Please follow me on X https://x.com/sweetsuccess?t=x7rjYFmCx7lHkGwHu2owZw&s=09

Still more questions than answers. God Bless America, God Save The Republic

https://medforth.biz/sweden-tells-rejected-asylum-seekers-leave-first-reapply-later/

https://forex-strategy.com/2024/12/21/why-is-the-war-in-ukraine-strange-no-one-has-publicly-given-a-concrete-answer/ Why is the war in Ukraine strange? No one has publicly given a concrete answer. Only here you will find out why the war will not end and what it has to do with the climate! It seems that no one in the world has given a clear answer to the question, why is this war in Ukraine strange? #war #usa #russia #ukraine #climate #climatechange #hiddentruth #truth

Tom Homan’s Plan to Destroy the Cartel Empire, End Child Trafficking, and Secure the Border for Good In this episode: Which government has killed more Americans: Iran or Mexico? Tom Homan is the new border czar and he knows the answer. https://rumble.com/v60slpz-tom-homans-plan-to-destroy-the-cartel-empire-end-child-trafficking-and-secu.html

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/endevr-documentary-answers-remaining-questions-on-spent-nuclear-fuel-reprocessing-results-they-are-not-surprising-video/

What do you think about Elon Musk for Speaker of the House? Sounds good IMHO. Full list of Republicans considering Elon Musk for House speaker https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-consider-elon-musk-house-speaker-2003717 God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

DEAD MEN "Dead Men" unfolds in the rugged, untamed frontier of the Old West, where the line between justice and vengeance is as blurred as the desert horizon. The story centers on two brothers, Jacob and Levi, whose lives are irrevocably changed when their father is brutally murdered. Driven by a potent mix of grief and fury, they embark on a perilous quest to avenge his death. Their journey is not just one of retribution but also of protection and reclamation. The brothers have formed a deep bond with a nearby Apache tribe, sharing in their customs and becoming a part of their extended family. With the tribe facing constant threats from land-hungry settlers and ruthless outlaws, Jacob and Levi take it upon themselves to shield their newfound kin from the encroaching dangers. As they traverse the vast and unforgiving landscape, the brothers encounter a host of colorful and dangerous characters, each with their own stake in the deadly game of survival. From cunning gold prospectors to corrupt lawmen, the Old West's harsh reality tests their resolve and ingenuity at every turn. The quest to reclaim their father’s land and gold intertwines with the broader struggle to preserve the Apache way of life. This dual mission reveals the complexities of honor and loyalty in a world where betrayal lurks around every corner. Along the way, the brothers grapple with their own identities, the weight of their father's legacy, and the moral ambiguities of their actions. "Dead Men" is a gripping tale of brotherhood, survival, and the relentless pursuit of justice. Its rich tapestry of historical detail and vivid characterization brings the Old West to life, capturing the spirit of an era defined by both its brutality and its raw beauty. With sweeping landscapes, intense action sequences, and a heart-wrenching narrative, this film delves deep into the human spirit, exploring themes of family, honor, and the enduring struggle for what is rightfully one's own. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztx8zH1pWOU

https://medforth.org/afghanischer-migrant-der-einen-16-jahrigen-osterreicher-bei-einem-brutalen-angriff-mit-einem-gurtel-fast-getotet-hatte-wurde-trotz-schwerer-vorstrafen-von-einem-katholischen-hilfswerk-betreut/

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