• https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-12-19-national-defense-authorization-act-sails-through-congress.html National Defense Authorization Act sails through Congress with $895 billion for war and terror The 2025 NDAA passed in Congress with an $895 billion price tag, focusing on Pentagon funding.

    Total national security spending is projected by some experts to exceed $1.77 trillion, including debt interest and other spending.

    The bill includes pay raises for troops and funds for new military assets to counter China and other adversaries.

    Supplemental spending bills, like the $95 billion August package, further escalate military aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.

    Critics argue the NDAA prioritizes military spending over addressing domestic crises like homelessness and hunger.
    https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-12-19-national-defense-authorization-act-sails-through-congress.html National Defense Authorization Act sails through Congress with $895 billion for war and terror The 2025 NDAA passed in Congress with an $895 billion price tag, focusing on Pentagon funding. Total national security spending is projected by some experts to exceed $1.77 trillion, including debt interest and other spending. The bill includes pay raises for troops and funds for new military assets to counter China and other adversaries. Supplemental spending bills, like the $95 billion August package, further escalate military aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. Critics argue the NDAA prioritizes military spending over addressing domestic crises like homelessness and hunger.
    WWW.NATURALNEWS.COM
    National Defense Authorization Act sails through Congress with $895 billion for war and terror – NaturalNews.com
    The 2025 NDAA passed in Congress with an $895 billion price tag, focusing on Pentagon funding. Total national security spending is projected by some experts to exceed $1.77 trillion, including debt interest and other spending. The bill includes pay raises for troops and funds for new military assets to counter China and other adversaries. Supplemental […]
    Angry
    1
    0 Commenti 0 condivisioni 421 Views
  • Urgent: MI Senate voting TODAY on a dangerous bill package that make elections less secure. Please contact your MI State Senator and share your thoughts and concerns on the bills below:

    Find and contact your State Senator HERE: https://senate.michigan.gov/FindYourSenator/

    → HB 6052: Serial (stub) numbers on top of ballots are one of the final barriers to absentee ballot vote fraud, yet 6052 eliminates the requirement for absentee ballots to to have tear-off serial numbers. Plus, it allows for on-demand printing, so counties can take over the voting processes from their local municipalities, with no absentee ballot numbering system to allow clerks to track how many ballots were issued or where they came from.

    → HB 6053 imposes a shortened window of for corrective action, allowing making complaints on polling places, drop box locations, early voting will be inadmissible less than 45 days before an election. Since absentee voting is already in progress during this time frame, remediation of problems will be less likely

    → HB 6055 assaults the authority of local clerks. It takes away local control of clerks to administer elections. Instead, 6055 requires a school district “coordinating committee...to designate the clerk responsible for the school district election.”

    → HB 5551 prohibits “an individual from being a member of the board of state canvassers” or “board of county canvassers if that individual has been convicted of an election-related offense” but does specify what such an offense looks like. Some are concerned this could be weaponized to keep good, qualified candidates away from the positions that verify and certify the integrity of our elections.

    These bills have already passed the House, and if passed by the Senate today, will head to the Governor’s desk for signature.

    #Michigan #Elections #Urgent #CurrentEvents #ElectionIntegrity #SecureElections #ProtectOurVotes #ActNow #TakeAction #Senate #House #MISenate #StandForTruth #YourVoiceMatters
    Urgent: MI Senate voting TODAY on a dangerous bill package that make elections less secure. Please contact your MI State Senator and share your thoughts and concerns on the bills below: Find and contact your State Senator HERE: https://senate.michigan.gov/FindYourSenator/ → HB 6052: Serial (stub) numbers on top of ballots are one of the final barriers to absentee ballot vote fraud, yet 6052 eliminates the requirement for absentee ballots to to have tear-off serial numbers. Plus, it allows for on-demand printing, so counties can take over the voting processes from their local municipalities, with no absentee ballot numbering system to allow clerks to track how many ballots were issued or where they came from. → HB 6053 imposes a shortened window of for corrective action, allowing making complaints on polling places, drop box locations, early voting will be inadmissible less than 45 days before an election. Since absentee voting is already in progress during this time frame, remediation of problems will be less likely → HB 6055 assaults the authority of local clerks. It takes away local control of clerks to administer elections. Instead, 6055 requires a school district “coordinating committee...to designate the clerk responsible for the school district election.” → HB 5551 prohibits “an individual from being a member of the board of state canvassers” or “board of county canvassers if that individual has been convicted of an election-related offense” but does specify what such an offense looks like. Some are concerned this could be weaponized to keep good, qualified candidates away from the positions that verify and certify the integrity of our elections. These bills have already passed the House, and if passed by the Senate today, will head to the Governor’s desk for signature. #Michigan #Elections #Urgent #CurrentEvents #ElectionIntegrity #SecureElections #ProtectOurVotes #ActNow #TakeAction #Senate #House #MISenate #StandForTruth #YourVoiceMatters
    0 Commenti 0 condivisioni 946 Views

  • 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
    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
    WWW.LINKEDIN.COM
    Discover thousands of collaborative articles on 2500+ skills
    Discover 100 collaborative articles on domains such as Marketing, Public Administration, and Healthcare. Our expertly curated collection combines AI-generated content with insights and advice from industry experts, providing you with unique perspectives and up-to-date information on many skills and their applications.
    0 Commenti 0 condivisioni 1K Views
  • JAN. 6TH WAS AN INSIDE JOB...
    Whistleblower: FBI Deputy Director Abbate Told Agents to Hide Dozens of January 6 Informants from Public – Knew It Would Be “Too Embarrassing” for Agency to Tell the Truth to Americans...
    https://youtu.be/SBqr_CXbdCw?si=vyh7c6JZ0EkAg78y
    JAN. 6TH WAS AN INSIDE JOB... Whistleblower: FBI Deputy Director Abbate Told Agents to Hide Dozens of January 6 Informants from Public – Knew It Would Be “Too Embarrassing” for Agency to Tell the Truth to Americans... https://youtu.be/SBqr_CXbdCw?si=vyh7c6JZ0EkAg78y
    Vomit
    1
    1 Commenti 0 condivisioni 329 Views
  • https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/biden-authorizes-new-500-million-weapons-package-for-ukraine/
    https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/biden-authorizes-new-500-million-weapons-package-for-ukraine/
    THEPEOPLESVOICE.TV
    Biden Authorizes New $500 Million Weapons Package For Ukraine
    Outging US president Joe Biden has just signed off on yet more arms for Ukraine. The pentagon said the latest weapons package is worth $500 million. Seems Biden (or his puppet masters) are seeking to [...]
    0 Commenti 0 condivisioni 265 Views
  • Now On :Online retail giant Amazon faces sales restrictions in some countries, actions that go against human rights. https://en.as.com/latest_news/if-you-send-amazon-packages-to-one-of-these-26-countries-you-may-have-problems-n/
    Now On :Online retail giant Amazon faces sales restrictions in some countries, actions that go against human rights. https://en.as.com/latest_news/if-you-send-amazon-packages-to-one-of-these-26-countries-you-may-have-problems-n/
    EN.AS.COM
    If you send Amazon packages to one of these 26 countries, you may have problems
    Online retail giant Amazon faces sales restrictions in some countries, either due to government embargoes or economic blockades imposed for various reasons.
    0 Commenti 0 condivisioni 348 Views
  • G3 – Powder to Capsule
    https://slantedright2.blogspot.com/2024/11/g3-powder-to-capsule.html

    SUMMARY: My wife Diana and I supplement our income with this fantastic opportunity of an Online Store that focuses on the Wellness Supplement Industry. It has been working for us wonderfully…. TODAY- November 29, 2024 – the G3 Powder can be purchased as a G3 Capsule. –CHECK OUT WELLNESS & LIMITLESS PACKAGES
    #WellnessLifeStyle
    G3 – Powder to Capsule https://slantedright2.blogspot.com/2024/11/g3-powder-to-capsule.html SUMMARY: My wife Diana and I supplement our income with this fantastic opportunity of an Online Store that focuses on the Wellness Supplement Industry. It has been working for us wonderfully…. TODAY- November 29, 2024 – the G3 Powder can be purchased as a G3 Capsule. –CHECK OUT WELLNESS & LIMITLESS PACKAGES #WellnessLifeStyle
    0 Commenti 0 condivisioni 631 Views
  • "They're linked" Truth about exploding packages across UK as MSM & MPs attempt to blackout story
    https://youtu.be/QaPjuoJaBlM?si=8PCZyRGb5iFVjkhM
    "They're linked" Truth about exploding packages across UK as MSM & MPs attempt to blackout story https://youtu.be/QaPjuoJaBlM?si=8PCZyRGb5iFVjkhM
    0 Commenti 0 condivisioni 387 Views
  • Please watch
    https://x.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1860852859727913420?t=-KagGD1nadnKHpc3b1Kt3A&s=19
    Please watch https://x.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1860852859727913420?t=-KagGD1nadnKHpc3b1Kt3A&s=19
    0 Commenti 0 condivisioni 280 Views
  • JUST IN - The Biden administration is expected to announce a $275 million weapons package for Ukraine this week, a U.S. official tells Fox News.
    JUST IN - The Biden administration is expected to announce a $275 million weapons package for Ukraine this week, a U.S. official tells Fox News.
    Angry
    2
    0 Commenti 0 condivisioni 416 Views
Pagine in Evidenza
Sponsorizzato

We are 100% funded for October.

Thanks to everyone who helped out. 🥰

Xephula monthly operating expenses for 2024 - Server: $143/month - Backup Software: $6/month - Object Storage: $6/month - SMTP Service: $10/month - Stripe Processing Fees: ~$10/month - Total: $175/month

Xephula Funding Meter

Please Donate Here