• ‘That’s not going to happen’
    https://rumble.com/v5mjt28-thats-not-going-to-happen-intl-affairs-analyst-questions-trumps-peace-promi.html
    ‘That’s not going to happen’ https://rumble.com/v5mjt28-thats-not-going-to-happen-intl-affairs-analyst-questions-trumps-peace-promi.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares 32 Views
  • https://t.me/davidavocadowolfe/145006
    PA cheating
    James O’Keefe: Philadelphia City Commissioners' Office Tells O'Keefe Non-Citizens Can Vote as Long as They Are Philadelphia Residents (2 min, 9 sec)

    In a recent conversation with an undercover O’Keefe Media Group journalist, Milton Jamerson, Election And Voter Registration Clerk from the Philadelphia City Commissioners Office, stated that non-citizens can vote in local elections as long as they are residents of Philadelphia. This claim is echoed by the nongovernmental organization (NGO) “Ceiba,” (@CeibaPhiladelp1) located just across the street, which asserts that individuals with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) are eligible to vote.

    An ITIN is a 9-digit number issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to individuals who are required to file a tax return but do not qualify for a Social Security number. While the ITIN serves as a means for tax reporting for those who are not U.S. citizens, possessing an ITIN does not equate to legal voting rights, raising questions about Ceiba's claim that ITIN's deem individuals eligible for participation in the electoral process.
    https://t.me/davidavocadowolfe/145006 PA cheating James O’Keefe: Philadelphia City Commissioners' Office Tells O'Keefe Non-Citizens Can Vote as Long as They Are Philadelphia Residents (2 min, 9 sec) In a recent conversation with an undercover O’Keefe Media Group journalist, Milton Jamerson, Election And Voter Registration Clerk from the Philadelphia City Commissioners Office, stated that non-citizens can vote in local elections as long as they are residents of Philadelphia. This claim is echoed by the nongovernmental organization (NGO) “Ceiba,” (@CeibaPhiladelp1) located just across the street, which asserts that individuals with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) are eligible to vote. An ITIN is a 9-digit number issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to individuals who are required to file a tax return but do not qualify for a Social Security number. While the ITIN serves as a means for tax reporting for those who are not U.S. citizens, possessing an ITIN does not equate to legal voting rights, raising questions about Ceiba's claim that ITIN's deem individuals eligible for participation in the electoral process.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 84 Views 0
  • Got questions about Lifewave products or interested in starting your own business with a well-established 20 year old health and wellness tech company? Join us tonight as my guest:)
    Here's the Zoom link and password. We start at 8:30pm EST and come be prepared to learn and be amazed at the testimonies of people who have experience the power of the patch!
    Most meetings last about 30 minutes and then there is time afterward for questions. Once you're done, feel free to message me or get my number and I can help you get started with Lifewave:)
    #everyone
    http://us02web.zoom.us/j/6866917272 meeting id: 686 691 7272 password: 044851
    Got questions about Lifewave products or interested in starting your own business with a well-established 20 year old health and wellness tech company? Join us tonight as my guest:) Here's the Zoom link and password. We start at 8:30pm EST and come be prepared to learn and be amazed at the testimonies of people who have experience the power of the patch! Most meetings last about 30 minutes and then there is time afterward for questions. Once you're done, feel free to message me or get my number and I can help you get started with Lifewave:) #everyone http://us02web.zoom.us/j/6866917272 meeting id: 686 691 7272 password: 044851
    0 Comments 0 Shares 131 Views
  • Trailer for new Documentary "All the President's Men" on Tucker Carlson Network
    What price would you pay to serve your country? Would you sacrifice your career? Your reputation? Even your own freedom? Those who served in Donald Trump’s first administration were forced to face these questions in a very real way. Many paid a terrible price. It’s time to tell their stories.
    Unfortunately, you have to join Tucker's network to watch this blockbuster. More information BELOW.
    https://tuckercarlson.com/all-the-presidents-men
    Trailer for new Documentary "All the President's Men" on Tucker Carlson Network What price would you pay to serve your country? Would you sacrifice your career? Your reputation? Even your own freedom? Those who served in Donald Trump’s first administration were forced to face these questions in a very real way. Many paid a terrible price. It’s time to tell their stories. Unfortunately, you have to join Tucker's network to watch this blockbuster. More information BELOW. https://tuckercarlson.com/all-the-presidents-men
    0 Comments 1 Shares 158 Views 0
  • Breaking News: Harris Campaign out of cash! This raises serious questions about where did the cash go? how much money has the demon-rats and the deep state pocketed....
    Breaking News: Harris Campaign out of cash! This raises serious questions about where did the cash go? how much money has the demon-rats and the deep state pocketed....
    0 Comments 0 Shares 84 Views 0

  • Officer Caught Aiding Criminals for Cash

    Police Officer who took Bribes from Insurance Fraudster Convicted

    Post 4923

    Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/officer-caught-aiding-criminals-cash-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-niboc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.

    Demarkco Johnson (“Johnson”), appealed his convictions and claims the following errors:

    1 The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a jury instruction on entrapment.
    2 The trial court erred in failing to admonish and/or instruct the witness to stop answering questions with a legal conclusion after defense counsel had objected.
    3 Appellant’s convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, his convictions are in violation of the Ohio state constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    In State Of Ohio v. Demarkco Johnson, 2024-Ohio-5098, No. 113591, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (October 24, 2024) resolved the issues on appeal.

    FACTS

    Defendants were charged with two counts of conspiracy, three counts of bribery, eight counts of forgery, one count of insurance fraud, one count of identity fraud, and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. They engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity charge included a clause alleging that at least one of the incidents of corrupt activity was a felony of the third degree or higher.

    At trial George Michael Riley, Sr. (“Riley”), testified that he became a confidential source for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), which was investigating corruption in the East Cleveland Police Department. Special Agent Shaun Roth (“Roth”), an agent with the FBI working with the Cleveland Metropolitan Anti-Corruption Task Force, testified that the FBI executed a search warrant for one of Riley’s properties.

    Harris’s services included running Riley’s name in police databases to check for warrants and blocking off city roads so Riley could move his demolition equipment throughout the city.

    Two of Riley’s trucks were stolen from his business in East Cleveland. Riley told his contacts at the FBI, and FBI officials instructed him to file a police report with the East Cleveland police just as any other victim would do. Riley cooperated with the FBI.

    After hearing the evidence, the jury found Johnson guilty of two counts of bribery, as alleged in Counts 5 and 10 of the indictment. The jury acquitted him of all other charges. The court sentenced Johnson to 12 months in prison on both counts and ordered that the two prison terms be served concurrently. Johnson appealed the trial court’s judgment.

    Law and Analysis - Entrapment Instruction

    In the first assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment.

    Entrapment is a ‘confession and avoidance’ defense in which the defendant admits committing the acts charged but claims that the criminal design arose with the state’s agent. There is no entrapment when government officials merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense to a criminal defendant who was predisposed to commit the offense.

    The video evidence showed Johnson handing Riley reports in exchange for money on multiple occasions. Johnson’s conduct demonstrated a ready acquiescence to the inducements offered by the government’s confidential source and a willingness to become involved in criminal activity in exchange for money.

    The evidence showed that Johnson not only had expert knowledge as to how to create the police reports in a way that could go undetected, but he also had access to the blank police forms that made the concealment of the reports possible. The Court of Appeals found that evidence did not support an entrapment defense.

    Testimony Pertaining to Bribery

    In the second assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred by refusing to instruct Roth to refrain from using the word “bribe” or “bribery payment” in response to questions that were not specifically related to bribe payments. Even if Roth had avoided the words “bribe” or “bribery payment,” the outcome of the trial would not have been any different. The overwhelming evidence established that Johnson helped create fake police reports in exchange for money.

    Manifest Weight of the Evidence

    Johnson argued his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

    The Court of Appeals noted that Johnson’s convictions were not dependent on his knowledge of any insurance scheme or Harris’s separate dealings with Riley. His convictions were based solely on his position as a police officer in the East Cleveland Police Department and his acceptance of cash in exchange for police reports. Video evidence showed Johnson accepting cash from Riley in exchange for the reports on at least two occasions. And, despite Johnson’s argument to the contrary, Johnson played along when Harris introduced him to Riley as Nevels.

    CONCLUSION

    The Court of Appeals ordered that a special mandate issue out of the court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.

    ZALMA OPINION

    There can be no excuse for a police officer to sell information to an insurance criminal to ease the ability of the crime to succeed. Officer Johnson tried multiple arguments to set aside his conviction even though the evidence against him was overwhelming. The Court of Appeals disposed of his arguments quickly and intelligently. Fraud is a crime. Insurance fraud is a crime. Helping the criminal avoid prosecution is also a crime and establishes the officer had given up his honor for cash.

    (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
    Officer Caught Aiding Criminals for Cash Police Officer who took Bribes from Insurance Fraudster Convicted Post 4923 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/officer-caught-aiding-criminals-cash-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-niboc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Demarkco Johnson (“Johnson”), appealed his convictions and claims the following errors: 1 The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a jury instruction on entrapment. 2 The trial court erred in failing to admonish and/or instruct the witness to stop answering questions with a legal conclusion after defense counsel had objected. 3 Appellant’s convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, his convictions are in violation of the Ohio state constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In State Of Ohio v. Demarkco Johnson, 2024-Ohio-5098, No. 113591, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (October 24, 2024) resolved the issues on appeal. FACTS Defendants were charged with two counts of conspiracy, three counts of bribery, eight counts of forgery, one count of insurance fraud, one count of identity fraud, and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. They engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity charge included a clause alleging that at least one of the incidents of corrupt activity was a felony of the third degree or higher. At trial George Michael Riley, Sr. (“Riley”), testified that he became a confidential source for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), which was investigating corruption in the East Cleveland Police Department. Special Agent Shaun Roth (“Roth”), an agent with the FBI working with the Cleveland Metropolitan Anti-Corruption Task Force, testified that the FBI executed a search warrant for one of Riley’s properties. Harris’s services included running Riley’s name in police databases to check for warrants and blocking off city roads so Riley could move his demolition equipment throughout the city. Two of Riley’s trucks were stolen from his business in East Cleveland. Riley told his contacts at the FBI, and FBI officials instructed him to file a police report with the East Cleveland police just as any other victim would do. Riley cooperated with the FBI. After hearing the evidence, the jury found Johnson guilty of two counts of bribery, as alleged in Counts 5 and 10 of the indictment. The jury acquitted him of all other charges. The court sentenced Johnson to 12 months in prison on both counts and ordered that the two prison terms be served concurrently. Johnson appealed the trial court’s judgment. Law and Analysis - Entrapment Instruction In the first assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment. Entrapment is a ‘confession and avoidance’ defense in which the defendant admits committing the acts charged but claims that the criminal design arose with the state’s agent. There is no entrapment when government officials merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense to a criminal defendant who was predisposed to commit the offense. The video evidence showed Johnson handing Riley reports in exchange for money on multiple occasions. Johnson’s conduct demonstrated a ready acquiescence to the inducements offered by the government’s confidential source and a willingness to become involved in criminal activity in exchange for money. The evidence showed that Johnson not only had expert knowledge as to how to create the police reports in a way that could go undetected, but he also had access to the blank police forms that made the concealment of the reports possible. The Court of Appeals found that evidence did not support an entrapment defense. Testimony Pertaining to Bribery In the second assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred by refusing to instruct Roth to refrain from using the word “bribe” or “bribery payment” in response to questions that were not specifically related to bribe payments. Even if Roth had avoided the words “bribe” or “bribery payment,” the outcome of the trial would not have been any different. The overwhelming evidence established that Johnson helped create fake police reports in exchange for money. Manifest Weight of the Evidence Johnson argued his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals noted that Johnson’s convictions were not dependent on his knowledge of any insurance scheme or Harris’s separate dealings with Riley. His convictions were based solely on his position as a police officer in the East Cleveland Police Department and his acceptance of cash in exchange for police reports. Video evidence showed Johnson accepting cash from Riley in exchange for the reports on at least two occasions. And, despite Johnson’s argument to the contrary, Johnson played along when Harris introduced him to Riley as Nevels. CONCLUSION The Court of Appeals ordered that a special mandate issue out of the court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. ZALMA OPINION There can be no excuse for a police officer to sell information to an insurance criminal to ease the ability of the crime to succeed. Officer Johnson tried multiple arguments to set aside his conviction even though the evidence against him was overwhelming. The Court of Appeals disposed of his arguments quickly and intelligently. Fraud is a crime. Insurance fraud is a crime. Helping the criminal avoid prosecution is also a crime and establishes the officer had given up his honor for cash. (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
    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 Comments 0 Shares 849 Views

  • Man Bites Dog Story: Fraudsters Arbitration Attempts Stopped

    Arbitration Stayed for Suspected Chiropractors’ Fraudulent No Fault Medical Claims

    Post 4921

    Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/man-bites-dog-story-fraudsters-arbitration-attempts-zalma-esq-cfe-5yw6c, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.

    In Government Employees Insurance Company, (“GEICO”) v. Didier Demesmin, M.D., et al, No. 23-CV-6191 (ARR) (MMH), United States District Court, E.D. New York (October 23, 2024) GEICO sought to enjoin defendants Manuel A. Mendoza, D.C. and Mendoza Chiropractic Office PC (collectively the “Mendoza Defendants”) from pursuing certain “no-fault” insurance collection arbitrations or initiating new collections proceedings during the pendency of this lawsuit.

    BACKGROUND

    GEICO provides personal injury protection benefits on a “no-fault” basis, which means that, after an accident, insured drivers and their passengers are entitled to certain benefits for medically necessary healthcare services regardless of who was at fault.

    GEICO sued a group of healthcare providers who allegedly carried out an insurance scheme to obtain fraudulent no-fault benefit payments from GEICO. The USDC granted the motion based on its conclusion that (1) GEICO would experience irreparable harm absent a stay, (2) GEICO raised a serious question going to the merits, and (3) the balance of hardships tipped in GEICO’s favor.

    Subsequently, GEICO requested leave to file a second amended complaint to add allegations concerning the Mendoza defendants which was granted.

    In total, GEICO seeks recovery of more than $5.9 million in wrongfully obtained benefits payments from the three groups of defendants, as well as a declaration that it is not obligated to reimburse defendants for outstanding no-fault claims.

    After filing the second amended complaint, GEICO filed the present motion seeking an order staying all pending no-fault benefits arbitrations between GEICO and the Mendoza defendants and enjoining the Mendoza defendants from commencing new collections proceedings during the pendency of this action.

    DISCUSSION

    GEICO Will Experience Irreparable Harm Absent A Stay.

    Irreparable harm is certain and imminent harm for which a monetary award does not adequately compensate. the risk of inconsistent judgments in no-fault insurance disputes can constitute irreparable harm separate and apart from the expenditure of time and money spent on parallel proceedings. As with the parallel proceedings brought by the Demesmin and Khanan defendants, the risk of inconsistent outcomes is great enough to establish irreparable harm.

    GEICO established irreparable harm because permitting arbitrations to proceed will subject it to a risk of judgments that may be inconsistent with future judicial rulings.

    GEICO Has Shown At Least Some Serious Questions Going To The Merits, And The Balance Of Hardships Tips In Its Favor.

    GEICO’s amended complaint details a complex scheme of fraudulent billing and referrals among a network of chiropractic providers. GEICO’s allegations concerning the Mendoza defendants’ role are well developed through numerous examples of charges billed without proper documentation or under suspicious circumstances and a table of more than 45,000 suspect claims.

    The balance of hardships also tips in GEICO’s favor because the Mendoza defendants have not established any hardship, beyond a delay in reimbursement. Because the defendants will presumably be entitled to collect interest on their pending claims if they prevail, the delay does not outweigh the risk of inconsistent outcomes faced by GEICO.

    A Stay Does Not Violate The Anti-Injunction Act.

    The Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”) prohibits federal courts from enjoining proceedings in state court “except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The AIA does not, however, limit the court’s authority to enjoin ongoing private arbitration proceedings or the court’s authority to enjoin defendants from initiating future state court proceedings.

    GEICO’s motion was granted and a preliminary injunction was issued: staying all pending no-fault insurance collection arbitrations that have been Commenced against GEICO by or on behalf of the Mendoza defendants, pending the disposition of GEICO’s claims in this action, and enjoining the Mendoza defendants and anyone acting on their behalf from commencing new no-fault arbitrations and litigations against GEICO pending the disposition of GEICO’s claims in this action.

    ZALMA OPINION

    The USDC, and other courts dealing with No-Fault auto insurance claims, has acted to help insurers defeat attempted insurance fraud – a crime in each state like New Jersey – which became necessary because state prosecutors seemed to ignore the crimes reported to them by insurers like GEICO. It is essential that insurers be proactive against fraud to shame the insurance fraud investigators in each state to do their job and prosecute the fraud perpetrators. Every insurer, faced with such fraud, should emulate GEICO.

    (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
    Man Bites Dog Story: Fraudsters Arbitration Attempts Stopped Arbitration Stayed for Suspected Chiropractors’ Fraudulent No Fault Medical Claims Post 4921 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/man-bites-dog-story-fraudsters-arbitration-attempts-zalma-esq-cfe-5yw6c, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog. In Government Employees Insurance Company, (“GEICO”) v. Didier Demesmin, M.D., et al, No. 23-CV-6191 (ARR) (MMH), United States District Court, E.D. New York (October 23, 2024) GEICO sought to enjoin defendants Manuel A. Mendoza, D.C. and Mendoza Chiropractic Office PC (collectively the “Mendoza Defendants”) from pursuing certain “no-fault” insurance collection arbitrations or initiating new collections proceedings during the pendency of this lawsuit. BACKGROUND GEICO provides personal injury protection benefits on a “no-fault” basis, which means that, after an accident, insured drivers and their passengers are entitled to certain benefits for medically necessary healthcare services regardless of who was at fault. GEICO sued a group of healthcare providers who allegedly carried out an insurance scheme to obtain fraudulent no-fault benefit payments from GEICO. The USDC granted the motion based on its conclusion that (1) GEICO would experience irreparable harm absent a stay, (2) GEICO raised a serious question going to the merits, and (3) the balance of hardships tipped in GEICO’s favor. Subsequently, GEICO requested leave to file a second amended complaint to add allegations concerning the Mendoza defendants which was granted. In total, GEICO seeks recovery of more than $5.9 million in wrongfully obtained benefits payments from the three groups of defendants, as well as a declaration that it is not obligated to reimburse defendants for outstanding no-fault claims. After filing the second amended complaint, GEICO filed the present motion seeking an order staying all pending no-fault benefits arbitrations between GEICO and the Mendoza defendants and enjoining the Mendoza defendants from commencing new collections proceedings during the pendency of this action. DISCUSSION GEICO Will Experience Irreparable Harm Absent A Stay. Irreparable harm is certain and imminent harm for which a monetary award does not adequately compensate. the risk of inconsistent judgments in no-fault insurance disputes can constitute irreparable harm separate and apart from the expenditure of time and money spent on parallel proceedings. As with the parallel proceedings brought by the Demesmin and Khanan defendants, the risk of inconsistent outcomes is great enough to establish irreparable harm. GEICO established irreparable harm because permitting arbitrations to proceed will subject it to a risk of judgments that may be inconsistent with future judicial rulings. GEICO Has Shown At Least Some Serious Questions Going To The Merits, And The Balance Of Hardships Tips In Its Favor. GEICO’s amended complaint details a complex scheme of fraudulent billing and referrals among a network of chiropractic providers. GEICO’s allegations concerning the Mendoza defendants’ role are well developed through numerous examples of charges billed without proper documentation or under suspicious circumstances and a table of more than 45,000 suspect claims. The balance of hardships also tips in GEICO’s favor because the Mendoza defendants have not established any hardship, beyond a delay in reimbursement. Because the defendants will presumably be entitled to collect interest on their pending claims if they prevail, the delay does not outweigh the risk of inconsistent outcomes faced by GEICO. A Stay Does Not Violate The Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”) prohibits federal courts from enjoining proceedings in state court “except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The AIA does not, however, limit the court’s authority to enjoin ongoing private arbitration proceedings or the court’s authority to enjoin defendants from initiating future state court proceedings. GEICO’s motion was granted and a preliminary injunction was issued: staying all pending no-fault insurance collection arbitrations that have been Commenced against GEICO by or on behalf of the Mendoza defendants, pending the disposition of GEICO’s claims in this action, and enjoining the Mendoza defendants and anyone acting on their behalf from commencing new no-fault arbitrations and litigations against GEICO pending the disposition of GEICO’s claims in this action. ZALMA OPINION The USDC, and other courts dealing with No-Fault auto insurance claims, has acted to help insurers defeat attempted insurance fraud – a crime in each state like New Jersey – which became necessary because state prosecutors seemed to ignore the crimes reported to them by insurers like GEICO. It is essential that insurers be proactive against fraud to shame the insurance fraud investigators in each state to do their job and prosecute the fraud perpetrators. Every insurer, faced with such fraud, should emulate GEICO. (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
    0 Comments 0 Shares 807 Views 0
  • Kamala has blown it. Can’t answer simple questions pitched by friendly ringers in the “news” business. Hiding somebody else’s agenda is a tough assignment, you see. All she can really do is cackle or simper and, let’s face it, that gets humiliating fast. Joy has turned to despair. Her punched ticket says “one way.” We’re seeing the suicide of the Democratic Party. Even CNN is starting to back away from them, as from a convocation of lepers. They can smell the odor of necrosis. Plus, their own instinct for survival has kicked in. They have a business to run. They want to be around to cover the treason trial of Alejandro Mayorkas — a sure thing to jack those sagging ratings back up. Maybe even Kamala Harris will be called out of retirement to testify and we’ll find out just what was going on in the White House in the summer of 2024, when “Joe Biden” — remember him? — was rattling around the joint like a BB in a packing crate, howling for his ice cream, and no one was around anymore to hear him.
    Kamala has blown it. Can’t answer simple questions pitched by friendly ringers in the “news” business. Hiding somebody else’s agenda is a tough assignment, you see. All she can really do is cackle or simper and, let’s face it, that gets humiliating fast. Joy has turned to despair. Her punched ticket says “one way.” We’re seeing the suicide of the Democratic Party. Even CNN is starting to back away from them, as from a convocation of lepers. They can smell the odor of necrosis. Plus, their own instinct for survival has kicked in. They have a business to run. They want to be around to cover the treason trial of Alejandro Mayorkas — a sure thing to jack those sagging ratings back up. Maybe even Kamala Harris will be called out of retirement to testify and we’ll find out just what was going on in the White House in the summer of 2024, when “Joe Biden” — remember him? — was rattling around the joint like a BB in a packing crate, howling for his ice cream, and no one was around anymore to hear him.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 399 Views
  • Watch: Moderator Admits Audience Can’t Ask Kamala Questions at Town Hall Because Questions ‘Pre-Determined’ https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-moderator-admits-audience-cant-ask-kamala-questions-at-town-hall-because-questions-are-pre-determined
    Watch: Moderator Admits Audience Can’t Ask Kamala Questions at Town Hall Because Questions ‘Pre-Determined’ https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-moderator-admits-audience-cant-ask-kamala-questions-at-town-hall-because-questions-are-pre-determined
    Like
    Angry
    2
    0 Comments 1 Shares 238 Views
  • THIS IS NOT A TOWN HALL IT'S JUST ANOTHER CONTROLLED INTERVIEW OF TWO TRAITORS TO OUR COUNTRY...

    PATHETIC!
    They’re not allowing questions from audience members at Kamala’s Town Hall with Liz Cheney
    They’re PRE-DETERMINED questions, meaning they already know the questions.
    https://rumble.com/v5jl3it-theyre-not-allowing-questions-from-audience-members-at-kamalas-town-hall-wi.html
    THIS IS NOT A TOWN HALL IT'S JUST ANOTHER CONTROLLED INTERVIEW OF TWO TRAITORS TO OUR COUNTRY... PATHETIC! 🤣😂 They’re not allowing questions from audience members at Kamala’s Town Hall with Liz Cheney They’re PRE-DETERMINED questions, meaning they already know the questions. 🥲😂😄🤣🤣 https://rumble.com/v5jl3it-theyre-not-allowing-questions-from-audience-members-at-kamalas-town-hall-wi.html
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 258 Views
More Results
Sponsored

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