I am soooo going to miss Xephula. I tried to find a new owner and it didn't work. Meanwhile, for all of my followers here, you can follow me on Gab: @AnonymousMe https://gab.com/AnonymousMe

I am soooo going to miss Xephula. I tried to find a new owner and it didn't work. Meanwhile, for all of my followers here, you can follow me on Gab: @AnonymousMe https://gab.com/AnonymousMe

I am soooo going to miss Xephula. I tried to find a new owner and it didn't work. Meanwhile, for all of my followers here, you can follow me on Gab: @AnonymousMe https://gab.com/AnonymousMe

https://rumble.com/v61i8pw-green-or-brown-sri-sunkara.html Green or Brown? Support freedom of Countries and individual rights to express the love of God via upliftment from darkness into Light. Sri Sunkara. Protection for individual right and choices within the bond of Love and Principle. The choice must be green to go with the smoke to meet the future unseen. Be no Green, be just another mound upon the Ground. Avoid Nicotine, smoke Green! most of all, decriminalize it. Support Shop Soul https://shopsoul.org/products/premium-unisex-crewneck-t-shirt-for-hemp-lovers #marijuanaismedicine #healthylifestyle #higherspiritualism #spiritualawakening #freedom #FreeSyria #poem #truth #control #LegalInsights #malaysia #Cambodia #lebanon

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

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

Trial Must Proceed Under Plaintiff’s True Name Fraud Defense Insufficient to Allow Plaintiff to Sue Under Pseudonym Post 4944 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trial-must-proceed-under-plaintiffs-true-name-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-zc7ic/, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. LITIGANTS MUST NOT HIDE THEIR IDENTITY Plaintiff sued State Farm under a pseudonym. The Court subsequently issued an order requiring Plaintiff to proceed using his actual name. Plaintiff appealed that order, and he now seeks to stay the Court’s order while his appeal is pending in James Doe v. State Farm General Insurance Company, No. 23-cv-04734-JSC, United States District Court, N.D. California (November 26, 2024). BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleged State Farm improperly and in bad faith denied coverage for his claim involving a lost wristwatch that retails at approximately $30,300. He filed his complaint under the pseudonym “James Doe,” insisting a pseudonym was necessary “to protect his privacy, his family, his reputation, and his livelihood, because he has been struggling with mental illnesses.” The Court rescinded its order permitting Plaintiff to proceed anonymously. At a ZOOM hearing the Court informed Plaintiff his actual name appeared on the Zoom screen. Although Plaintiff had yet to file a motion to stay the Court’s order requiring him to proceed under his actual name. The Court denied State Farm’s motion as to the breach of contract and wrongful policy cancellation claims. Jury trial is scheduled to commence in May 2025. DISCUSSION Parties may use pseudonyms in the unusual case when nondisclosure of the party’s identity is necessary to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment. Plaintiff based his claim for anonymity on two grounds: 1. Plaintiff argues anonymity is necessary because he has revealed highly sensitive and personal matters about himself, his mental illnesses and physical injuries in the course of the case. Yet, Plaintiff did not identify where in the record those highly sensitive matters are discussed. Plaintiff has not sought to redact any portions of his filings, assuming anything in them may be concealed from the public. So, Plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on this theory. 2. Plaintiff argues anonymity is necessary because the accusation of insurance fraud will ruin his reputation for honesty before a jury has passed judgment on his credibility and honesty at trial. Plaintiff states the case involves grave social stigmatization to Plaintiff because he has been accused of committing or seeking to commit insurance fraud. The USDC noted that Plaintiff showed no reasonable probability that an insurer’s material misrepresentation defense transforms a breach of contract claim into a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature, Here, Plaintiff is seeking coverage for a lost wristwatch. If an accusation of insurance fraud were sufficiently stigmatizing to warrant anonymity, then plaintiffs could proceed anonymously virtually anytime they challenge an insurer’s denial of coverage on the basis of a material misrepresentation. The Ninth Circuit’s mandate requires that parties only use pseudonyms in the unusual case. IRREPARABLE INJURY Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he will be irreparably injured absent a stay. The injury Plaintiff fears has already occurred to some extent by Plaintiff’s own doing. He appeared at a public hearing using his actual name. Further, in its recent summary judgment order, the Court concluded there was a dispute of fact as to whether Plaintiff intentionally concealed or misrepresented a material fact or circumstance relating to his insurance. At this point in this proceeding, there has been no finding of insurance fraud. HOIST ON HIS OWN PETARD Given that Plaintiff himself proceeded at a public hearing without taking steps to prevent the very disclosure he claims is so injurious, Plaintiff has not met his burden on the irreparable injury factor. As summary judgment was denied on the breach of contract claim, the case is proceeding to trial. The public interest lies in transparent and public court proceedings, especially trials. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to stay the order requiring Plaintiff to proceed under his actual name. ZALMA OPINION Pursuing litigation under a pseudonym because the defendant insurer claimed the Plaintiff attempted insurance fraud because his mental health and reputation would be harmed by the claims is insufficient. First, Plaintiff chose to sue State Farm. He could protect his mental health and reputation by not suing. Second, he was willing to attend a Zoom hearing with his true name showing, thereby effectively waiving the claim of anonymity. It could easily be concluded that he has sued under a pseudonym because he was embarrassed he was caught. (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

Gilbert Achcar "le nouvel antisémitisme" l'instrumentalisation pour couvrir un GÉNOCIDE irréfutable https://old.bitchute.com/video/nV87y8cQqdZi/

THEY MANUFACTURE CONSENT AND WHO CONTROLS THE MEDIA They always get so creative in these BS #Jew controlled "News Reports" Get this one... "The shooter inscribed something ON THE SHELL CASINGS" When is the last time you wrote something on a shell casing? LOLOL What a pathetic, smelly crock of Bullspit https://old.bitchute.com/video/4M3dAqAfyMUo/

The idea was hatched back in 2006. The FAO started fearmongering about cattle casting a "long shadow" with their flatulence, which comes out slightly warm and stinky much to the chagrin of the globalists who fear that the weather might get too hot if something is not done to cap those smelly fumes. A report issued at that time by the UN claimed that livestock is responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. It turns out this figure was pulled out of a bull's behind, so to speak. It turns out that the original FAO report from 2006 that started all this does not even contain evidence to back the claim that the "livestock sector" is responsible for producing too many greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. https://www.newstarget.com/2024-12-05-beef-milk-tainted-blackrock-bovaer-animal-farts.html