bad faith if there is no improper denial of a claim by breach of the insurance contract. If the one cause of action remaining was breached in bad faith and there was no genuine dispute over coverage, that cause can be brought for bad faith damages. The other decisions of the Ninth Circuit were obvious and well reasoned. (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