Buddha, Jesus Christ, and Socrates are fundamental historical figures, but none of them left direct writings documenting their own words or teachings. However, their ideas have been transmitted through other people, texts, and traditions, which raises interesting reflections."

https://ccoutreach87.com/2024/12/19/kings-2-text-7/

This is the reason that you and your family need to use encryption for your communication. I am a fan of GnuPG and Signal for text communication. GnuPG is not the easiest to setup and use but is very effective. Here ar 2 videos on using GnuPG. It is time to protect yourself! https://rumble.com/vmbh7l-protecting-yourself-from-your-own-government.html https://rumble.com/vmxm4f-protecting-yourself-from-your-own-government.html

Our governments should be forbidden from justifying any secrecy or lying on the pretext of preventing “panic”. That rationalization becomes universal camouflage for betrayal and coverup. We have a natural right to know what threatens us. We pay for institutions to enable us to see, not to willfully blind us. Join @DrBretWeinstein

Falsely Claiming to Be an Insurer Can be Criminal To Sue for Business Disparagement Evidence is Required Post 4951, Posted on December 17, 2024 by Barry Zalma Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/falsely-claiming-insurer-can-criminal-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-3bwrc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts. See the full video at and at Plaintiff Route App, Inc.’s (“Route”) moved the USDC to Dismiss two counterclaims asserted by OrderProtection.com, Inc. (“OrderProtection”). In Route App, Inc. v. Orderprotection.Com, Inc.; Julian Wilson, et al, No. 2:23cv606 DAK, United States District Court, D. Utah (December 9, 2024) found no evidence supporting a claim of business disparagement or business defamation. BACKGROUND This case involves a dispute between Route, a post-purchase shipping insurance provider, and a competitor, OrderProtection. In its Complaint, Route alleges that OrderProtection and several of Route’s former employees misappropriated trade secrets to create a competing business. In response to Route’s Complaint, OrderProtection filed an Answer and Counterclaims, asserting four causes of action: (1) Unfair Competition in Violation of the Lanham Act; (2) Defamation Per Se/Defamation/Business Disparagement; (3) Tortious Interference with Existing and Prospective Economic Relations; and (4) Negligent Misrepresentation. The facts pertaining to OrderProtection’s claim for “Defamation/Defamation Per Se/Business Disparagement” are essentially that Route employees have allegedly told OrderProtection customers and potential customers that they should work with Route instead of OrderProtection because Route is a “legal insurance provider” and OrderProtection is not. OrderProtection argued that Route is not a licensed insurance company and that, at best, Route affiliates with an insurance producer to procure its own insurance coverage (which does not benefit customers or merchants). More importantly both Route and OrderProtection in essence both self-fund the warranty protection they provide, and thus a customer is no better off with Route’s protection package than with OrderProtection’s competitive offering. DISCUSSION Specifically, while OrderProtection’s Opposition Memorandum does not explicitly state that it conceded its defamation and defamation per se claims, OrderProtection never addresses Route’s argument that it could not properly maintain these causes of action in the context of this case. Even if OrderProtection had not conceded these claims, it failed to establish that these claims are viable in the context of this case. Further, OrderProtection made no argument that Utah law recognizes a “hybrid” cause of action for “Defamation Per Se/Defamation/Business Disparagement,” wherein a business disparagement claim may be analyzed using defamation or defamation per se case law rather than case law pertaining to a business disparagement claim. Business Disparagement The parties agree that to state a claim for business disparagement (sometimes called injurious falsehood), OrderProtection must allege (1) falsity of the statement made; (2) malice by the party making the statement; and (3) special damages. According to Route, while OrderProtection has made allegations of lost customers, it has not named specific individuals, nor has it alleged with particularity any financial losses, which is required under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court declined to recognize a “business disparagement per se” cause of action in which special damages need not be alleged, and it declined to recognize a business disparagement claim that relies on a statement that is “false by implication,” which is a concept that has been recognized in defamation cases. Route’s Motion to Dismiss was granted and OrderProtection’s claims for defamation and defamation per se were dismissed with prejudice. Its claim for business disparagement was dismissed without prejudice, and OrderProtection may file a Motion for Leave to Amend by January 10, 2025, if it is able to allege a proper business disparagement claim, as discussed above. ZALMA OPINION Two businesses claiming to be issuers of insurance who were not licensed insurers claimed to be victims of disparagement by the other. Customers, because of the various claims shifted from one party to the other who, contrary to their claims, were self funding what they alleged was insurance of shipments of goods. The court in a Solomon-like decision ignored the fact that both claimed to be insurers when they were not and used the false claims to take over clients. Both lost and the court gave OrderProtection the attempt to state a business disparagement claim implying that the court did not believe OrderProtection would be able to plead a viable cause of action. The State of Utah Department of Insurance should consider this case. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

https://ccoutreach87.com/2024/12/17/kings-1-text-7/

EGYPT - GIANT UNDERGROUND SUBWAY SYSTEM FOUND UNDER THE SPHINX & MORE! - DOCUMENTARY MOVIE Just remember... "THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN" And that goes for today's technology, schemes, #Crimes, #Evil etc... There is NOTHING new under the sun! There is no such thing as "Aliens" folks, but demons are real! Fallen Angels are REAL Evil is definitely real! And it has existed a long time! The Most High has wiped Evil from the face of the earth at least ONCE! And has given His word that He will do it again! He NEVER breaks His promises! This stuff really is interesting.... But when you put it into the proper context.... And you are aware that "There were GIANTS in the world in those days" all of this stuff becomes a little less mysterious! WHERE do you think that the evil scumbags of today got their "technology?" Blood Sacrifices for technology would be my guess! Genesis 6:4 “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” "Aliens" don't exist, you live in a terrarium! But EVIL does exist... and it's inside the terrarium with you! So you better WAKE UP! https://old.bitchute.com/video/6SQQkF4peWwg/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2024/12/15/sunday-sermon-text-247/

Friday, December 13, 2024 Bishop Robert Barron Cycle C Advent 2nd wk of Advent Topics Fellowship Last Supper Passover Saints Saint Lucy Bible References Matthew 11:16-19 Friends, in today’s Gospel, Jesus says, “The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, ‘Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’”The Passover meal was decisively important in salvation history. God commands that his people share a meal to remember their liberation from slavery. This supper provides the context for the deepest theologizing of the Israelite community. Both the bitterness of their slavery and the sweetness of their liberation are acted out in this sacred meal.Jesus’ life and ministry can be interpreted in light of this symbol. From the very beginning, Jesus was laid in a manger, for he would be food for a hungry world. Much of Jesus’ public outreach centered on sacred meals, where everyone was invited: rich and poor, saints and sinners, the sick and the outcast. They thought John the Baptist was a weird ascetic, but they called Jesus a glutton and a winebibber. He embodies Yahweh’s desire to eat a convivial meal with his people.And of course, the life and teaching of Jesus comes to a sort of climax at the meal that we call the Last Supper. The Eucharist is what we do in the in-between times, between the death of the Lord and his coming in glory. It is the meal that even now anticipates the perfect meal of fellowship with God. Gospel Reflections Meditate on Daily Gospel Reflections from Bishop Robert Barron

What is the Meaning of “Void” An article For Subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling You can Subscribe for only $5 a month to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe “Void” can mean either void or voidable. Void is defined as “of no legal force or effect and so incapable of confirmation or ratification.” Voidable is defined as “capable of being adjudged void, invalid and of no force (a voidable contract may be set aside usually at the option of one party).”[1] The Restatement 2d of Contracts defines a “voidable contract” as a valid transaction with legal consequences until the power of avoidance is exercised. Although jurisdictions are split as to the meaning of void in this context the distinction is largely semantic since the actions required of insurers wishing to dispose of a void or voidable insurance contract are ultimately the same. The full article is available only to subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling at substack and you can Subscribe for only $5 a month to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe