How Do We Escape the Panopticon? Since their inceptions, companies like Facebook and Google have received funding from the government to build and deploy the technology that sucks up our data. Allowing the awful chimera of public-private partnerships to control our communications has been our undoing. To note an important example, Palantir Technologies, founded by Peter Thiel, is a creation of the Central Intelligence Agency. Palantir works on top of the infrastructure created by Alphabet and Meta and gathers online activity in order to profile every U.S. citizen. Democracy in the U.S. has undergone an existential crisis, in large part due to the fact that no one has any privacy on the Internet and all of our scraped data is centrally controlled by a few actors. Citizens are both censored and afraid to speak. https://off-guardian.org/2024/12/19/how-do-we-escape-the-panopticon/

guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=282762&p=5213331 Report of University of Michigan Communication and Media, the growing stream of reporting on and data about fake news.

The Future Railways Huawei has replaced satellite-based Technology communications in Mozambique, with world-first 5G-ready railway telecommunication system. https://www.railjournal.com/static/advertising/huaweis-innovative-lte-frmcs-system-revolutionises-mozambique-ports-and-railways/

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

The House report just found the Liz Cheney coached Cassidy Hutchinson to change her testimony in the J6 Committee And that it was done without a lawyer present Now we know why they deleted their communications

Chairman Loudermilk Releases Second January 6, 2021 Report WASHINGTON - Today, Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released an interim report on his findings on the events surrounding January 6, 2021, as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. This report outlines criminal recommendations against former Representative Liz Cheney. TOP FINDINGS: 1. Former Representative Liz Cheney colluded with “star witness” Cassidy Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge. 2. Former Representative Liz Cheney should be investigated for potential criminal witness tampering based on the new information about her communication. MORE>>>>> https://cha.house.gov/2024/12/chairman-loudermilk-releases-second-january-6-2021-report/1699d69d-80c8-4098-bc1a-4935524c4b76

Chinese citizen arrested for flying drone, taking pictures of military base Yinpiao Zhou, 39, a Chinese citizen and U.S. resident, was charged with failure to register an aircraft, lack of transportation documentation, and violating national defense airspace. Zhou allegedly operated the drone for nearly an hour over Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County on Nov. 30, capturing aerial photos of the facility. Zhou was apprehended at San Francisco International Airport while attempting to board a flight to China. A federal search of his drone and cellphone uncovered images of the base and related communications. https://mxmnews.com/article/bd1cef50-0f5d-4438-809d-b33b5002ce9f

Kash Patel's Enemies of the Republic List Michael Atkinson – Former inspector general of the intelligence community Lloyd Austin – Secretary of Defense under President Joe Biden Brian Auten – Supervisory intelligence analyst, FBI James Baker – Former general counsel for the FBI and Twitter executive Bill Barr – Former attorney general under Trump John Bolton – Former national security adviser under Trump Stephen Boyd – Former chief of legislative affairs, FBI Joe Biden – President of the United States John Brennan – Former CIA director under President Obama John Carlin – Former DOJ national security division head under Trump Eric Ciaramella – Former National Security Council staffer Pat Cipollone – Former White House counsel under Trump James Clapper – Former director of national intelligence under Obama Hillary Clinton – Former Secretary of State and presidential candidate James Comey – Former FBI director Elizabeth Dibble – Former deputy chief of mission, U.S. embassy, London Mark Esper – Former Secretary of Defense under Trump Alyssa Farah – Former strategic communications director under Trump Evelyn Farkas – Former Pentagon official under Obama Sarah Isgur Flores – Former DOJ communications head under Trump Merrick Garland – Attorney General under Biden Stephanie Grisham – Former White House press secretary under Trump Kamala Harris – Vice President and former presidential candidate Gina Haspel – Former CIA director under Trump Fiona Hill – Former National Security Council staffer Curtis Heide – FBI agent Eric Holder – Former attorney general under Obama Robert Hur – Special counsel for Biden document investigation Cassidy Hutchinson – Former assistant to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows Nina Jankowicz – Former head of Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board Lois Lerner – Former IRS official under Obama Loretta Lynch – Former attorney general under Obama Charles Kupperman – Former deputy national security adviser under Trump Gen. Kenneth McKenzie (Ret.) – Former CENTCOM commander Andrew McCabe – Former FBI deputy director Ryan McCarthy – Former Secretary of the Army under Trump Mary McCord – Former DOJ national security division head Denis McDonough – Former Obama chief of staff, current VA secretary Gen. Mark Milley (Ret.) – Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lisa Monaco – Deputy attorney general under Biden Robert Mueller – Former FBI director and Russiagate special counsel Bruce Ohr – Former DOJ official under Obama and Trump Nellie Ohr – Former CIA employee Lisa Page – Former FBI counsel Pat Philbin – Former deputy White House counsel under Trump John Podesta – Former Obama adviser, current Biden climate adviser Samantha Power – Former U.N. ambassador under Obama, current USAID administrator Bill Priestap – Former FBI counterintelligence chief Susan Rice – Former Obama national security adviser Rod Rosenstein – Former deputy attorney general under Trump Peter Strzok – Former FBI counterintelligence agent Jake Sullivan – National Security Adviser under Biden Michael Sussman – Former DNC lawyer Miles Taylor – Former DHS official under Trump Timothy Thibault – Former FBI agent Andrew Weissman – Mueller’s Russiagate deputy Alexander Vindman – Former National Security Council official Christopher Wray – Current FBI director under Trump and Biden Sally Yates – Former deputy attorney general under Obama Adam Schiff – Senator-elect and former House Intelligence Committee chairman https://imgflip.com/i/9cb4km

🚨🚨 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