THE STATE: ALWAYS ANTI-JUSTICE The state is little more than highly #OrganizedCrime ... with #Violent #Satanic tendencies! They defend the #Criminal.... PROSECUTE the innocent American! https://old.bitchute.com/video/fnZfduuxS2Q/

House & Senate Republicans working together stopped Democrats from passing hundreds of bills in lameduck, including the following: -$25 billion of new pension debt -Drivers licenses for illegal aliens -Garbage, water, sewer & rain taxes -Subsidies for Hollywood elites -National Popular Vote -Ranked Choice Voting -Eliminate charter schools -Early release violent felons -Eliminate cash bonds for violent felons -Prohibit 80% of Michigan construction workers from working on public works projects -Making it near impossible to redevelop brownfields -Venezuela style price & rent control -Toll Roads -Billions of new corporate welfare -$10m for tampons in boy bathrooms -$500 tax credit for e-bikes -Forcing libraries to carry porn -Call prostitution “commercial sex activity” -Double the cost for marriage license -$250m for GM to tear down the RenCen while they’re laying off thousands of workers -New gun bans & gun store/manufacturing liability -Increased fees to go hunting & fishing -Higher costs to employ workers -New payroll tax on workers -More government property & less private property -Shutting down rural & urban hospitals dealing with staff shortages -Unlimited lawsuits on small business -Higher auto insurance rates -Rulemaking authority to EGLE that would take away private property rights -Retail store licensure -Vape & flavor bans -Increasing the cost to install septic systems -A massive, partisan end of the year spending bill @MIGOP @MISenate @MI_Republicans @RepMattHall @SenAricNesbitt @FightLikeHall @NezzieTeam

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/trump-to-prosecute-bill-gates-for-crimes-committed-against-america/

Watch: Democrat Congressman Loses It At Prospect Of Voters Influencing Politics Via X https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-democrat-congressman-loses-it-at-prospect-of-voters-influencing-politics-via-x

DEAD MEN "Dead Men" unfolds in the rugged, untamed frontier of the Old West, where the line between justice and vengeance is as blurred as the desert horizon. The story centers on two brothers, Jacob and Levi, whose lives are irrevocably changed when their father is brutally murdered. Driven by a potent mix of grief and fury, they embark on a perilous quest to avenge his death. Their journey is not just one of retribution but also of protection and reclamation. The brothers have formed a deep bond with a nearby Apache tribe, sharing in their customs and becoming a part of their extended family. With the tribe facing constant threats from land-hungry settlers and ruthless outlaws, Jacob and Levi take it upon themselves to shield their newfound kin from the encroaching dangers. As they traverse the vast and unforgiving landscape, the brothers encounter a host of colorful and dangerous characters, each with their own stake in the deadly game of survival. From cunning gold prospectors to corrupt lawmen, the Old West's harsh reality tests their resolve and ingenuity at every turn. The quest to reclaim their father’s land and gold intertwines with the broader struggle to preserve the Apache way of life. This dual mission reveals the complexities of honor and loyalty in a world where betrayal lurks around every corner. Along the way, the brothers grapple with their own identities, the weight of their father's legacy, and the moral ambiguities of their actions. "Dead Men" is a gripping tale of brotherhood, survival, and the relentless pursuit of justice. Its rich tapestry of historical detail and vivid characterization brings the Old West to life, capturing the spirit of an era defined by both its brutality and its raw beauty. With sweeping landscapes, intense action sequences, and a heart-wrenching narrative, this film delves deep into the human spirit, exploring themes of family, honor, and the enduring struggle for what is rightfully one's own. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztx8zH1pWOU

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

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/liz-cheney-referred-for-prosecution-j6-witness-tampering/

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

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) declared that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. “There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness,” legislation declares. “There is a distinction between amnesty and pardon; the former overlooks the offense, and is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the state and political offenses, the latter remits punishment and condones infractions of the peace of the state.” The deep state will say that the committee should be preemptively pardoned in case Donald Trump prosecutes his political enemies as the left has done relentlessly over the past four years. Pardoning Bennie Thompson would also likely result in a pardon for Liz Cheney as both have allegedly destroyed evidence surrounding the J6 case. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/pardon-for-j6-committee/

WTF? F.O.P. VS CORRUPT POLICE DEPARTMENT? TYRANTS VS TYRANTS? You know.... I'd really like to be able to say here: "This #Police Chief is a good guy, and doing his job by firing this woman" But that would simply NOT be true! Because he did not CHARGE HER under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 like he should have done! This wench COMMITTED A #CRIME! We don't just "Fire" any other criminal! We ARREST THEM and put them behind bars! EXCEPT when they are Police! The Prosecutor won't file these charges either, because it's a big club, and YOU ain't in it! Until these Police #Criminals are PUT BEHIND BARS (Where they belong) this won't change https://old.bitchute.com/video/l9Ak_Fkqhk8/