• 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
    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
    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 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 1KB Visualizações
  • I was suspended, I created a new account , I don't understand how an algorithm can flag someone that have an account that have less than a month, with 129 posts (all X retweet) with 32 followers and basic account , with these criteria it can happen to ANYONE, please advise
    I was suspended, I created a new account , I don't understand how an algorithm can flag someone that have an account that have less than a month, with 129 posts (all X retweet) with 32 followers and basic account , with these criteria it can happen to ANYONE, please advise
    1 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 230 Visualizações
  • Why my twitter account is still suspended?, Q+ won and digital journalists won, the best is yest to come
    Why my twitter account is still suspended?, Q+ won and digital journalists won, the best is yest to come
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 204 Visualizações
  • X ACCOUNT SUSPENDED : lababouche broke X rules, which ones? the rule of retweet?
    X ACCOUNT SUSPENDED : lababouche broke X rules, which ones? the rule of retweet?
    Angry
    1
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 198 Visualizações
  • .....WHAT WOULD TANYA HARDING DO??!!!!....

    https://lawenforcementtoday.com/trans-identifying-boy-violently-assaults-another-student-getting-off-school-bus-in-maine-she-the-victim-gets-suspended-for-five-days
    .....WHAT WOULD TANYA HARDING DO??!!!!....😂 💩💥 https://lawenforcementtoday.com/trans-identifying-boy-violently-assaults-another-student-getting-off-school-bus-in-maine-she-the-victim-gets-suspended-for-five-days
    LAWENFORCEMENTTODAY.COM
    Trans-identifying boy violently assaults a female student; the VICTIM gets suspended for five days
    A Maine high school student suffered serious injuries when she was beaten to a pulp by a high school boy who identifies a...
    Like
    Haha
    Angry
    3
    1 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 391 Visualizações
  • GOOD MORNING FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: CENSORSHIP IS REAL. SABOTAGE BY BIG TECH TO CERTAIN MATERIALS IN THE INTERNET IS VERY REAL. MANY YEARS AGO, WHEN 'ISIS' WAS IN CONTROL OF BIG CHUNKS OF SYRIA AND IRAQ, 'ISIS' CREATED A VIDEO SHOWING HOW THEY INDOCTRINATED YOUNG CHILDREN IN THAT EVIL IDEOLOGY OR "RELIGION" AND THOSE SAME KIDS WERE TRAINED TO KILL THE "INFIDEL" OR NON BELIEVERS IN THE RUINS OF AN OLD ROMAN CITY IN SYRIA. THE KIDS WERE SENT WITH LOADED WEAPONS INTO THE RUINS AND CAVES WHERE PRISONERS WERE TIED UP AND THE KIDS HAD TO KILL THEM IN COLD BLOOD. I USED PART OF THAT VIDEO TO SHOW THE BRUTALITY OF RADICAL ISLAM AND POSTED THE VIDEO IN YOU TUBE. I WAS SUSPENDED. IT WAS VERY EASY TO PLACE A WARNING: "THE FOLLOWING VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES OF VIOLENCE, NOT SUITABLE FOR MINORS", BUT THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN DOWN AND MY ACCOUNT CANCELLED. I STARTED USING OTHER VIDEO SITES AND GETTING LINKS TO SHARE VIDEOS IN SOCIAL MEDIA BUT SOON I STARTED RECEIVING MESSAGES FROM VIEWERS, SAYING THEY COULDN'T SEE THE VIDEOS. WHEN I CHECKED BACK, I FOUND OUT THE VIDEOS HAD MESSAGES SAYING "VIDEO CAN'T BE PLAYED, IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH BROWSER OR NOT THE RIGHT FORMAT"... WHATEVER, JUST EXCUSES. THE VIDEOS WERE mp4, THE MOST COMMON AND USABLE FORMAT. IN OTHER SITES, THERE WERE NO MESSAGES, BUT THE ROUND THING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN KEPT SPINNING AND THE VIDEO NEVER PLAYED OR THE VIDEO PLAYED BUT IT STOPPED EVERY FEW SECONDS FOR BUFFERING, MAKING IMPOSSIBLE TO WATCH IT. CLEARLY IT WAS SABOTAGE. IN THE WORST CASES, AFTER CLICKING ON THE LINK, A MESSAGE SAID "THAT SITE DOES NOT EXIST, CHECK YOUR SPELLING AND TRY AGAIN" ONLY TO GET SUGGESTIONS FOR DIFFERENT SITES. I DECIDED TO POST THE VIDEOS DIRECTLY IN THE SOCIAL SITES, BUT MOST SOCIAL SITES HAVE A LIMIT OF 100 mbs. I KEEP FINDING WAYS TO SHARE BIGGER FILES WITHOUT CENSORSHIP. I'M JUST A POOR OLD MAN, RETIRED IN A FORGOTTEN OVERSEAS U.S. TERRITORY. IF THEY DO IT TO ME, SURELY THEY DO WORSE THINGS TO BIGGER CONSERVATIVE PLAYERS IN MEDIA, IN FACT, I KNOW THEY DO. SOME CONSERVATIVE STREAMING TV CHANNELS, WON'T PLAY IN SOME BROWSERS BUT CAN BE WATCHED PERFECTLY IN OTHER BROWSERS. JUST WATCH WHAT THEY DO TO THE PUBLICATION 'THE GATEWAY PUNDIT'. LISTEN TO ITS DIRECTOR JIM HOFT.
    GOOD MORNING FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: CENSORSHIP IS REAL. SABOTAGE BY BIG TECH TO CERTAIN MATERIALS IN THE INTERNET IS VERY REAL. MANY YEARS AGO, WHEN 'ISIS' WAS IN CONTROL OF BIG CHUNKS OF SYRIA AND IRAQ, 'ISIS' CREATED A VIDEO SHOWING HOW THEY INDOCTRINATED YOUNG CHILDREN IN THAT EVIL IDEOLOGY OR "RELIGION" AND THOSE SAME KIDS WERE TRAINED TO KILL THE "INFIDEL" OR NON BELIEVERS IN THE RUINS OF AN OLD ROMAN CITY IN SYRIA. THE KIDS WERE SENT WITH LOADED WEAPONS INTO THE RUINS AND CAVES WHERE PRISONERS WERE TIED UP AND THE KIDS HAD TO KILL THEM IN COLD BLOOD. I USED PART OF THAT VIDEO TO SHOW THE BRUTALITY OF RADICAL ISLAM AND POSTED THE VIDEO IN YOU TUBE. I WAS SUSPENDED. IT WAS VERY EASY TO PLACE A WARNING: "THE FOLLOWING VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES OF VIOLENCE, NOT SUITABLE FOR MINORS", BUT THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN DOWN AND MY ACCOUNT CANCELLED. I STARTED USING OTHER VIDEO SITES AND GETTING LINKS TO SHARE VIDEOS IN SOCIAL MEDIA BUT SOON I STARTED RECEIVING MESSAGES FROM VIEWERS, SAYING THEY COULDN'T SEE THE VIDEOS. WHEN I CHECKED BACK, I FOUND OUT THE VIDEOS HAD MESSAGES SAYING "VIDEO CAN'T BE PLAYED, IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH BROWSER OR NOT THE RIGHT FORMAT"... WHATEVER, JUST EXCUSES. THE VIDEOS WERE mp4, THE MOST COMMON AND USABLE FORMAT. IN OTHER SITES, THERE WERE NO MESSAGES, BUT THE ROUND THING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN KEPT SPINNING AND THE VIDEO NEVER PLAYED OR THE VIDEO PLAYED BUT IT STOPPED EVERY FEW SECONDS FOR BUFFERING, MAKING IMPOSSIBLE TO WATCH IT. CLEARLY IT WAS SABOTAGE. IN THE WORST CASES, AFTER CLICKING ON THE LINK, A MESSAGE SAID "THAT SITE DOES NOT EXIST, CHECK YOUR SPELLING AND TRY AGAIN" ONLY TO GET SUGGESTIONS FOR DIFFERENT SITES. I DECIDED TO POST THE VIDEOS DIRECTLY IN THE SOCIAL SITES, BUT MOST SOCIAL SITES HAVE A LIMIT OF 100 mbs. I KEEP FINDING WAYS TO SHARE BIGGER FILES WITHOUT CENSORSHIP. I'M JUST A POOR OLD MAN, RETIRED IN A FORGOTTEN OVERSEAS U.S. TERRITORY. IF THEY DO IT TO ME, SURELY THEY DO WORSE THINGS TO BIGGER CONSERVATIVE PLAYERS IN MEDIA, IN FACT, I KNOW THEY DO. SOME CONSERVATIVE STREAMING TV CHANNELS, WON'T PLAY IN SOME BROWSERS BUT CAN BE WATCHED PERFECTLY IN OTHER BROWSERS. JUST WATCH WHAT THEY DO TO THE PUBLICATION 'THE GATEWAY PUNDIT'. LISTEN TO ITS DIRECTOR JIM HOFT.
    Like
    1
    0 Comentários 4 Compartilhamentos 2KB Visualizações 15
  • ( Japan) suspended all cargo train, after evidence of misconduct in safety was discovered, meanwhile the impact on the country's of new logistics remains unclear since the early 90s, is a unique forum where the governments and democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges.
    ( Japan) suspended all cargo train, after evidence of misconduct in safety was discovered, meanwhile the impact on the country's of new logistics remains unclear since the early 90s, is a unique forum where the governments and democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 497 Visualizações
  • SUSPENDED FIVE DAYS AFTER RELEASING
    VACCINE TEST RESULTS

    PROVING that the #AMA is controlled by big pharma

    https://old.bitchute.com/video/0ckaKVPzXEu2/
    SUSPENDED FIVE DAYS AFTER RELEASING VACCINE TEST RESULTS PROVING that the #AMA is controlled by big pharma https://old.bitchute.com/video/0ckaKVPzXEu2/
    OLD.BITCHUTE.COM
    Suspended Five Days After Releasing Vaccine Test Results
    Those that have not been vaccinated with viral mRNA, and don't have genomic inserts in their DNA, would be considered a “human organism,” and as such can not be patented. However some legal experts say that it is entirely possible that any people th…
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 229 Visualizações
  • SUSPENDED FIVE DAYS AFTER RELEASING VACCINE TEST RESULTS

    https://old.bitchute.com/video/0ckaKVPzXEu2/
    SUSPENDED FIVE DAYS AFTER RELEASING VACCINE TEST RESULTS https://old.bitchute.com/video/0ckaKVPzXEu2/
    OLD.BITCHUTE.COM
    Suspended Five Days After Releasing Vaccine Test Results
    Those that have not been vaccinated with viral mRNA, and don't have genomic inserts in their DNA, would be considered a “human organism,” and as such can not be patented. However some legal experts say that it is entirely possible that any people th…
    Wow
    1
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 254 Visualizações
  • David Baumblatt Episode 1: Former FBI Agent under investigation by Corrupt FBI
    "My name is David Baumblatt, I am a West Pointer and Former FBI Agent currently under an unconstitutional investigation by the corrupt FBI, I am on the FBI Terrorist Watchlist due to my nationalist conservative political beliefs, I am no longer welcome back in the USA. The last time I travelled back to the USA, I was Detained, Searched, Interrogated, Surveiled, Humiliated, Deceived, and Assaulted by the Government. I have been censored and suspended on YouTube, LinkedIn, TikTok, and Twitter. Please go to episode one on my Rumble Channel to hear my story:

    "I worked for both the corrupt Boeing and Amazon Corporations in China. Civil War and Collapse are coming to America, this will be a war between the Nationalists and the Globalists. I predicted this back in 2005, and left America in 2010. Mainstream Media and Politicians have ignored me, so therefore I ask, if you are a Media Professional, Podcast Host, etc. I would be happy to be a guest on your show. You can email me at [email protected] or you can just visit my rumble page, my contact information is on there. If you an American Patriot, please send this message far and wide, what is happening to me, is also happening to millions of other innocent American citizens. All of the politicians have ignored me, just like they are ignoring you, it is time for the politicians to stop hiding and to answer the American People regarding the corruption of the FBI. Please support a military veteran and help me spread this message until at least one politician responds to my message of government corruption."

    https://rumble.com/v3dz6oy-david-baumblatt-episode-1.html
    David Baumblatt Episode 1: Former FBI Agent under investigation by Corrupt FBI "My name is David Baumblatt, I am a West Pointer and Former FBI Agent currently under an unconstitutional investigation by the corrupt FBI, I am on the FBI Terrorist Watchlist due to my nationalist conservative political beliefs, I am no longer welcome back in the USA. The last time I travelled back to the USA, I was Detained, Searched, Interrogated, Surveiled, Humiliated, Deceived, and Assaulted by the Government. I have been censored and suspended on YouTube, LinkedIn, TikTok, and Twitter. Please go to episode one on my Rumble Channel to hear my story: "I worked for both the corrupt Boeing and Amazon Corporations in China. Civil War and Collapse are coming to America, this will be a war between the Nationalists and the Globalists. I predicted this back in 2005, and left America in 2010. Mainstream Media and Politicians have ignored me, so therefore I ask, if you are a Media Professional, Podcast Host, etc. I would be happy to be a guest on your show. You can email me at [email protected] or you can just visit my rumble page, my contact information is on there. If you an American Patriot, please send this message far and wide, what is happening to me, is also happening to millions of other innocent American citizens. All of the politicians have ignored me, just like they are ignoring you, it is time for the politicians to stop hiding and to answer the American People regarding the corruption of the FBI. Please support a military veteran and help me spread this message until at least one politician responds to my message of government corruption." https://rumble.com/v3dz6oy-david-baumblatt-episode-1.html
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 1KB Visualizações
Páginas impulsionada
Patrocinado

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