Insurer Properly Sanctioned for Failure to Obey Court Order It is Never Proper to Fail to Comply With Court Order Post 4937 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurer-properly-sanctioned-failure-obey-court-order-barry-vefvc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Insurer Privilege Underwriters took its name too far trying to obtain privileges from the Arkansas Court of Appeals to which it was not entitled and acted contumaciously by disobeying the Circuit Court’s discovery order. In Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Brandon Adams, No. CV-23-474, 2024 Ark.App. 571, Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division I (November 20, 2024) the circuit court granted appellee Brandon Adams’s motion to enforce court order and motion for sanctions, imposed a “sanction fee in the amount of $5,000” against appellant Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (“Privilege”), and awarded Adams $2,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 37; denied Privilege’s motion for summary judgment; and denied Privilege’s motion for protective order, which sought to bar Adams from taking any depositions. FACTS In an insurance-coverage action in which Adams sued Privilege, his insurer, for failing to provide him a defense in a lawsuit filed against Adams and several other individuals and entities. Privilege answered Adams’s coverage complaint denying that it owed Adams a duty to defend the lawsuit and asserting a number of the subject policies’ exclusions as affirmative defenses to coverage. Adams served written discovery on Privilege. Privilege responded with objections and inadequate responses to Adams’s discovery requests. Adams moved to compel Privilege to respond and produce documents and the Court of Appeals ordered Privilege respond and to pay Adams’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $2,000. Privilege produced its supplemental interrogatory answers and supplemental privilege log on March 2, 2022 but did not comply with the circuit court’s discovery order. Contrary to the court’s order Privilege refused to amend its privilege log, provide full and complete answers to Adams’s interrogatories, or produce any witnesses for deposition, and instead, Privilege moved for summary judgment. Adams then filed his “Motion to Enforce Court Order and Motion for Sanctions and Incorporated Brief” on April 25, 2022. On December 20, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on Adams’s motion for sanctions and Privilege’s motions for summary judgment and for protective order. The circuit court announced that it would sanction Privilege for its failure to comply with the circuit court’s February 2022 discovery order. From the bench, the circuit court made specific findings that Privilege had failed to comply with the provisions of that order requiring Privilege to amend its privilege log to provide sufficient information to allow the circuit court and Adams to evaluate Privilege’s claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection and to fully answer Adams’s interrogatories. TO ESTABLISH CONTEMPT Generally, in order to establish contempt, there must be willful disobedience of a valid order of a court. Contempt is a matter between the court and the litigant, and not between the two opposing litigants. Before one can be held in contempt for violating the court’s order, the order must be definite in its terms, clear as to what duties it imposes, and express in its commands. Contempt is divided into criminal contempt and civil contempt. The standard of review on appeal depends on whether the contempt sanction was civil or criminal in nature. The circuit court imposed a fine and fees that were to be paid to Adams. A contempt fine for willful disobedience that is payable to the complainant is remedial and therefore constitutes a fine for civil contempt. Privilege refused to comply with a valid discovery order from the circuit court because Privilege disputed Adams’s entitlement to the discovery underlying that order. Instead, Privilege moved for summary judgment, attempting to render moot that prior discovery order. The circuit court rightly held Privilege in contempt for its willful disobedience of the circuit court’s February 2022 discovery order and imposed a fine of $5,000. Once the February 2022 discovery order was entered, Privilege was required to comply with that order, not question the propriety of that order or when Privilege should comply with it. The circuit court was unequivocal in finding at the December 2022 hearing that it was sanctioning Privilege for its violation of the February 2022 discovery order. The circuit court then went on to explain that Privilege had disobeyed its February 2022 order by failing to provide contact information for the witnesses identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 and by failing to provide a privilege log with sufficient information to allow the circuit court and Adams to evaluate the claim of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not clearly err in holding Privilege in contempt. The circuit court had ample authority to use its contempt powers to enforce its February 2022 discovery order. ZALMA OPINION This order must be more than embarrassing to Privilege and to the insurance industry. Parties to litigation are not entitled to refuse to fulfill an order of the court. Regardless of the name of the insurer it had no special privileges and must fulfill the order to the letter and pay the sanctions including the extra sanctions placed by the Court of Appeals. (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://www.rt.com/news/607969-us-nuclear-strike-exchange/

FBI Arrests Homeless Man In Alleged NY Stock Exchange Terror Plot To Detonate Bomb “Like A Small Nuke” https://www.infowars.com/posts/fbi-arrests-homeless-man-in-alleged-ny-stock-exchange-terror-plot-to-detonate-bomb-like-a-small-nuke

https://gellerreport.com/2024/11/florida-muslim-arrested-in-plot-to-bomb-the-new-york-stock-exchange.html/

EUO is a Material Condition Precedent Claim Properly Denied for Refusal to Testify at EUO Post 4936 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/euo-material-condition-precedent-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-exccc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. See the full video at and at Erin Hughes appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) on her causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith arising after Farmers’ denial of Hughes’s property insurance claim because she refused to testify at a second examination under oath (EUO). In Erin Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B331168, California Court of Appeals (November 8, 2024) the condition precedent was enforced. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Hughes is the owner of real property in Malibu (the property). In December 2020, Hughes obtained an insurance policy to cover the property for fire loss through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Also in December 2020, Hughes obtained a homeowner’s insurance policy from Farmers to cover perils other than fire, including losses due to theft (the policy). One month later, in January 2021, the property sustained significant fire damage. Hughes contacted Farmers, which advised her that fire loss was not covered by her Farmers policy, and she would have to pursue any such claim through her FAIR Plan policy. Unhappy, on January 21, 2021, Hughes tendered a theft claim under the Farmers policy, asserting in excess of $2 million worth of personal property was stolen from the property. Farmers ultimately denied the claim on January 5, 2022, on the ground that Hughes failed to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation, including by failing to participate in a second examination under oath as required by the policy. Hughes’s Complaint Against Farmers One week after the denial of her claim, Hughes sued Farmers and alleged Farmers demanded “duplicative, onerous and/or unnecessary” documentation of stolen items. Further, she alleged Farmers subjected her to “two confrontational, accusatory and grueling examinations under oath.” Hughes alleged her second examination under oath had been “suspended due to [her] medical condition,” but Farmers disregarded her condition and demanded a third examination. Farmers’ Motion for Summary Judgment Farmers moved for summary judgment contending it properly denied Hughes’s theft claim based on her failure to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation of her claim as well as her material misrepresentations in obtaining the Farmers policy. In May 2021, as part of Farmers’ theft claim investigation, Hughes participated in an examination under oath. During the examination, Hughes’s counsel informed the Farmers attorney he had just sent more than 40 additional receipts that the attorney would be receiving shortly. Recognizing they would not have time to go through the new items that day and the examination would need to continue on a future date, the Farmers attorney proposed “continu[ing] to work with one another to identify what’s missing.” In response, Hughes and her counsel agreed, with Hughes stating she would be happy to get “every single thing that you need and I’ll send it to my attorney right away.” In October 2021, a second session of the examination under oath was held regarding documentation Hughes had produced during and after the first session. Hughes appeared remotely with counsel and before any questions were asked of her, she objected to a further examination. Hughes accused the Farmers attorney of interrogating her “like a fucking criminal” and stated, “if you want to take my deposition . . . you are going to take a second deposition in court, and that’s going to be a formal deposition.” Hughes’s remote connection then cut out, and her counsel indicated she would not proceed with the examination. Farmers informed Hughes that it was denying coverage based on her failure to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation and particularly her refusal to proceed with the second examination under oath. Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment and Denial of Hughes’s Continuance Request and Motion for New Trial The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers. Noting an insurer has “an absolute right” to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath “as long as the insurer exercises the right reasonably,” the court determined Hughes had not shown Farmers acted unreasonably. The court concluded summary judgment was appropriate “based solely on failure to cooperate.” DISCUSSION The trial court properly concluded there was no genuine dispute that Hughes’s failure to participate in an examination under oath constituted a material breach of the policy; accordingly, Farmers was excused from having to pay on Hughes’s claim. The right to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath concerning all proper subjects of inquiry is reasonable as a matter of law. An insured’s compliance with a policy requirement to submit to an examination under oath is a prerequisite to the right to receive benefits under the policy. Because Hughes refused to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation by participating in and completing her examination under oath, she cannot establish her own performance under the policy. Breach of Implied Covenant Claim The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based on general contract law and the long-standing rule that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. Hughes’s claim for bad faith fails as a matter of law. ZALMA OPINION Wildfires tend to destroy everything. That is why insurers are unwilling to write fire insurance in Malibu and other areas prone to wildfires and obtain fire insurance from the Fair Plan, an organization designed to cover uninsurable risks. Because of the destruction done by a wildfire or a dwelling fire a $2 million dollar theft loss after a fire is questionable and a good reason to take a thorough EUO. Farmers tried to do so and Hughes refused without reason after admitting she left open much investigation elements at the agreed conclusion of the first session and an agreement to a second only to refuse. (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

🚨🚨 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

Bad Faith Set Up Fails Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bad-faith-set-up-fails-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-jllxc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Inadequate Information Made Refusal to Pay Policy Limits Not Bad Faith INADEQUATE MEDICAL AUTHORIZATION USED TO CAUSE INSURER TO REFUSE SETTLEMENT DEMAND Post 4930 Kara Flick appealed from the judgment after a jury rejected her claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Flick contends the judgment should be reversed due to juror misconduct. In KARA FLICK v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, B330507, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division (November 5, 2024) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute. FACTUAL HISTORY After sustaining injuries in an automobile accident caused by Francisco Reyes, Jr., Flick had her attorney send Reyes's insurer, the United Services Automobile Association (USAA), a letter explaining the severity of her injuries and an authorization for the release of her medical records. Flick's attorney followed up with a settlement demand two months later, requesting that USAA pay Flick the entirety of Reyes's $100,000 policy limit in exchange for a release of liability. Attached to the demand was a single medical record from Flick's neurologist. USAA investigated Flick's claim and determined it did not have sufficient information to accept or reject her demand. Flick then filed a personal injury lawsuit against Reyes. The jury found in her favor and awarded nearly $1.7 million in damages. Flick, with an assignment from the Reyes, sued USAA for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. TRIAL At trial, a USAA claims adjustor admitted that Reyes was fully at fault for the accident with Flick. Reyes could therefore be exposed to liability in excess of his policy limits-if Flick provided sufficient documentation to support her claim. USAA's expert on insurance claims handling and another of its claims service managers both agreed with the supervisor that Flick's authorization was invalid and inadequate to allow USAA to obtain Flick's medical records. USAA needed additional records before it could determine the value of Flick's claim. Those records could have included the medical bills Flick provided to her own insurance company, the multiple doctor's notes she had excusing her from work, or the thumb drive recording her purported speech problems, all of which were entered into evidence at her personal injury trial. Because they were not provided to USAA, it was "very difficult to place a value on" Flick's claim. Flick's expert testified that USAA's handling of the settlement demand "was clearly unreasonable." Flick also did not respond to USAA's requests for additional information. By a vote of nine to three, the jury found that Flick did not make a reasonable settlement demand of USAA and rejected her claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court polled the jury, and each juror confirmed their vote. DISCUSSION The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Flick's new trial motion. USAA successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice by showing there is no reasonable probability that the juror, D.C.'s misconduct by not explaining he did not hear all of the adjuster's testimony, actually harmed Flick. Much of the adjustor's testimony consisted of facts regarding his communications with Flick's attorney - facts that were undisputed. What was disputed-whether Flick's settlement demand was reasonable-was the subject of other witness testimony, including USAA's expert on insurance claims handling, its supervising claims service manager, Flick's personal injury attorney, and her expert witness on insurance claims handling. What the admitted evidence showed was that D.C. confirmed multiple times that he voted that Flick did not make a reasonable settlement demand: Based on this record there was no reasonable probability that D.C.'s alleged juror misconduct actually harmed Flick. ZALMA OPINION The tort of bad faith arose from abuse by insurers on those they insured. Since its adoption in California about three quarters of a century ago, the abuse has been turned on to insurers. Ms. Flick's counsel placed a demand for settlement on USAA that it could not reasonably and in good faith to its insured, Reyes, because it was incomplete and inadequately supported and forced Flick and Reyes go through a trial where she received an uncollectible judgment against Reyes in hopes of a gigantic bad faith judgment. After much litigation and USAA spending a great deal to defend itself she received the $100,000 policy limit. USAA was punished but neither Flick nor her lawyers profited from the scheme or the appeal. (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

Leviticus Chapter 27 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. 3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. 5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. 7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 8 But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him. 9 And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the LORD, all that any man giveth of such unto the LORD shall be holy. 10 He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good: and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy. 11 And if it be any unclean beast, of which they do not offer a sacrifice unto the LORD, then he shall present the beast before the priest: 12 And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad: as thou valuest it, who art the priest, so shall it be. 13 But if he will at all redeem it, then he shall add a fifth part thereof unto thy estimation. 14 And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the LORD, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad: as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand. 15 And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be his. 16 And if a man shall sanctify unto the LORD some part of a field of his possession, then thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof: an homer of barley seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver. 17 If he sanctify his field from the year of jubile, according to thy estimation it shall stand. 18 But if he sanctify his field after the jubile, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of the jubile, and it shall be abated from thy estimation. 19 And if he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him. 20 And if he will not redeem the field, or if he have sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more. 21 But the field, when it goeth out in the jubile, shall be holy unto the LORD, as a field devoted; the possession thereof shall be the priest's. 22 And if a man sanctify unto the LORD a field which he hath bought, which is not of the fields of his possession; 23 Then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation, even unto the year of the jubile: and he shall give thine estimation in that day, as a holy thing unto the LORD. 24 In the year of the jubile the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land did belong. 25 And all thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel. 26 Only the firstling of the beasts, which should be the LORD'S firstling, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox, or sheep: it is the LORD'S. 27 And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation. 28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. 30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the LORD. 31 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. 32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. 33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed. 34 These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

Officer Caught Aiding Criminals for Cash Police Officer who took Bribes from Insurance Fraudster Convicted Post 4923 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/officer-caught-aiding-criminals-cash-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-niboc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Demarkco Johnson (“Johnson”), appealed his convictions and claims the following errors: 1 The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a jury instruction on entrapment. 2 The trial court erred in failing to admonish and/or instruct the witness to stop answering questions with a legal conclusion after defense counsel had objected. 3 Appellant’s convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, his convictions are in violation of the Ohio state constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In State Of Ohio v. Demarkco Johnson, 2024-Ohio-5098, No. 113591, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (October 24, 2024) resolved the issues on appeal. FACTS Defendants were charged with two counts of conspiracy, three counts of bribery, eight counts of forgery, one count of insurance fraud, one count of identity fraud, and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. They engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity charge included a clause alleging that at least one of the incidents of corrupt activity was a felony of the third degree or higher. At trial George Michael Riley, Sr. (“Riley”), testified that he became a confidential source for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), which was investigating corruption in the East Cleveland Police Department. Special Agent Shaun Roth (“Roth”), an agent with the FBI working with the Cleveland Metropolitan Anti-Corruption Task Force, testified that the FBI executed a search warrant for one of Riley’s properties. Harris’s services included running Riley’s name in police databases to check for warrants and blocking off city roads so Riley could move his demolition equipment throughout the city. Two of Riley’s trucks were stolen from his business in East Cleveland. Riley told his contacts at the FBI, and FBI officials instructed him to file a police report with the East Cleveland police just as any other victim would do. Riley cooperated with the FBI. After hearing the evidence, the jury found Johnson guilty of two counts of bribery, as alleged in Counts 5 and 10 of the indictment. The jury acquitted him of all other charges. The court sentenced Johnson to 12 months in prison on both counts and ordered that the two prison terms be served concurrently. Johnson appealed the trial court’s judgment. Law and Analysis - Entrapment Instruction In the first assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment. Entrapment is a ‘confession and avoidance’ defense in which the defendant admits committing the acts charged but claims that the criminal design arose with the state’s agent. There is no entrapment when government officials merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense to a criminal defendant who was predisposed to commit the offense. The video evidence showed Johnson handing Riley reports in exchange for money on multiple occasions. Johnson’s conduct demonstrated a ready acquiescence to the inducements offered by the government’s confidential source and a willingness to become involved in criminal activity in exchange for money. The evidence showed that Johnson not only had expert knowledge as to how to create the police reports in a way that could go undetected, but he also had access to the blank police forms that made the concealment of the reports possible. The Court of Appeals found that evidence did not support an entrapment defense. Testimony Pertaining to Bribery In the second assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred by refusing to instruct Roth to refrain from using the word “bribe” or “bribery payment” in response to questions that were not specifically related to bribe payments. Even if Roth had avoided the words “bribe” or “bribery payment,” the outcome of the trial would not have been any different. The overwhelming evidence established that Johnson helped create fake police reports in exchange for money. Manifest Weight of the Evidence Johnson argued his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals noted that Johnson’s convictions were not dependent on his knowledge of any insurance scheme or Harris’s separate dealings with Riley. His convictions were based solely on his position as a police officer in the East Cleveland Police Department and his acceptance of cash in exchange for police reports. Video evidence showed Johnson accepting cash from Riley in exchange for the reports on at least two occasions. And, despite Johnson’s argument to the contrary, Johnson played along when Harris introduced him to Riley as Nevels. CONCLUSION The Court of Appeals ordered that a special mandate issue out of the court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. ZALMA OPINION There can be no excuse for a police officer to sell information to an insurance criminal to ease the ability of the crime to succeed. Officer Johnson tried multiple arguments to set aside his conviction even though the evidence against him was overwhelming. The Court of Appeals disposed of his arguments quickly and intelligently. Fraud is a crime. Insurance fraud is a crime. Helping the criminal avoid prosecution is also a crime and establishes the officer had given up his honor for cash. (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

Jordan Peterson says he rejected regulator’s offer to pay legal fees in exchange for resignation - LifeSite 🇨🇦 #NoMoreLiberalsAndNDP 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #SayingTheQuietPartOutLoud 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #resigntrudeau 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #JustSayNoMore 🇨🇦 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jordan-peterson-says-he-rejected-regulators-offer-to-pay-legal-fees-in-exchange-for-resignation