• 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 Comments 0 Shares 312 Views
  • As long as you have #luciferian "government" control over people, you WILL HAVE #Corporations who are poisoning the population!

    This is because the illegitimate Luciferian "Government" will destroy all of their competition through over-regulation, #Police actions, and stupid "Statutes and Codes" that make ANYTHING HEALTHY illegal!

    I mean just look at RAW MILK!

    The Luciferian controlled "Federal Corporation" sends men wearing body armor and armed with machine guns to raid FARMS who sell RAW MILK to people who have signed a waiver, AND BEING FULLY AWARE OF ANY "RISKS" ASSOCIATED WITH RAW MILK.... Still wish to buy it!

    But you see....
    THIS is a threat to their #Fascist dictatorship!

    ONLY the Luciferian "government" approved corporations
    may conduct #Commerce in America!

    WHO do these Amish Farmers think they are???
    Selling RAW WHOLE MILK, just as YHWH created it, to the public???

    NOT as long as the Luciferian #Criminals control this thing called "government" And it don't matter, left or right.... THEY ARE ALL CRIMINALS!!!

    And in the event you don't already know this....
    The SAME Luciferian scumbags that control "government" also control the corporations who produce your FOOD!
    As long as you have #luciferian "government" control over people, you WILL HAVE #Corporations who are poisoning the population! This is because the illegitimate Luciferian "Government" will destroy all of their competition through over-regulation, #Police actions, and stupid "Statutes and Codes" that make ANYTHING HEALTHY illegal! I mean just look at RAW MILK! The Luciferian controlled "Federal Corporation" sends men wearing body armor and armed with machine guns to raid FARMS who sell RAW MILK to people who have signed a waiver, AND BEING FULLY AWARE OF ANY "RISKS" ASSOCIATED WITH RAW MILK.... Still wish to buy it! But you see.... THIS is a threat to their #Fascist dictatorship! ONLY the Luciferian "government" approved corporations may conduct #Commerce in America! WHO do these Amish Farmers think they are??? Selling RAW WHOLE MILK, just as YHWH created it, to the public??? NOT as long as the Luciferian #Criminals control this thing called "government" And it don't matter, left or right.... THEY ARE ALL CRIMINALS!!! And in the event you don't already know this.... The SAME Luciferian scumbags that control "government" also control the corporations who produce your FOOD!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 305 Views

  • 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
    🚨🚨 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
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    In four years of research, and encountering truly shocking evidence of what happened, this one certainly ranks up at the top of the list.
    Angry
    2
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2K Views
  • Italy Says No to Bill Gates! The country has acknowledged the health risks associated with synthetic foods and meats and has officially banned them.
    Italy Says No to Bill Gates! The country has acknowledged the health risks associated with synthetic foods and meats and has officially banned them.
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 291 Views 1
  • Health Minister’s misguided focus ignores pharmaceutical risks, targets natural health products instead!
    Mark Holland’s portfolio as federal health minister is supposed to safeguard the health of Canadians, but he seems to be more preoccupied with dismantling the natural health product industry than addressing the overwhelming adverse events linked to pharmaceuticals, raising serious concerns about his competency and priorities in his role.
    #NoMoreLiberalsAndNDP
    #SayingTheQuietPartOutLoud
    #resigntrudeau
    #JustSayNoMore
    https://friendevu.com/posts/201137
    Health Minister’s misguided focus ignores pharmaceutical risks, targets natural health products instead! Mark Holland’s portfolio as federal health minister is supposed to safeguard the health of Canadians, but he seems to be more preoccupied with dismantling the natural health product industry than addressing the overwhelming adverse events linked to pharmaceuticals, raising serious concerns about his competency and priorities in his role. 🇨🇦 #NoMoreLiberalsAndNDP 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #SayingTheQuietPartOutLoud 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #resigntrudeau 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #JustSayNoMore 🇨🇦 https://friendevu.com/posts/201137
    FRIENDEVU.COM
    Health Minister’s misguided focus ignores pharmaceutical...
    Health Minister’s misguided focus ignores pharmaceutical risks, targets natural health products instead! Mark Holland’s portfolio as federal health minister is supposed to safeguard the health of Canadians, but he seems to be more preoccupied with dismantling the natural health...
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 495 Views
  • Any physician (whether pro-life or pro-choice) who has the best welfare and interests of their female patients at heart will not neglect to warn them of the risks to their physical, mental, and emotional health should they insist on murdering their unborn child; risks they need not have to face if they would at least give their child up for adoption if they don’t think they are able to raise and care for the child themselves.
    https://www.lifenews.com/2023/12/29/obgyn-confirms-abortion-harms-women/
    Any physician (whether pro-life or pro-choice) who has the best welfare and interests of their female patients at heart will not neglect to warn them of the risks to their physical, mental, and emotional health should they insist on murdering their unborn child; risks they need not have to face if they would at least give their child up for adoption if they don’t think they are able to raise and care for the child themselves. https://www.lifenews.com/2023/12/29/obgyn-confirms-abortion-harms-women/
    WWW.LIFENEWS.COM
    OBGYN Confirms "Abortion Harms Women" - LifeNews.com
    On Dec. 13, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case to challenge the FDA’s actions to remove commonsense safeguards for women and girls who take the chemical abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. It was filed by my organization, three others and four doctors via our Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys. On Dec. 13, the U.S. Supreme Court […]
    0 Comments 0 Shares 500 Views
  • https://greenmedinfo.com/content/ibuprofens-deadly-dark-side-unveiling-risks-and-exploring-safer-alternatives
    https://greenmedinfo.com/content/ibuprofens-deadly-dark-side-unveiling-risks-and-exploring-safer-alternatives
    GREENMEDINFO.COM
    Ibuprofen's Deadly Dark Side: Unveiling Risks and Exploring Safer Alternatives
    Discover why your go-to pain reliever might be silently harming your health, and explore the natural alternatives backed by science.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 314 Views
  • Radical sex-ed activists push back against freedom of information request, seek ombud's intervention!
    HPV Global Action raised significant objections to the release of its presentation, citing privacy concerns and claiming that disclosure would pose risks to the organization and its staff.
    #NoMoreLiberalsAndNDP
    #SayingTheQuietPartOutLoud
    #resigntrudeau
    #JustSayNoMore
    https://www.rebelnews.com/radical_sex_ed_activists_push_back_against_freedom_of_information_request_seek_ombuds_intervention
    Radical sex-ed activists push back against freedom of information request, seek ombud's intervention! HPV Global Action raised significant objections to the release of its presentation, citing privacy concerns and claiming that disclosure would pose risks to the organization and its staff. 🇨🇦 #NoMoreLiberalsAndNDP 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #SayingTheQuietPartOutLoud 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #resigntrudeau 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #JustSayNoMore 🇨🇦 https://www.rebelnews.com/radical_sex_ed_activists_push_back_against_freedom_of_information_request_seek_ombuds_intervention
    WWW.REBELNEWS.COM
    Radical sex-ed activists push back against freedom of information request, seek ombud's intervention
    HPV Global Action raised significant objections to the release of its presentation, citing privacy concerns and claiming that disclosure would pose risks to the organization and its staff.
    1 Comments 0 Shares 341 Views
  • America's Unexpected WW2 Panzer Annihilator
    South Korea plunged into chaos with the sudden invasion from the North, an unexpected turn that threw the nation and its American allies into a harrowing retreat. Overwhelmed by the Communist onslaught, the Allied forces faced an army of tens of thousands of infantry, artillery, and, critically, tanks led by the Soviet-made T-34s, a tank that epitomized armored dominance on the battlefield.

    In stark contrast, the only immediate armored response from the U.S. Far East Command came in the form of the World War 2-era M24 Chaffee. This compact light tank, tipping the scales at just over 18 tons and armed with a mere 75-millimeter gun, stood as the solitary option to confront the enemy's advance. Designed primarily for reconnaissance and infantry support, the Chaffee, with its lighter armor and armament, was not suited for head-on clashes with the Soviet behemoths.

    On July 10, 1950, a decisive moment unfolded as a unit of Chaffees encountered the enemy’s T-34 tanks for the first time. Leveraging their agility, the Chaffee crews went on the offensive. The initial exchange of fire saw the Chaffees’ rounds bouncing harmlessly off the T-34s' armor, but the American tanks pressed on, maneuvering to get within effective range.

    As the battle heated up, two Chaffees were hit and destroyed, a stark reminder of the risks they were taking. Then, in a moment teetering on the edge of disaster, as a T-34 lined up its shot on another Chaffee, an unexpected explosion changed everything.

    When the smoke began to clear, it was revealed that this was the result of a cunning flanking maneuver. The Chaffee's maneuverability and the crew's tactical ingenuity had turned the tables. Emerging from behind the enemy lines, the flanking Chaffees had caught the T-34s off guard.

    In the heat of battle, the Chaffee showed that age and power are not the sole determinants of effectiveness, revealing hidden aces through innovative tactics.
    America's Unexpected WW2 Panzer Annihilator South Korea plunged into chaos with the sudden invasion from the North, an unexpected turn that threw the nation and its American allies into a harrowing retreat. Overwhelmed by the Communist onslaught, the Allied forces faced an army of tens of thousands of infantry, artillery, and, critically, tanks led by the Soviet-made T-34s, a tank that epitomized armored dominance on the battlefield. In stark contrast, the only immediate armored response from the U.S. Far East Command came in the form of the World War 2-era M24 Chaffee. This compact light tank, tipping the scales at just over 18 tons and armed with a mere 75-millimeter gun, stood as the solitary option to confront the enemy's advance. Designed primarily for reconnaissance and infantry support, the Chaffee, with its lighter armor and armament, was not suited for head-on clashes with the Soviet behemoths. On July 10, 1950, a decisive moment unfolded as a unit of Chaffees encountered the enemy’s T-34 tanks for the first time. Leveraging their agility, the Chaffee crews went on the offensive. The initial exchange of fire saw the Chaffees’ rounds bouncing harmlessly off the T-34s' armor, but the American tanks pressed on, maneuvering to get within effective range. As the battle heated up, two Chaffees were hit and destroyed, a stark reminder of the risks they were taking. Then, in a moment teetering on the edge of disaster, as a T-34 lined up its shot on another Chaffee, an unexpected explosion changed everything. When the smoke began to clear, it was revealed that this was the result of a cunning flanking maneuver. The Chaffee's maneuverability and the crew's tactical ingenuity had turned the tables. Emerging from behind the enemy lines, the flanking Chaffees had caught the T-34s off guard. In the heat of battle, the Chaffee showed that age and power are not the sole determinants of effectiveness, revealing hidden aces through innovative tactics.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 928 Views
  • This hasn’t been the first time women’s well-being and possibly their lives have been placed in danger in athletic fighting competitions and all in the name of transgender affirmation.
    https://au.sports.yahoo.com/ebanie-bridges-blasts-policy-allowing-transgender-women-compete-female-boxing-024904694.html

    Two years ago, a female MMA contestant received serious head-injuries in a match against a transgender who was admitted into the women’s MMA division. It is a blessing that she wasn’t killed. If this persists, it may be time for women involved in both boxing and MMA to form their own independent women’s divisions for their own safety.

    Granted that in sports such as this, there is always a chance of an athlete male or female, risking the possibility of serious injury or even death (death being rare) but those are risks that participants knowingly take, but allowing men claiming to be women to compete against female fighters exposes women involved in these kind of sports to unnecessary dangers.
    https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-broke-opponent-s-skull-mma-fight
    This hasn’t been the first time women’s well-being and possibly their lives have been placed in danger in athletic fighting competitions and all in the name of transgender affirmation. https://au.sports.yahoo.com/ebanie-bridges-blasts-policy-allowing-transgender-women-compete-female-boxing-024904694.html Two years ago, a female MMA contestant received serious head-injuries in a match against a transgender who was admitted into the women’s MMA division. It is a blessing that she wasn’t killed. If this persists, it may be time for women involved in both boxing and MMA to form their own independent women’s divisions for their own safety. Granted that in sports such as this, there is always a chance of an athlete male or female, risking the possibility of serious injury or even death (death being rare) but those are risks that participants knowingly take, but allowing men claiming to be women to compete against female fighters exposes women involved in these kind of sports to unnecessary dangers. https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-broke-opponent-s-skull-mma-fight
    0 Comments 0 Shares 950 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