1000+ Stain Remover is available again both as a 3-pack SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) and a single bottle SKU on Home Depots online platform.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-CV-81334-WM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ex rel. CLIFFORD BARON
Plaintiff/Relator,
v.
RENNOVA HEALTH, INC., PB LABORATORIES,
LLC d/b/a COLLECTAWAY, LLC, MEDYTOX
MEDICAL MARKETING & SALES, INC.,
SEAMUS LAGAN, ALCIMEDE, INC.,
JELLICO MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
JAMESTOWN TN MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a
JAMESTOWN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
RENNOVA COMMUNITY HEALTH, INC.,
PLATINUM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC., and
CHRISTOPHER DIAMANTIS,
Defendants.
___________________________________________


STATUS REPORT ON SETTLEMENT AND FINAL RESOLUTION
The United States of America, through undersigned counsel and pursuant to the Court’s Order [D.E. 98], file this Status Update regarding the settlement and final resolution of this matter.

At mediation, the Parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve all remaining claims alleged by the Government against Defendants Jellico Medical Center, Inc., Jamestown TN Medical Center, and Rennova Health, Inc., in the operative Second Amended Complaint. To resolve this case that arises under the False Claims Act, the United States has obtained the necessary agency approvals of the proposed settlement terms. As the Court recognized in its prior Order [D.E. 95], obtaining authority from the interested within the Government takes time, which occurred here as several terms of the settlement, including payments of the monetary settlement over time, necessitated additional scrutiny, review, and justification.

The Parties and agencies have conducted their review of the draft Settlement Agreement and Release. Through these reviews, the Parties and agencies offered edits and changes to the proposed language of the Settlement Agreement and Release, although they did not materially alter the terms and conditions. The Parties are now reviewing the final version of the Settlement Agreement and Release that incorporates these edits and changes. As of the filing of this Status Update, the Parties endeavor to circulate a final, executable copy amongst the signatories on December 20, 2024 for full execution by all necessary Parties and agencies. After all the necessary signatures are obtained, the Parties will file their Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with a copy of the fully executed Settlement Agreement appended thereto.

Lastly, the Relator and the Defendants are in the midst of resolving the issue surrounding the Relator’s entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In both the draft Settlement Agreement and the to-be-filed Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, the Relator and the Defendants expressly state that they will reserve their right for the Court to adjudicate any claim for reasonable expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) should it be necessary.
Dated: December 19, 2024

Respectfully submitted,
MARKENZY LAPOINTE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/ David Werner
DAVID WERNER
Assistant United States Attorney
Fla. Bar. No. 113436
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132
Telephone: (786) 439-3194
Facsimile: (305) 530-7139
Email: David.Werner@usdoj.gov
Counsel for United States of America


Lastly, the Relator and the Defendants are in the midst of resolving the issue surrounding the Relator’s entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In both the draft Settlement Agreement and the to-be-filed Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, the Relator and the Defendants expressly state that they will reserve their right for the Court to adjudicate any claim for reasonable expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) should it be necessary.
Dated: December 19, 2024

Respectfully submitted,
MARKENZY LAPOINTE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/ David Werner
DAVID WERNER
Assistant United States Attorney
Fla. Bar. No. 113436
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132
Telephone: (786) 439-3194
Facsimile: (305) 530-7139
Email: David.Werner@usdoj.gov
Counsel for United States of America


CERTIFICATE OF AND SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 19, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the Service List below in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
/s/ David Werner
By: David Werner
Assistant United States Attorney

SERVICE LIST
Jonathan Kroner, Esq.
jk@FloridaFalseClaim.com
Florida Bar No. 328677
Jonathan Kroner Law Office
6001 N Ocean Dr., Ste. 806
Hollywood, FL 33019-4617
305.310.6046

Royston H. Delaney, Esq.
rory@rorydelaney.com
RORY DELANEY, ESQ., LLC
50 Congress Street, Suite 600
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
(857) 498-0384

Ilyas J. Rona, Esq.
ijr@mrdklaw.com
MILLIGAN RONA DURAN & KING LLC
50 Congress Street, Suite 600
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
(617) 395-9570
Counsel for the Relator

Erik R. Matheney
Ematheney@shutts.com
S. Elizabeth King
Eking@shutts.com
Shutts & Bowen
4301 W. Boy Scout Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33607
USA
(813) 227-8123
Counsel for Defendants Rennova Health, Inc., Jellico Medical Center, Inc., and Jamestown TN Medical Center

ENDORSEMENT OF JUSTICE W.D. BLACK:

[1] I heard a motion in this matter on October 21, 2024, in which Winning Brands Corporation (“WB”) sought a dismissal of these proceedings against it inasmuch as it is a Delaware corporation, purportedly not conducting business in Ontario.

[2] In my endorsement, also dated October 21, 2024, I dismissed WB’s motion, finding that it was “not a close call” and that, among other findings, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence showed that WB had been carrying on business in Ontario for a number of years.

[3] Given my finding, I determined that the respondent on the motion, Mr. Perlman, was entitled to his costs. Mr. Perlman had submitted a costs outline as required (WB had not) but it became apparent that Mr. Perlman had made an offer to settle that he wished to have taken into account for purposes of costs, and so I directed that the parties exchange submissions on costs, which they did.

[4] The written submissions that I received confirmed that Mr. Perlman had delivered an offer to settle, together with his responding materials for the motion (at the end of September, so early enough to trigger potential costs consequences). The offer contemplated that if WB accepted it that day (and agreed to a dismissal of his motion), he would only be obliged to pay to Mr. Perlman $1,000 in costs. After that day, if WB agreed to a dismissal of its motion and accepted the offer (which remained open until one minute after the motion commenced), the offer contemplated that WB would pay Mr. Perlman’s costs on a partial indemnity basis.

[5] Mr. Perlman’s written submissions on costs also asserted that the matter was of medium complexity, and was clearly of great importance in these proceedings, in that if WB succeeded, the proceedings against it would be at an end.

[6] WB agreed, in its submissions, that the matter was of importance (for the same reason articulated by Mr. Perlman), but argued that the amounts sought by Mr. Perlman were excessive, that the time spent was disproportionate to the length and complexity of the motion, and that Mr. Perlman deployed two lawyers, whereas WB used only one.

[7] WB filed its own costs outline together with its costs submissions (as noted it had not uploaded a costs outline, as required, at the time of the motion).

[8] WB’s costs outline, while confirming that WB used only one lawyer (as compared to the two lawyers deployed by Mr. Perlman), actually tends to confirm that the amounts sought by Mr. Perlman are “in the ballpark”.

[9] That is, in terms of partial indemnity costs, Mr. Perlman’s figure is $12,825.62, and WB’s figure is $11,525.15. For substantial indemnity, the figures are $18,271.14 (Mr. Perlman) versus $15,985.65 (WB).

[10] Although it is fair to note, as WB does, that Mr. Perlman used two lawyers for the motion, it is clear that the more senior of the two lawyers (who is a 2018 call as compared to his colleague who is a 2019 call) did the vast majority of the work on the file.

[11] I find that it is fair for costs to be paid on a substantial indemnity basis. While the offer to settle contemplated two different outcomes (depending on whether it was accepted on the first day or on a subsequent day), it is nonetheless clear that if WB had accepted the offer at any point before the motion it would have been better off from a costs perspective.

[12] I am prepared to modestly reduce the costs award because of Mr. Perlman’s use of two lawyers as compared to the single lawyer used by WB. This is not because there is anything inherently wrong with using two lawyers on a matter like this one. Rather, the two lawyers who worked on this matter for Mr. Perlman were very close in level (within a year of call) such that it would have been difficult to enjoy the efficiencies of much of the work being done at a more junior level and, in any event, most of the work was actually done by the more senior of the two lawyers.

[13] Overall, I find that WB is to pay Mr. Perlman’s costs of this motion on a substantial indemnity basis, in the amount of $16,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

[14] These costs are to be paid within 30 days of today’s date.
_________________________________
W.D. BLACK J.
RELEAASED: NOVEMBER 14, 2024

"Our plan is to also deploy GestureTek in grocery stores and similar retail environments where consumer products are sold to provide consumer product brands with a new way to advertise and engage consumers at point of sale for maximum impact.

A follow-up prototype installation is targeted for Q1 2025 with a supermarket partner who has already been identified and has agreed to participate."

What's your rebuttal?

The analyses stratified by age showed that Republican voters had significantly higher excess death rates compared with Democratic voters for 2 of the 4 age groups in the study

Democratic voters had significantly higher excess death rates compared with Republican voters for the age group 65 to 74 years.

Results
Our study included 538 159 deaths for individuals aged 25 years
and older in Florida and Ohio between January 2018 and December
2021 linked to their 2017 voter data (eTable 1 in Supplement
1). The median age at death was 78 years (IQR, 71-89
years). The pattern of death counts in our linked data and in
the National Center for Health Statistics data was similar
(Figure 1).

Using these data, we found a 20.5 percentage-point (95%
PI, 15.6-25.6 percentage points) increase inweekly death counts
in Florida and Ohio in the March 2020 to December 2021 period
relative to the expected death counts for those weeks
(Figure 2A and Table). By comparison, for the time periods
before the pandemic, we found only small fluctuations in
excess death rates around 0.

Before the pandemic, excess
death rates for Republican
and Democratic voters
were centered around 0 (Figure 2B). In the
winter of 2021, both groups experienced sharp increases of
similar magnitude in excess death rates. However, in the summer
of 2021, after vaccines were available to all adults, the
excess death rate among Republican voters began to increase
relative to the excess death rate among Democratic voters; in
the fall of 2021, the gap widened further.Between March 2020
and December 2021, excess death rates were 2.8 percentage
points (15%) higher for Republican voters compared with
Democratic voters (95%PI, 1.6-3.7 percentage points) (Table).

After April 1, 2021, when all adults were eligible for vaccines
in Florida and Ohio, this gap widened from -0.9 percentage
point (95% PI, -2.5 to 0.3 percentage points) between March
2020 and March 2021, to 7.7 percentage points (95% PI, 6.0-
9.3 percentage points) in the adjusted analysis, or a 43% difference
(Table).

The estimates of differences in excess death rates between
Republican and Democratic voters (adjusted for age,
time, and state) were small until the summer of 2021, when
excess death rates among Republican voters began to increase
compared with excess death rates among Democratic
voters (Figure 2C). The analyses stratified by age showed that
Republican voters had significantly higher excess death rates
compared with Democratic voters for 2 of the 4 age groups in
the study, the differences for the age group 25 to 64 years were
not significant (Figure 3; eFigure 1 in Supplement 1). Democratic
voters had significantly higher excess death rates compared with
Republican voters for the age group 65 to 74 years.

"Not to mention, this paper takes into account only single-variate analysis (probably explains why it isn't even peer-reviewed)".

JAMA Internal Medicine is an international peer-reviewed journal designed to provide an indispensable and trustworthy source of peer-reviewed evidence to advance the field of internal medicine worldwide.


Yes, all articles published in JAMA Internal Medicine are peer-reviewed

At September 30, 2022, the Company had a working capital deficit and a stockholders’ deficit of $44.0 million and $29.9 million, respectively. In addition, the Company had a loss from continuing operations of approximately $4.1 million and $4.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively, and cash used in operating activities was $1.2 million and $5.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively. As of the date of this report, our cash is deficient and payments for our operations in the ordinary course are not being made. The continued losses and other related factors, including past due accounts payable and payroll taxes, as well as payment defaults under the terms of certain outstanding notes payable and debentures, raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern for 12 months from the filing date of this report.



The Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements are prepared assuming the Company can continue as a going concern, which contemplates continuity of operations through realization of assets, and the settling of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company’s current financial condition may make it difficult to attract and maintain adequate expertise in its management team to successfully operate its remaining healthcare facilities.



There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to achieve its business plan, raise any additional capital or secure the additional financing necessary to implement its current operating plan. The ability of the Company to continue as a going concern is dependent upon its ability to raise adequate capital to fund its operations and repay its outstanding debt and other past due obligations, fully align its operating costs, increase its net revenues, and eventually gain profitable operations. The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might be necessary if the Company is unable to continue as a going concern.

Strategic Acquisitions Expected to Generate Over $20M in Annual Revenue, Positioning FOXO for Accelerated Growth
MINNEAPOLIS, MN, Sept. 17, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FOXO Technologies Inc. (NYSE American: FOXO) (the “Company”), today announced it has completed the acquisition of the second revenue-generating operation from Rennova Health, Inc. (OTC: RNVA) (“Rennova”).

The Company had previously announced it had entered into two share exchange agreements with Rennova. The first agreement was to acquire the equity in Myrtle Recovery Centers, Inc., Rennova’s behavioral health services subsidiary. Closing of the Myrtle transaction occurred on June 14, 2024.

The second agreement was to acquire the equity in Rennova Community Health, Inc. (RCHI), the owner of Scott County Community Hospital, Inc. (d/b/a Big South Fork Medical Center), a critical access hospital in Tennessee for $20 million of Convertible Preferred Stock in FOXO. On September 10, 2024, the Company entered into an Amended and Restated Stock Exchange Agreement with Rennova to amend the Stock Exchange Agreement dated June 10, 2024, to change the consideration to be received by Rennova in exchange for all of the equity interests of RCHI for $22,000,000 of intercompany Rennova debt and $100. Under the Amendment, RCHI issued a senior note to Rennova in the principal amount of $22,000,000 (subject to adjustments) which will be secured by all of the assets of RCHI, with the Company and Scott County Community Hospital, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, providing a guaranty on the Note pursuant to a Guaranty Agreement dated September 10, 2024, and with the Company providing a security interest in the “Collateral,” as defined in the Pledge and Security Agreement dated September 10, 2024, with Rennova. The Amendment grants RCHI the right to request the Company to exchange the Note into $20,000,000 of Series A preferred stock in the Company.

FOXO TECHNOLOGIES INC. ANNOUNCES RESTRUCTURING AND CAPITAL RAISING TRANSACTIONS AND APPOINTS SEAMUS LAGAN AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


MINNEAPOLIS, MN, Dec. 11, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FOXO Technologies Inc. (NYSE American: FOXO) (the “Company” or “FOXO”) announces a series of restructuring and capital raising transactions which will improve the Company’s balance sheet, satisfy minimum stockholders’ equity requirements of the NYSE American and provide capital for growth and reduce outstanding liabilities. The Company also announces a change in senior leadership.

Key transactions include:

Rennova Health, Inc.’s exchange of approximately $21 million of a Senior Secured Note issued by Rennova Community Health, Inc., the Company’s subsidiary, into 21,000 shares of the Company’s Series A Cumulative Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock

An institutional investor’s additional funding of $1.0 million and exchange of $2.2 million of Senior Notes (which includes the $1.0 million of additional funding) into 2,464 shares of the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock
Settlement of certain liabilities owed to KR8, Inc. and the termination of a current license agreement for 3,000 shares of the Company’s newly designated Series D Cumulative Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock

In addition, the Company is pleased to announce that Seamus Lagan has been appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Company effectively immediately. Mr. Lagan joined the Board of Directors of the Company on September 10, 2024.

Seamus Lagan, age 55, has served as a director of the Company since September 10, 2024 and was appointed Chief Executive Officer and President and a director of Rennova Health, Inc., the seller of the Company’s recent acquisitions, in 2015, and is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company’s subsidiary, Rennova Community Health, Inc. He has been an entrepreneur and investor in startup and distressed companies for over 30 years and has held numerous board and executive positions in publicly-listed companies. He has secured in excess of $100M in funding for various projects and companies and has significant experience in mergers and acquisitions in the health care sector.

“I am excited to work closely with and build our operating teams to drive improved performance and shareholder value. When viewed on a combined basis, the Company has recently reduced liabilities and increased stockholders’ equity by $26.4 million. We are confident that the improved balance sheet and, specifically, stockholder’s equity will meet the minimum requirements of the NYSE American thereby eliminating the previously announced risk of a potential delisting by the NYSE American,” commented Seamus Lagan, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. “The reduced liabilities combined with new revenue generating businesses is an excellent way to end 2024 and positions the Company well for growth in 2025 and beyond.”

The Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2024, which provides additional details on the above transactions and related Company actions and activities.

About FOXO Technologies Inc. (“FOXO”)

FOXO owns and operates three subsidiaries.

Foxo Labs, Inc. is a biotechnology company dedicated to improving human health and life span through the development of cutting-edge technology and product solutions for various industries.

Myrtle Recovery Centers, Inc., a 30-bed behavioral health facility in East Tennessee. Myrtle provides inpatient services for detox and residential treatment and outpatient services.

Rennova Community Health, Inc., owns and operates Scott County Community Hospital, Inc. (d/b/a Big South Fork Medical), a critical access designated (CAH) hospital in East Tennessee.

In a September 2022 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), in Cambridge, Massachusetts , Wallace et al. compared the excess mortality among Republicans and Democrats from 2018 to 2022.
Excess deaths during the pandemic were computed relative to the number of deaths observed in 2019. There was no difference in excess deaths along partisan lines in 2018, indicating that the two groups were comparable. However, since the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, the excess death rate among Republicans was 10.4 percentage points higher than among Democrats, or 1.5 times that of the Democrats

Political affiliation has emerged as a potential risk factor for COVID-19, amid evidence that Republican-leaning counties have had higher COVID-19 death rates than Democrat- leaning counties and evidence of a link between political party affiliation and vaccination views. This study constructs an individual-level dataset with political affiliation and excess death rates during the COVID-19 pandemic via a linkage of 2017 voter registration in Ohio and Florida to mortality data from 2018 to 2021. We estimate substantially higher excess death rates for registered Republicans when compared to registered Democrats, with almost all of the difference concentrated in the period after vaccines were widely available in our study states. Overall, the excess death rate for Republicans was 5.4 percentage points (pp), or 76%, higher than the excess death rate for Democrats. Post- vaccines, the excess death rate gap between Republicans and Democrats widened from 1.6 pp (22% of the Democrat excess death rate) to 10.4 pp (153% of the Democrat excess death rate). The gap in excess death rates between Republicans and Democrats is concentrated in counties with low vaccination rates and only materializes after vaccines became widely available.

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction. On what? Cite the case ruling. Did it come from the Super Supreme Court? Or the Supreme Conspiracy court?

"Biden inherited an economy from President Trump in shambles with the greatest economic collapse in the post-World War II era due to COVID-19. "

Wage growth has now outpaced inflation for 18 consecutive months. American paychecks are expected to recover from the inflation erosion of the pandemic by June. Workers in industries as far ranging as dockworkers, aerospace, automotive, and trucking enjoyed pay and benefits increases of 50% to 100% with assistance from the Biden Administration. For comparison, the U.S. never fully recovered from the last time inflation ran rampant—in the 1970s. The Biden Administration will have done it in two years.

Meanwhile, government measures have recorded the steady decline in prices since inflation peaked in 2022 with this week’s Consumer Price Index confirming inflation on target at the normal expected 2.6%. and producer prices up only a negligible 0.3%. But CPI, PCE, and other metrics only convolute what people really experience throughout their daily lives. Americans are savvy, as are corporations operating in a hyper-competitive capitalist system. Consumers will shop where they can find the lowest prices.

Whoops! Donald Trump Admits He Doesn’t Know How to Fix Inflation

In fact, his most cherished economic policy will almost certainly make things
much worse.

Donald Trump knows that he won the presidency because grocery prices are high. What he doesn’t know is how to actually get those prices to come down.

In a lengthy interview with Time magazine published Thursday, Trump had changed up his tune when asked if his presidency would be a failure if he couldn’t deliver his promise to lower the price of groceries.

“I don’t think so. Look, they got them up. I’d like to bring them down. It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard. But I think that they will,” Trump said.

"I think that energy is going to bring them down. I think a better supply chain is going to bring them down. You know, the supply chain is still broken. It’s broken. You see it. You go out to the docks and you see all these containers,” Trump said. He proceeded to describe a port in California that held over a dozen full shipping containers as evidence for a “broken” supply chain.

It seems Trump is already trying to manage expectations after making more than a few lofty promises about bringing grocery prices down, a goal that is not reflected in his disastrous proposed economic policies. Trump’s plan to implement 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico will likely increase the price of everyday consumer products, like groceries. In 2022, Mexico accounted for a whopping 69 percent of U.S. vegetable imports and 51 percent of fresh fruit imports.

On Meet the Press Sunday, Trump claimed that he’d won the election on solely the issue of groceries. “Very simple word, groceries. Like almost—you know, who uses the word? I started using the word—the groceries. When you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they would double and triple the price over a short period of time, and I won an election based on that.”

Trump’s Most Disgusting Pardons

Blackwater mercenaries committed a massacre. Now they’ll go free.

Trump's sordid pardons cement his corrupt legacy

(CNN)The Founding Fathers would have been disgusted by President Donald Trump's serial abuse of the pardon power. Nearly 90% of his pardons to date have gone to friends or politically connected allies -- including corrupt politicians. While the President's pardon power may seem unconstrained by the Constitution, a closer look shows that Trump is violating every principle the framers of the Constitution assumed would be followed by a principled President -- and there's evidence they intended special constraints on a President's pardon power after they'd been impeached

Trump's pardons of Rod Blagojevich and others meant to convince America corruption is OK

Many of the offenders who received pardons or commutations of their sentences were convicted of crimes relating to fraud and corruption.

Trump's pardons are just one more act in a pattern of outrageous conduct that should set off alarm bells on a regular basis. He is counting on the public to stop listening.

Trump's Post-Election Pardons List: War Criminals, Crooked Politicians And Family

President Donald Trump's pardons include military contractors who killed children, law enforcement officers who violated civil rights and, of course, his allies.

Trump’s Final Act of Extraordinary Corruption

The president goes out on a seamy and haphazard note, pardoning those who did crimes on his behalf.

Hunter Biden still has his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when it comes to any state charges or potential future charges that don’t fall under the purview of Joe Biden’s pardon, trial attorney John Fishwick told NewsNation.

However, since he is essentially immune from any charges during a ten-year period, he no longer needs to assert his Fifth Amendment rights and that opens the door for him to be called upon in investigations of others including his father, he said.

So he doesn’t “lose” his rights, they just no longer apply, Fishwick said calling the situation “uncharted territory.”

The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination, which is the act of providing information that could be used against them in a criminal case.

Under a pardon, an individual can no longer be criminally prosecuted for anything covered under it.

Could Hunter Biden be compelled to testify against Joe Biden?


Hunter Biden can be compelled to testify against his father because he is no longer at risk of criminal prosecution under federal law, Fishwick said.

"The pardon that his father gave him is incredibly broad, which would cover everything so there’s a strong argument that he could be compelled to testify because he cannot incriminate himself,” he said.

If Congress or the Department of Justice conducts any internal investigation of Joe Biden, his son can be called to testify and he will have to, he said.

However, his legal team will fight vigorously against him having to testify and could say he isn’t compelled to testify because of potential future charges or because he needs to assert his Fifth Amendment rights under state charges that could still come about from him testifying, he said.

"His lawyers are going to look for creative ways to prevent him from testifying, and that would be a good way to try to stop it,” he said. “Whether that wins or not remains to be seen, but they will be all in to prevent him from testifying.”

We have Hunters laptop, Weiner's laptop and Pelosi's laptop...

You there by become a state witness. Same thing with Gerneral Flynn. How do you enter evidence? You write everything you know down and summit it in a confession...then get a pardon.

Tariffs and deportations will tank the economy if he's not warned off of carrying them out to the extent he wants.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance, on the Plaintiffs’ Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is
not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to
appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the
complaint.

NOTICE: The nature of this action is for breach of contract and guaranty therefor, where
the Defendants sold and/or guaranteed the payment of future receivables to Plaintiff(s) and have
defaulted their obligations under the terms of the Merchant Agreement dated 6/3/2024.
The relief sought is judgment, jointly and severally, against the Defendants in the sum
of $133,134.92.

UPON YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR, JUDGMENT WILL BE TAKEN AGAINST
YOU IN THE SUM OF $133,134.92 PLUS INTEREST AT THE STATUTORY RATE FROM
THE DATE OF DEFAULT, PLUS COSTS OF THIS ACTION AND REASONABLE
ATTORNEYS’ FEES.

Dated: New York, New York
October 8, 2024
AINSWORTH GORKIN PLLC
By:
Yeshaya Gorkin, Esq.
P.O. Box 605
New York, NY 10038
Tel. (212) 913-0217
----------------------------------------------------------------X
MEGED FUNDING GROUP,
Plaintiff,
-against-
RENNOVA HEALTH, INC. D/B/A RENNOVA
HEALTH and SEAMUS LAGAN,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------X
Filed:
Index No.:
Plaintiff designates KINGS
County as the place of Trial
SUMMONS WITH NOTICE
The basis of the venue is
contractual pursuant to CPLR §
501.

"While styling himself as a free-speech champion, Carr refused to stand up when Trump threatened to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations for daring to fact check him during the campaign," Free Press Action Co-CEO Craig Aaron said in a statement. "This alone should be disqualifying."

5 While acknowledging one or more cases in which foreign corporations, including Delaware corporations,
have been successfully assigned into bankruptcy in Canada, WBC asserts that it “does not conduct
business in Ontario or Canada.”

20 There is no doubt, based on extensive public filings and representations, that WBC carried on business
in Ontario. It may, if its representations to the court are to be credited, have done so improperly or
illegally (if it was never registered or licensed in Ontario) but there is nonetheless no doubt based on its
ongoing public disclosure that it carried on business here.

1 This is a motion by the debtor Winning Brands Corporation (“WBC”), in the context of a pending
bankruptcy application against it by a creditor, Charles Perlman, for an order to strike or permanently
stay that bankruptcy application.
2 The purported basis for the motion is that WBC is a Delaware corporation, operates only in Delaware,
does not own any property in Canada, does not have licenses or pay taxes in Canada, is not registered
to do business in Ontario (or elsewhere in Canada) and has no place from which it does business in
Ontario.
3 WBC argues that in order for a foreign entity/debtor to be subject to Canadian bankruptcy law, a
sufficient “nexus” must be shown between the foreign corporation and the Canadian court in which the
Canadian creditor is seeking to assign the corporation into bankruptcy.
4 This in turn boils down, WBC maintains, to whether or not the insolvent person “at the time of an act of
bankruptcy was committed by him resided or carried on business in Canada.” This notion is confirmed
in section 2(1) of the BIA defining a debtor as “…any person who, at the time an act of bankruptcy was
committed by him, resided or carried on business in Canada.”

5 While acknowledging one or more cases in which foreign corporations, including Delaware corporations,
have been successfully assigned into bankruptcy in Canada, WBC asserts that it “does not conduct
business in Ontario or Canada.”

6 It argues that it does business exclusively in the United States, is registered and listed (On the SEC OTC
exchange) there, and pays taxes in the United States. It claims that it has many American secured and
unsecured creditors, and that an assignment in bankruptcy would impact on those U.S. creditors.
7 Finally, and only recently, it argues that Ontario is not a convenient forum for these proceedings, and
that it does not attorn to the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts to hear them.

8 The difficulty with WBC’s position, as elaborated in detail in the responding submissions of Mr. Perlman,
is that much of what it says is at odds with the evidence in the record before this court.

9 Mr. Perlman assert six grounds on which this court has jurisdiction over WBC.
10 First, the underlying loan agreements (the “Loan Agreements”) giving rise to WBC’s debt to Mr. Perlman,
and in respect of which Mr. Perlman obtained a contested judgment in Ontario, each contain a forum
clause confirming that all proceedings between the parties “related to the subject matter of this
Agreement” may be commenced in Ontario, at Mr. Perlman’s sole discretion.
11 The Loan Agreements were drafted by Friedrich Nikolai (Eric) Lehner, the CEO of WBC (and WBC’s
Canadian subsidiary corporations). Mr. Lehner is stated in public disclosure to own 95% of the Preferred
Shares of WBC, and through that shareholding to exert “voting control” over WBC. Mr. Lehner, it is
agreed, lives in Barrie, Ontario.
12 As noted, pursuant to a contested motion for summary judgment, in which WBC was a represented party
defendant, O’Brien J. found for Mr. Perlman, ordering the defendants (including WBC) to pay CAD
$85,000 and Uof 60% per annum. The contractual interest rate of 15% per month – which O’Brien J. found Mr. Lehner
had proposed - would have yielded 180% interest per annum, and Mr. Perlman insisted that the parties
instead agree to the “legislated upper limit” in Canada.
SD $23,462.20 to Mr. Perlman together with pre and post-judgment interest at the rate
13Justice O’Brien also found the defendants liable as guarantors for an additional $10,000 loan made to a
third party, and declared that Mr. Lehner had engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations which induced
Mr. Perlman to make one of the loans he made to the defendants.
14There is no indication, and WBC does not allege, that it contested the jurisdiction of the Ontario court to
hear and decide the underlying contractual claim. I expect it would have been difficult for the
defendants, including WBC, to contest jurisdiction given the clear clauses, drafted by Mr. Lehner, that
gave Mr. Perlman the option of electing to proceed in Ontario.
15 Second, there can be no doubt that WBC in fact carries on business in Ontario. The materials in the
record before me are replete with examples of WBC representing to the public and investors for years
that it conducts business out of an office in Barrie, Ontario. WBC variously refers, in its public disclosure,
to 92 Caplan Avenue in Barrie as its “principal executive office”, its “formal business office” or its
“principal place of business.”
16 The record includes numerous quarterly public filings by WBC confirming its Barrie address, and
representing that “The issuer’s i.e. WBC’s formal business office, with reception, boardroom and other
public facilities is located in an executive business center at 92 Caplan Avenue, Barrie, Ontario…”
17WBC’s website displays (or displayed during the relevant period) the Barrie address.
18On January 26, 2023, WBC issued a press release saying that “Winning Brands Corporation and its new
GestureTek Division will operate from its new headquarters location beginning February 2023. The
facility in Toronto’s Don Mills area at 179 Bartley Drive will combine production, administration, sales,
and storage in a single location for the first time.” In connection with that new Toronto facility, WBC
signed an indemnity to the landlord for any amounts owing by its subsidiary under the Toronto lease.
19 Mr. Perlman relies on Royal Bank of Canada v. FASI 2 Ltd., in which the Court of King’s Bench in Alberta
found, relative to an individual living in Texas, that relevant financial statements saying that he carried
on business as a consultant at a Calgary address was “sufficient to establish that the locality of the
debtor is Calgary.”
20 There is no doubt, based on extensive public filings and representations, that WBC carried on business
in Ontario. It may, if its representations to the court are to be credited, have done so improperly or
illegally (if it was never registered or licensed in Ontario) but there is nonetheless no doubt based on its
ongoing public disclosure that it carried on business here.
21 Third, and similarly, there is no doubt based on its disclosure that WBC also resided in Ontario. Again,
numerous statements WBC made in the public domain confirm that its office was on Caplan Avenue in
Barrie.
22 WBC argues before me that not WBC, but the Winning Brand “Group” consisting of WBC’s Canadian
subsidiaries, resided, and operated in Ontario. Again, WBC’s various public representations, including
its many quarterly reports and its media release about its new lease in Toronto in January of 2023, belie
this suggestion. WBC itself is repeatedly said to reside and operate in Ontario

23 Fourth, with respect to assets in Ontario, Mr. Perlman points out that on WBC’s own theory, that its
Ontario-based subsidiaries operated in Ontario, by definition WBC owns assets – being the shares of its
subsidiaries – in Ontario. WBC oddly denies that it actually holds shares in its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
but it seems to me that this is unlikely, and that WBC cannot have it both ways.
24 Fifth, there is also no question that WBC’s debts were incurred while conducting business in Ontario.
Those debts were confirmed by this court, and remain outstanding.
25 In such circumstances, as confirmed in Cheerio Toys & Games Ltd. Re, 1969 CarswellOnt 62 and
Granatstein, Re, 1997 CarswellOnt 3054, respectively, the debtor is deemed to carry on business within
the jurisdiction of the court until the debts have been satisfied, and a creditor has the right to file a
petition in the Province of Ontario on the basis that the debtor is carrying on business here.
26 Sixth, applying the common law test for corporate residency, requiring the court to consider the location
of the company’s “central management and control”, Mr. Perlman notes that Mr. Lehner is the sole
officer and director of WBC, and that he exercises voting control over the company and makes all
management decisions on its behalf. He resides in Ontario, and manages and controls WBC, as its sole
directing mind, from Barrie, Ontario.
27 Mr. Perlman makes certain public policy arguments in support of his position, including that parties who
represent to the public that they reside and operate in a particular jurisdiction ought not, when their
creditors pursue them, be allowed to “abscond” from that jurisdiction and purport to be located and
operating elsewhere

28 In my view, the determination of this motion is not a close call.
29There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence linking WBC to Ontario, and no basis to stay or
strike Mr. Perlman’s application. As such, I dismiss WBC’s motion.
30 Mr. Perlman is entitled to his costs of the motion.
31 He has submitted a costs outline, but his counsel advised that, depending on the outcome, further
submissions would be required. I infer from this submission that there may be an offer or offers to
consider.
32 As such, I ask that Mr. Perlman provide a brief written submission with respect to costs within seven
days of receiving this decision. WBC may then have four days within which to file responding
submissions. In each case, the maximum length of such submissions, apart from any costs outline, should
not exceed three pages.

There is no requirement in the BIA that a business debtor be incorporated in
Canada in order for it to become bankrupt in Canada. The BIA is applicable to
any corporation, wherever incorporated, that does business or has assets in
Canada. It is, therefore, possible for a foreign corporation with assets in Canada
to be liquidated under the BIA

Re Winning Brands Corporation
How do you determine whether a debtor resides in Canada?

Summary: In this case, the Court considered a request by a debtor — a Delaware corporation — to strike or permanently stay a bankruptcy application commenced against it by a creditor in Ontario. The debtor argued that it operated only in Delaware, did not own any property in Canada, did not have licenses or pay taxes in Canada, was not registered to do business in Ontario (or elsewhere in Canada) and had no place from which to do business in Ontario. The Court refused the request based on extensive public filings and representations made by the corporation, which made clear that the corporation did, in fact, carry on business in Ontario. In addition, the Court found that the loan agreements contained a forum clause in favour of Ontario.

The debtor, Winning Brands Corporation (“WBC”), moved for an order to strike or permanently stay a bankruptcy application commenced against it by a creditor, Charles Perlman. The purported basis for the motion was that WBC is a Delaware corporation, operates only in Delaware, does not own any property in Canada, does not have licenses or pay taxes in Canada, is not registered to do business in Ontario (or elsewhere in Canada) and has no place from which it does business in Ontario.

WBC argued that in order for a foreign entity/debtor to be subject to Canadian bankruptcy law, a sufficient “nexus” must be shown between the foreign corporation and the Canadian court in which the Canadian creditor is seeking to assign the corporation into bankruptcy. This, in turn, boils down to whether or not the insolvent person at the time when an act of bankruptcy was committed by him resided or carried on business in Canada.

While acknowledging one or more cases in which foreign corporations, including Delaware corporations, have been successfully assigned into bankruptcy in Canada, WBC asserted that it does business exclusively in the United States, is registered and listed on the US Securities and Exchange Commission Over-the-Counter Market, and pays taxes in the United States. It claimed that it has many American secured and unsecured creditors, and an assignment in bankruptcy would impact those creditors. Finally, it argued that Ontario was not a convenient forum for these proceedings, and that it did not attorn to the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts to hear them.

Perlman argued that the Ontario bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over WBC. First, the underlying loan agreements (the “Loan Agreements”) giving rise to WBC’s debt to Perlman, and in respect of which Perlman obtained a contested judgment in Ontario, each contained a forum clause confirming that all proceedings between the parties “related to the subject matter of this Agreement” may be commenced in Ontario, at Perlman’s sole discretion. The Loan Agreements were drafted by the CEO of WBC, who owned 95% of the Preferred Shares of WBC, and, through that shareholding, exerted “voting control” over WBC. It was not contested that the CEO lived in Barrie, Ontario.

Second, there was no doubt that WBC carried on business in Ontario. WBC had represented to the public and investors for years that it conducts business out of an office in Barrie, Ontario. In its public disclosure, WBC referred to this Barrie office as its “principal executive office”, its “formal business office” or its “principal place of business.” During the relevant period, WBC’s website displayed the Barrie address. On January 26, 2023, WBC issued a press release advising of its new headquarters location in Toronto, and signed an indemnity to the landlord for any amounts owing by its subsidiary under the Toronto lease.

The Court found that, based on extensive public filings and representations, WBC carried on business in Ontario. It may have done so improperly or illegally (if it was never registered or licensed in Ontario) but there was, nonetheless, no doubt that it carried on business there.

Third, with respect to assets in Ontario, Perlman argued WBC owned assets—being the shares of its subsidiaries—in Ontario. Fourth, there was no question that WBC’s debts were incurred while conducting business in Ontario. Those debts were confirmed by the Court, and remain outstanding. In such circumstances, the debtor is deemed to carry on business within the jurisdiction of the court until the debts have been satisfied, and a creditor has the right to file a petition in the Province of Ontario on the basis that the debtor is carrying on business here.

In the Court’s view, there was an overwhelming preponderance of evidence linking WBC to Ontario, and no basis to stay or strike Perlman’s application. As such, the Court dismissed WBC’s motion and held that Perlman was entitled to his costs of the motion.

Judge: Justice Black

Counsel: Josh Suttner and Shaun Parsons of Aird & Berlis for Charles Perlman; Matthew Harris for Winning Brands Corporation

Remember how accurate I was for 2024

Conspiracists claimed Ray Epps was a government plant because he wasn't charged for his role on Jan 6.

Ray Epps, a former Marine who became the center of a Jan. 6, 2021, conspiracy theory, has been charged with a misdemeanor offense in connection with the U.S. Capitol riot and is expected to plead guilty, according to court papers filed Tuesday.

MAGA Launches Increasingly Horrific Attacks on Women After Trump Win

Donald Trump’s win has emboldened his followers