scrap vehicle prices https://orangescrap.com/scrap-price-for-junk-cars-texas/ Have junk auto cars in Orange County, TX? Get the top scrap car prices in Texas with our dedicated team of scrap car buyers. #junkcars #autoscrap #metal #recyclingcentre #texas #tx #USA

Chris Moritz: How Kamala Gave California to the Cartels, & the Psychopaths Ruling the Democrat Party... https://youtu.be/EqcKs15txTg?si=8zAHCCmhy-D-tgRK

Garbage Day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKtx6rg1RaQ

Inside the Rise of Germany's "Neo-Nazis" https://youtu.be/3oBbkHT6BnY?si=Sbo8pWtX7V95y2vf

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

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

Who’s on First & in What Percentage Application of Diverse “Other Insurance” Clauses Insurers Protected Insured and Litigated Their Differences Post 4920 Two insurance companies- Gemini and Zurich- asked the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal to determine what share of a $2 million settlement each is required to pay. The district court entered judgment for Gemini, ordering that Zurich pay $500,000 plus prejudgment interest. Both parties appealed, with Gemini seeking another $500,000 and Zurich challenging the award of prejudgment interest. In Gemini Insurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 22-13495, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 23, 2024) the competing “other insurance clauses” were resolved. FACTS After the death of Josue Vallejo, who was struck by a tractor-trailer operated by an employee of FSR Trucking, Inc two of three insurers disputed what proportion of the settlement each should pay. Zurich insured FSR, through its coverage of Commercial, for $1 million. Gemini also insured FSR for $3 million. The Vallejo claim settled for $3 million, of which Gemini contributed $2 million. Ryder’s insurance company, which is not a party to this appeal, contributed the other $1 million. Gemini and Zurich agree that they each owe a share of the $2 million, but dispute how much each one must pay. Under Gemini’s theory, they each owe $1 million. Under Zurich’s theory, they each owe their pro rata share, which is $500,000 for Zurich and $1.5 million for Gemini. The different theories of coverage turn on the application of the two policies’ “other insurance” clauses, which generally function to apportion coverage when there is overlapping insurance. Gemini argues that its policy is excess to Zurich’s, while Zurich argues that the policies attach at the same level and thus trigger pro rata contribution. Gemini sued Zurich for a declaratory judgment in its favor and an award of $1 million plus interest under claims of contractual subrogation or equitable subrogation/contribution. Zurich tendered $500,000 to Gemini to satisfy its pro rata share. Gemini, however, continued to litigate for the other $500,000 plus interest on the entire amount. Gemini appealed the District Court’s ruling in favor of Zurich and sought to obtain the other $500,000. ANALYSIS In Florida, where more than one insurer’s policy provides coverage for a loss, as the parties agree is the case here, it is appropriate to review the insurance contracts to see if the documents address the ‘ranking’ or contribution of other insurers. The Other Insurance Clauses Gemini’s “other insurance” clause provides: “This insurance is excess over and shall not contribute with any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis. This condition will not apply to insurance specifically written as excess over this policy.” Zurich’s “other insurance” clause is slightly different. “When this Coverage Form and any other Coverage Form or policy covers on the same basis, either excess or primary, we will pay only our share. Our share is the proportion that the Limit of Insurance of our Coverage Form bears to the total of the limits of all the Coverage Forms and policies covering on the same basis. Interpretation of the “Other Insurance” Clauses Where two insurance policies contain excess insurance clauses the clauses are deemed mutually repugnant and both insurers become primary and share the loss on a pro rata basis in accordance with their policy limits. Zurich argued, and the district court agreed, that both policies contain excess clauses such as pro rata contribution results. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Gemini because when two policies containing conflicting “other insurance” or excess [uninsured/underinsured motorist] clauses. In sum an “other insurance” clause containing the phrase “we will pay the proportion of damages payable as excess” means that the clause was pro rata, even though it also characterized itself as an excess clause. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit concluded both policies were primary. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment with regard to the amount of contribution and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Gemini for the principal amount of $1,000,000, with the understanding that Zurich has already paid half of that sum. Upon entry of the amended final judgment on remand, Gemini will be the prevailing party. When a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff’s out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded for the court to enter judgment in favor of Gemini in the principal amount of $1,000,000 understanding that Zurich has already paid $500,000. It also affirmed the award of prejudgment interest on the first $500,000 and direct the court to award Gemini prejudgment interest on the second $500,000 from February 7, 2019, until the date of the amended final judgment. ZALMA OPINION The three insurers of the defendant did the right thing by protecting the insured and then resolving their dispute over the share owed in court. Although insurance companies, generally, should not sue each other. “Other Insurance” clauses invariably raise disputes between insurers and often cause hardship to the insured. In this case Gemini, Zurich and an unnamed insurer put up the $3 million to settle and then Gemini and Zurich sued to clarify who owed what. The Eleventh Circuit found that the District Court was wrong because interpreting the competing “other insurance” clauses should have resulted in a finding that both Gemini and Zurich were primary insurers and each owed $1 million of the settlement and Zurich owed Gemini $500,000 plus interest. (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 IN THE HIGH CASTLE - A "MOCK-YOU-MENTARY" https://old.bitchute.com/video/u2T2MjTxz76a/

Alastair Crooke : Israel’s Preference For Self-Destruction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txkNk76E3SI

Operation Mockingbird: The CIA's Media Manipulation Program https://youtu.be/3KY0ktXAuvc One of the CIA's most powerful and secretive programs, Operation Mockingbird, was uncovered in the 1970s during the Church Hearings. Its goal: use the mainstream media to spread propaganda.