PICTURE A

PICTURE A

PICTURE 1A

PICTURE 1A TAKEN MAY 5, 2020 EXCAVATION SECTION 1 ONLY TAKEN AFTER THE COMMOTION ON THE LEAK SHOWING UP ON THE HOT WATER LINE, THEN THEY STOPPED DIGGING SECTION 1 AND CONTINUED DIGGING AWAY FROM SECTION 1 TO SECTION 2 SHOWING DELIBERATE INTENT NOT TO FIX THE LEAK BUT TO JUST TO MAKE AN EXCAVATION USEFUL TO HIS INTENT TO FALSELY STATE THAT HE HAD EXCAVATED A LOT AND THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE ANY LEAK AND THAT THE LEAK SHOULD BE FROM UNDER THE FOUNDATION  HE STRESSED, FOR THE BENEFIT OF STATE FARM INSURANCE.

PICTURE 3

PICTURE 3 TAKEN 7 MAY 2020 SECTION 2 OF THE EXCAVATED CONCRETE  TOP VIEW WITH DEPTH OF 5 TO 4 INCHES HE STOPPED DIGGING ON SECTION 2 AFTER EXCAVATING LESS A SQUARE FOOT OF CONCRETE AND STATED HE IS STOPPING EXCAVATING  BECAUSE HE STRESS AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE LEAK IS UNDER THE FOUNDATION AND HE HAS DUG 10 INCHES DEPTH OF CONCRETE AND ITS THE MOST HE CAN DO. HE MADE A VIDEO OF HIS STATEMENTS AND THE EXCAVATION TO THE OTHER PERSON ON THE LINE, WHOM WE DO NOT KNOW WHO, DURING THAT TIME. LATER,  HOWEVER I LEARNED HE WAS TALKING TO THE ADJUSTER FOR THE SECONDARY DAMAGE WHEN THAT ADJUSTER CALLED INFORMING US THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE VIDEO AND STATEMENTS OF THE PLUMBER SAYING THE LEAK IS UNDER THE FOUNDATION, HE IS DENYING OUR CLAIM FOR SECONDARY DAMAGE.  AND, THE FOLLOWING DAY WE RECEIVED A FORMAL DENIAL LETTER FROM THE HOME  INSURANCE. STATE FARM INSURANCE DENIAL LETTER

PICTURE 2

PICTURE 2 TAKEN 7 MAY 2020 SECTION 1 OF THE EXCAVATED CONCRETE  TOP VIEW WITH DEPTH 6 TO 5 INCHES FIRST THE PLUMBER DUG  SECTION 1 (PICTURE 2) TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. THEN HE NOTICED TRACE OF LEAK IN THE HOT SIDE OF THE WATER LINE. HE INSTRUCTED HIS MAN TO OPEN THE HOT WATER FAUCET IN THE KITCHEN SINK. THE LEAK DISAPPEARED. THEN HE DUG AWAY FROM SECTION 1 TO THE  DIRECTION OF SECTION 2 (PICTURE 3)

PICTURE 1

PICTURE 1 TAKEN 7 MAY 2020 TOP VIEW OF THE EXCAVATED CONCRETE  WITH AN AREA OF 1.5 SQUARE FEET WITH A DEPTH OF 6 TO 4 INCHES ( NOT 10 INCHES) AS THE PLUMBER STATED SECTIONS 1&2.

SAMPLE OF REQUIRED EXCAVATION AND THE RIGHT TOOL TO DO DIG IT

PICTURE G  John Titouah should have just digged this much to access the leaking pipe and not what he actually did on PICTURE A. PICTURE A PICTURE H John Titouah should have just used not a jackhammer but a simple electric hammer and drill to make a hole in the slab to access the leaking pipe in order that to avoid damage to the other pipe systems near to it.

MOSSES AND AARON

PRELIMINARY INQUIRY TO A LAWYER shouse law group san diego Wanted a criminal conviction to the plumber who staged a fake "without water leak ON THE SLAB BUT LEAK UNDER THE FOUNDATION " video live show to an  adjuster? Do I have a case against the plumber whom I trusted to fix our hot water line leak. He excavated the affected area then when the leak seems appearing on the pipe he instructed his men to open the the kitchen hot water faucet, the leak disappeared and continue digging farther away from that leaking point. After digging almost 1.5 square foot of concrete with a depth of 6 inches while the hot water line is devoid of pressure he set his camera took live video of the excavation and informed the man on the other side of the line, whom I did know at that time who he was, that he can not find a leak and conclude a  statement that the leak is under the foundation. Later the insurance adjuster talked to us (now we know who was the man on the other side of the line) that based on the plumbers video footage and statements our claim is not covered because the leak is under the foundation and the following day we receive a denial letter of our claim attached to an e-mail. However, after two weeks the leak deteriorated and the true actual leak became visible on the vertical hot water pipe in the slab and not under the foundation. This actual leak had been intentionally hidden by the plumber to us to create a scenario favorable to State Farm leading to a valid denial of our insurance claim. Hence our insurance claim was denied on account of fraudulent video message  and statement declaration by my plumber.   inquiry from SHOUSE LAW GROUP Our claim for secondary damage is denied by STATE FARM INSURANCE on account of a false "no leak but leak under the foundation" scenario composed of statements and video live feed to the person on the other side, whom we do not know who in the first place, conducted by the plumber, JOHN. We hired the plumber, JOHN, ALL EXPRESS PLUMBING, who FIRST WARRANTY sent to us,  whom I trusted to fix our hot water line leak. He excavated the affected area by a jackhammer then when the leak seems appearing on the line the plumber appeared to be bothered, (supported by video footage) he instructed his helper to open the the kitchen hot water faucet (supported by video footage), the leak disappeared and continued digging but farther away from that leaking point. After digging almost 1.5 square foot of concrete with a depth of 6 inches while the hot water line is devoid of pressure he set his camera took live video of the excavation and informed the man on the other side of the line, whom I did know at that time who he was, that he can not find a leak THOUGH HE HAD DUG 10 INCHES OF CONCRETE,(absolute lie),  though he just dug 6 inches at  the most (supported by video and pictures of actual excavation part) and conclude a statement that the leak is under the foundation. Later,  the STATE FARM insurance adjuster talked to us (now we know who was the man on the other side of the line) that based on the plumbers video footage and statements BY JOHN,  our claim is not covered because the leak is under the foundation and John called up the American Home Warranty and showed the same excavation with no trace of leak but a suspected leak under the foundation, that he could not dig anymore;  hence, he got more expensive project of rerouting the pipe out of the slab. He worked like a secret agent helping  STATE FARM INSURANCE out of liability which we suspect that he will be paid for it  and he mislead the FIRST AMERICAN HOME WARRANTY into allowing him do a more costly re route of hot water line. He got a huge financial gain out of this incident for himself and a supposed  great loss to us. The following day we received a denial of our claim for secondary damage by STATE FARM and we fired John for his fraudulent act.  After a couple of weeks the leak deteriorates while opening and closing the valve to the water heater to take shower  and it showed up not under the foundation as John stated (supported by video footage of the leaking line) but leak in the slab which JOHN  intentionally and deliberately hide from us; a leak which is most easily visible with a naked eye which can be repaired less costly and not a leak under the foundation. Do we have really a fraud case against John, the plumber? inquiry THOMAS JEFFERSON SHOOL OF LAW Our claim for secondary damage is denied by STATE FARM INSURANCE on account of a falsified "no leak but leak under the foundation" scenario composed of statements and video live feed to the person on the other side, whom we do not know who in the first place, conducted by the plumber, JOHN. We hired the plumber, JOHN, ALL EXPRESS PLUMBING, who FIRST WARRANTY sent to us,  whom I trusted to fix our hot water line leak. He excavated the affected area with a jackhammer then when the leak seems appearing on the line the plumber appeared to be bothered, (supported by video footage) he instructed his helper to open the the kitchen hot water faucet (supported by video footage), the leak disappeared and continued digging but farther away from that leaking point. After digging almost 1.5 square foot of concrete with a depth of 6 inches while the hot water line is devoid of pressure he set his camera took live video of the excavation and informed the man on the other side of the line, whom I did know at that time who he was, that he can not find a leak THOUGH HE HAD DUG 10 INCHES OF CONCRETE,(absolute lie),  though he just dug 6 inches at  the most (supported by video and pictures of actual excavation part) and conclude a statement that the leak is under the foundation. Later,  the STATE FARM insurance adjuster talked to us (now we know who was the man on the other side of the line) that based on the plumbers video footage and statements BY JOHN,  our claim is not covered because the leak is under the foundation and John called up the American Home Warranty and showed the same excavation with no trace of leak but a suspected leak under the foundation, that he could not dig anymore;  hence, he got more expensive project of rerouting the pipe out of the slab. He worked like a secret agent helping  STATE FARM INSURANCE out of liability which we suspect that he will be paid for it  and he mislead the FIRST AMERICAN HOME WARRANTY into allowing him do a more costly re route of hot water line. He got a huge financial gain out of this incident for himself and a supposed  great loss to us being denied of insurance coverage payment. To wit :The following day we received a denial of our claim for secondary damage by STATE FARM and we fired John for his fraudulent act.  After a couple of weeks the leak deteriorates while opening and closing the valve to the water heater to take shower  and it showed up not under the foundation as John stated (supported by video footage of the leaking line) but a leak in the slab which JOHN  intentionally and deliberately hide from us; a leak which is most easily visible with a naked eye which can be repaired less costly and not a leak under the foundation. Can we hold John, the plumber,  accountable for his acts? VIDEO EVIDENCES VIDEO 1 TAKEN MAY  5, 2020 4:46PM VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THE ACTUAL HOT WATER LEAK AND DEPTH MEASUREMENT OF THE ACTUAL LEAK TAKEN BY US CONTRARY TO THE NO LEAK SCENARIO MANIPULATED BY THE PLUMBER BY SETTING A MERE SLIGHT OPENING ON THE LINE TO THE WATER HEATER AND OPENING UP THE HOT WATER FAUCET ON THE KITCHEN SINK TO RELEASE PRESSURE. VIDEO 2 TTAKEN  MAY 5,  2020 4:23PM VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THE ACTUAL HOT WATER LEAK THIS LEAK IS CONCEALED BY THE PLUMBER BY OPENING UP THE SINK HOT SIDE FAUCET AS EVIDENCED BY THE INCRIMINATING AUDIO OF THE GUY WHO WAS INSTRUCTED TO OPEN THE HOT SIDE FAUCET TO OBVIOUSLY TO RELEASE PRESSURE ON THE HOT WATER LINE....HEAR THE AUDIO ON VIDEO 5. VIDEO 3 TAKEN 5 MAY 2020 CHECKING IF THE MAIN VALVE TO THE WATER HEATER IS FULLY OPEN.. WE CHECK IT TOGETHER . HE TOLD ME ITS FULLY OPEN ...I PRETENDED TO AGREE WITH HIM BUT IN FACT IT WAS NOT. IT IS JUST SLIGHTLY OPEN WHEN I CHECKED ON IT. I KNOW HOW IT FEEL VALVE OPENINGS BEING A PETROLEUM REFINERY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MAN FOR 25 YEARS. VIDEO 4 TAKEN 5 MAY 2020 RATTLED PLUMBER AS HE SAW SOMETHING  THAT BOTHERED HIM SO MUCH. HE STOPPED DIGGING. HE FIXED SOMETHING IN THE HOT SIDE OF THE LINE AS HE INSTRUCTED HIS HELPER TO OPEN THE HOT SIDE KITCHEN SINK FAUCET THE PURPOSE OBVIOUSLY IS TO DEVOID THE HOT WATER LINE OF PRESSURE THEREBY HIDING THE LEAK TO US. VIDEO 5 TAKEN 5 MAY 2020 INCRIMINATING SENTENCES HOTSIDE....HOTSIDE... THEN THE GUY WENT OUT TO THE KITCHEN SINK. MY DAUGHTER IS ASKING THE GUY WHO WENT TO THE SINK WHAT HE IS DOING. HE ANSWERED,  "HE TOLD ME TO OPEN THE FAUCET". hear it again...HE TOLD ME TO OPEN THE FAUCET... VIDEO 6 MAY 20,2020 HOT WATER LINE LEAK DETERIORATES Video now May 20, 2020 after a couple of weeks,  the hot water line leak deteriorates and becomes more apparent and exposed clearly the leak that John, the plumber concealed from us. THE LEAK IS ON THE VERTICAL HOT WATER LINE IN THE SLAB AND NOT UNDER THE FOUNDATION AS HE INFORMED THE ADJUSTERS OF STATE FARM AND FIRST AMERICAN. VIDEO 7 MAY 25, 2020 VIDEO TAKEN 4 DAYS  AFTER  REROUTE OF THE HOT WATER LINE ON THE PERIPHERALS OF THE COLD WATER LINE SHOWING 12% TO 17% DAMPNESS SIGN OF POSSIBLE IMPENDING LEAK IN THE COLD WATER LINES AND THE HOT AND COLD WATER LINES TO THE KITCHEN SINK DAMAGED BY THE DIGGING OPERATIONS CONDUCTED RECKLESSLY BY JOHN USING A FORCEFUL JACKHAMMER. Notice the new hot water line copper pipe installed 4 days ago. VIDEO 8 TAKEN MAY 5, 2020 AFTER  THE COMMOTION AND OPENING OF THE KITCHEN SINK HOT WATER FAUCET MY DAUGHTER TOOK THE VIDEO OF THE EXCAVATION. NOTICE THAT THE EXCAVATION COVERS ONLY SECTION 1 THEN THIS TIME JOHN STOPPED DIGGING SECTION 1 AND MOVED TO SECTION 2 FARTHER AWAY FROM SECTION 1 VIDEO 9 TAKEN MAY 5, 2020  VIDEO SHOWING DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL HIDING THE LEAK FROM US THROUGH ORAL DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE OF LEAK IN THE LINE. HE WAS ASKED WETHER HE DID FIND THE LEAK ALREADY AND JOHN REPLIED A RESOUNDING "NO, NOT YET". VIDEO 10 TAKEN MAY 21, 2020 VIDEO TAKEN 31 DAYS  AFTER  REROUTE OF THE HOT WATER LINE ON THE PERIPHERALS OF THE COLD WATER LINE SHOWING 20% TO 12% DAMPNESS CONSISTENT SIGN OF POSSIBLE IMPENDING LEAK IN THE COLD WATER LINES AND THE HOT AND COLD WATER LINES TO THE KITCHEN SINK DAMAGED BY THE DIGGING OPERATIONS CONDUCTED RECKLESSLY BY JOHN USING A FORCEFUL JACKHAMMER BUT FIRST AMERICAN HOME WARRANTY IGNORED TO ATTEND TO THE SERVICE REQUEST CORRESPONDING TO IT. PICTURES EVIDENCES PICTURE 1 TAKEN 7 MAY 2020 TOP VIEW OF THE EXCAVATED CONCRETE  WITH AN AREA OF 1.5 SQUARE FEET WITH A DEPTH OF 6 TO 4 INCHES ( NOT 10 INCHES) AS THE PLUMBER STATED SECTIONS 1&2. PICTURE 2 TAKEN 7 MAY 2020 SECTION 1 OF THE EXCAVATED CONCRETE  TOP VIEW WITH DEPTH 6 TO 5 INCHES FIRST THE PLUMBER DUG  SECTION 1 (PICTURE 2) TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. THEN HE NOTICED TRACE OF LEAK IN THE HOT SIDE OF THE WATER LINE. HE INSTRUCTED HIS MAN TO OPEN THE HOT WATER FAUCET IN THE KITCHEN SINK. THE LEAK DISAPPEARED. THEN HE DUG AWAY FROM SECTION 1 TO THE  DIRECTION OF SECTION 2 (PICTURE 3)   PICTURE 3 TAKEN 7 MAY 2020 SECTION 2 OF THE EXCAVATED CONCRETE  TOP VIEW WITH DEPTH OF 5 TO 4 INCHES HE STOPPED DIGGING ON SECTION 2 AFTER EXCAVATING LESS A SQUARE FOOT OF CONCRETE AND STATED HE IS STOPPING EXCAVATING  BECAUSE HE STRESS AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE LEAK IS UNDER THE FOUNDATION AND HE HAS DUG 10 INCHES DEPTH OF CONCRETE AND ITS THE MOST HE CAN DO. HE MADE A VIDEO OF HIS STATEMENTS AND THE EXCAVATION TO THE OTHER PERSON ON THE LINE, WHOM WE DO NOT KNOW WHO, DURING THAT TIME. LATER,  HOWEVER I LEARNED HE WAS TALKING TO THE ADJUSTER FOR THE SECONDARY DAMAGE WHEN THAT ADJUSTER CALLED INFORMING US THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE VIDEO AND STATEMENTS OF THE PLUMBER SAYING THE LEAK IS UNDER THE FOUNDATION, HE IS DENYING OUR CLAIM FOR SECONDARY DAMAGE.  AND, THE FOLLOWING DAY WE RECEIVED A FORMAL DENIAL LETTER FROM THE HOME  INSURANCE. STATE FARM INSURANCE DENIAL LETTER PICTURE 1A TAKEN MAY 5, 2020 EXCAVATION SECTION 1 ONLY TAKEN AFTER THE COMMOTION ON THE LEAK SHOWING UP ON THE HOT WATER LINE, THEN THEY STOPPED DIGGING SECTION 1 AND CONTINUED DIGGING AWAY FROM SECTION 1 TO SECTION 2 SHOWING DELIBERATE INTENT NOT TO FIX THE LEAK BUT TO JUST TO MAKE AN EXCAVATION USEFUL TO HIS INTENT TO FALSELY STATE THAT HE HAD EXCAVATED A LOT AND THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE ANY LEAK AND THAT THE LEAK SHOULD BE FROM UNDER THE FOUNDATION  HE STRESSED, FOR THE BENEFIT OF STATE FARM INSURANCE. PICTURE A  PICTURE B NOTICE THE SOFT CONCRETE ON TOP OF THE LEAKING SPOT AN INDICATION THAT THE LEAKING LINE HAD UNDERWENT A PREVIOUS REPAIR AND COULD BE OPENED UP AGAIN NO NEED OF HELPERS AND THE JACKHAMMER AND BRINGING WITH HIM JUST A SMALLER ELECTRICAL  HAMMER AND MASONRY CHISEL WHICH WOULD NOT SHATTER THE FOUNDATION AND THE WATER LINES IN IT. NOTE THAT HE BROUGHT WITH HIM 2 HELPERS AND A MIGHTY JACKHAMMER  NOT REALLY TO REPAIR THE LEAKING HOT WATER LINE BUT DELIBERATELY HIDE IT FROM US AND TO INTENTIONALLY ACCOMPLISH HIS OBJECTIVE TO CREATE AN EXCAVATION TO PROVE THAT THERE IS "NO LEAK IN THE SLAB BUT A SUSPECTED LEAK UNDER THE FOUNDATION" GIVING HELP TO STATE FARM TO ESCAPE SECONDARY DAMAGE LIABILITY AND GETTING FROM FIRST AMERICAN A COSTLIER PIPE REROUTE THAN SIMPLE LEAK REPAIR.  WOULD YOU BELIEVE HIM IF HE SAYS , THE STATEMENTS AND THE VIDEO LIVE PRESENTATION PRODUCED BY HIM WERE FREE? JOHN DAMAGED OUR HOUSE STRUCTURALLY, AND HARMED US FINANCIALLY AND DEFRAUDED US AND FIRST AMERICAN AND ENRICHED STATE FARM INTENTIONALLY AT OUR EXPENSE.  HE MUST BE HOLD ACCOUNTABLE TO THIS WRONGDOING. OUR SOCIETY WOULD NOT BE SAFE WITH THIS MAN ROAMING AROUND DOING WRONGS SCOT FREE. PICTURE C COPPER PIPE, MAP OR PROFANE GAS CANISTER, TORCH AND OTHER SOLDERING MATERIALS COULD NOT BE SEEN ANYWHERE IN ALL THE VIDEOS  BUT JUST THE JACKHAMMER AN INDICATION THAT HE INTENDED JUST TO MAKE AN EXCAVATION  AND NOT TO REPAIR ANY LEAKING PART OF THE HOT WATER LINE. HE HAD CONDUCTED THE LEAK DETECTION ABOUT 4 DAYS AGO AND OBVIOUSLY KNEW WHERE THE LEAK IS AND HE SUPPOSED TO FIXING THE LEAK BUT HE CAME  WITHOUT THESE TOOLS AND MATERIALS, REVEALING OBVIOUSLY HIS INTENTION TO JUST MAKE AN EXCAVATION  WITHOUT ANY SHOWING OF LEAK AS EVIDENCE WHERE STATE FARM CAN RELY ON PURPOSELY TO DENY OUR INSURANCE CLAIM AGAINST STATE FARM. PICTURE D MAY 21, 2020  HOT WATER LINE LEAK REPAIR REROUTE RECEIPT SIMPLE LEAK REPAIR WOULD NOT BE ADVISABLE ANYMORE AS PER THE NEW PLUMBER'S ASSESSMENT DUE TO THE DAMAGE IMPACTED BY THE JACKHAMMER TO THE HOT WATER LINES EMBEDDED IN THE SLAB COSTING US $1068.75  NOTE : HOT WATER LINE TO THE KITCHEN SINK NOT YET INCLUDED YET. PICTURE E FIRST AMERICAN INSURANCE DESPITE THE FACT THAT I HAVE A PENDING COMPLAINT OF MISREPRESENTATION AND POOR BUSINESS RECORD RATING AGAINST  JOHN TITOUAH OF ALL EXPRESS PLUMBING, THIS INSURANCE STILL WANTED TO DEAL WITH THIS PLUMBING FIRM AND WANTED TO HAVE MY PLUMBING PROBLEM BE SERVICED BY THEM. PICTURE F I REQUESTED THAT ANOTHER CONTRACTOR BE SENT TO REPLACE ALL EXPRESS PLUMBING INC STATE FARM DENIAL SECOND TIME PICTURE G  John Titouah should have just digged this much to access the leaking pipe and not what he actually did on PICTURE A. PICTURE A PICTURE H John Titouah should have just used not a jackhammer but a simple electric hammer and drill to make a hole in the slab to access the leaking pipe in order that to avoid damage to the other pipe systems near to it. MATERIALS REFERENCES RELEVANT TO THE CASE 1.Our local FBI offices are all about protecting your communities. San Diego 10385 Vista Sorrento Parkway San Diego, CA 92121 sandiego.fbi.gov (858) 320-1800 https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices FBI SAN DIEGO FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Frequently Asked Questions https://www.ic3.gov/faq/default.aspx Prior To Filing A Complaint After A Complaint Is Filed Related Evidence Urgent Complaints Terrorist Tips Disclosure of Information Spam Emails Media Employment Prior To Filing A Complaint Q: Who should file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)? You may file a complaint with the IC3 if you believe you have been the victim of an Internet crime or if you want to file on behalf of another person you believe has been such a victim. Q: What details will I be asked to include in my complaint? The IC3's ability to process your complaint will be based upon the accuracy and completeness of the information provided. The following is the type of information we ask for in the complaint form: Victim's name, address, telephone, and email This will be your information if you are the victim, or another person if you are filing on behalf of a third party Financial transaction information (e.g., account information, transaction date and amount, who received the money) Subject's name, address, telephone, email, website, and IP address The subject is the person/entity allegedly committing the Internet crime Specific details on how you were victimized Email header(s) Any other relevant information you believe is necessary to support your complaint Q: How does the IC3 define Internet crime? Internet crime includes any illegal activity involving one or more components of the Internet, such as websites, chat rooms, and/or email. Internet crime involves the use of the Internet to communicate false or fraudulent representations to consumers. These crimes may include, but are not limited to, advance-fee schemes, non-delivery of goods or services, computer hacking, or employment/business opportunity schemes. Q: Can I file a complaint if I am a citizen of the United States but have been victimized by an individual or company outside of the United States? If either the victim or the alleged subject of the Internet crime is located within the United States, you may file a complaint with the IC3 Q: Can I file a complaint if I have been victimized by an individual or company in the United States, but I am not a citizen of the United States? Yes, if either you or the alleged subject of the Internet crime is located within the United States, regardless of citizenship, you may file a complaint with the IC3. [Back to Top] After A Complaint Is Filed Q: What happens after I file a complaint? Trained analysts at the IC3 review and research the complaints, disseminating information to federal, state, local, or international law enforcement or regulatory agencies for criminal, civil, or administrative action, as appropriate. Q: When will I be updated on the status of the investigation of my complaint? After you file a complaint with the IC3, the information is reviewed by an analyst and forwarded to federal, state, local, or international law enforcement or regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, as appropriate. The IC3 does not conduct investigations and, therefore, is not able to provide the investigative status of a previously filed complaint. Investigation and prosecution is at the discretion of the receiving agencies. Q: Will I be informed that my complaint was received successfully? Once you file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), you will receive the following message at the top of your filed complaint: Thank you for submitting your complaint to the IC3. Please save or print a copy for your records. This is the only time you will have to make a copy of your complaint. Q: How do I cancel my complaint that I filed? Once a complaint has been filed with the IC3, it cannot be canceled. [Back to Top] Related Evidence Q: Should I retain evidence that supports my complaint or send it to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)? IC3 does not collect evidence regarding complaints. While you may cut and paste information into your complaint (e.g., email headers), you must be sure to keep all original documents in a secure location. In the event that a law enforcement or regulatory agency opens an investigation, they may request the information directly from you. Q: What type of information would possibly be considered evidence in regard to my complaint? It is important that you keep any evidence you may have related to your complaint. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, the following: Canceled checks Credit card receipts Money order receipts Certified or other mail receipts Wire receipts Virtual currency receipts Pre-paid card receipts Envelopes (if you received items via FedEx, UPS, or U.S. Mail) Facsimiles Pamphlets or brochures Phone bills Printed or preferably electronic copies of emails (if printed, include full email header information) Printed or preferably electronic copies of web pages Hard drive images PCAP files containing malicious network traffic Network, host system, and/or security appliance logs Copies of malware Chat transcripts and/or telephony logs Keep items in a safe location in the event you are requested to provide them for investigative or prosecutive evidence. [Back to Top] Urgent Complaints Q: : Can I file a complaint if I have been threatened over the Internet via email, chat room, website, etc? If you or someone else is in immediate danger, please call 911 or your local police. Q:What should I do if I believe my complaint is time sensitive? After you file a complaint with the IC3, the information is reviewed by an analyst and forwarded to federal, state, local, or international law enforcement or regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, as appropriate. As investigation and prosecution is at the discretion of the receiving agencies, please contact local law enforcement directly if you believe your matter is time sensitive. [Back to Top] Terrorist Tips Q: Where should I submit information relating to possible terrorist activity? To submit possible terrorist information, please visit the Federal Bureau of Investigation's website and submit a tip. [Back to Top] Disclosure of Information Q: What information can the Internet Crime Complaint Center provide regarding the legitimacy of a company? The IC3 cannot provide information on a specific company. The IC3 serves as the FBI's central repository for the collection of Internet crime complaints. Q: What information can the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) provide if I think that a complaint has been filed against myself or company? The IC3 is not a resource available to the general public for answering questions arising from the complaint information it receives. IC3 does not release information about specific complaints and/or the resolution of those complaints. Therefore, IC3 is unable to provide you with such information. [Back to Top] Spam Emails Q: Is there an email address I can forward SPAM emails that I receive? The IC3 does not have an email address established for the receipt of such information. When filing a complaint at the IC3, be sure to copy and paste the entire email, including the header information, in the complaint. [Back to Top] Media Q: Who do I contact if I am a member of the media wishing to speak with a member of your press office? Contact your local FBI office. [Back to Top] Employment Q: Where can I find out about employment opportunities with the Internet Crime Complaint Center? For employment opportunities with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), please visit the FBI's website. [Back to Top] 2.  A person is guilty of compounding a crime when: https://www.nycbar.org/member-and-career-services/committees/reports-listing/reports/detail/formal-opinion-1995-13-threatening-criminal-prosecution-agreements-to-forbear-from-presenting-criminal-charges-in-connection-with-civil-settlements 3. Penal Code 135 PC is the California statute that makes it a crime willfully to destroy or hide evidence that may be relevant to a trial, investigation or other legal proceedings. This offense is a misdemeanor and can carry penalties of up to 6 months in county jail. P135 PC - Destroying or Concealing Evidence Charge 4. Citizens' Online Police Reporting System https://www.sandiego.gov/police/crimereports/startaccess 5. Neighborhood Watch San Diego Police Department Community Relations Officers: Officer Christina Santos Northeastern Division (Mira Mesa) 13396 Salmon River Road, San Diego 92129 Phone: (858) 538-8028 CSantos@pd.sandiego.gov   https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/bpc/division-3/7000-7020/7011.8/ 2011 California Code Business and Professions Code DIVISION 3. PROFESSIONS AND VOCATIONS GENERALLY [5000 - 9998.8] ARTICLE 1. Administration Section 7011.8 Universal Citation: CA Bus & Prof Code § 7011.8 (through 2012 Leg Sess) (a) Any person who reports to, or causes a complaint to be filed with, the Contractors State License Board that a person licensed by that entity has engaged in professional misconduct, knowing the report or complaint to be false, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). (b) The board may notify the appropriate district attorney or city attorney that a person has made or filed what the entity believes to be a false report or complaint against a licensee. (Amended by Stats. 2001, Ch. 745, Sec. 5. Effective October 12, 2001.) Criminal Convictions & Contractor License Suspension  in California https://www.shouselaw.com/contractors-license.html Building contractors in California risk having their license suspended or revoked for committing an offense "substantially related" to contracting activities. This typically includes crimes of fraud, theft, or violence. Likewise, people applying for a contractors' license may get rejected for having committed a crime within the last seven (7) years that was substantially related to contracting. And theContractors State License Board may reject applicants for having committed either of the following offenses even if more than seven (7) years have passed: a serious offense (such as murder, rape, or grand theft), a sex offense which requires Tier II or Tier III registration, or a financial felony related to contracting If you suffer a criminal conviction, your freedom is at stake. But so is the contracting career you worked so hard to develop. Our California Criminal Defense Lawyers might be able to help.1 We are former cops and prosecutors who now represent people accused of crimes. We also help California professionals (including contractors) resolve license discipline issues. We work throughout California and handle all kinds of felony and misdemeanor cases, including fraud, DUI and Penal Code 187 PC - murder. FROM STIMMEL LAW: https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/insurance-bad-faithfailure-properly-investigate-claim 332.Bad Faith (First Party)—Failure to Properly Investigate Claim—Essential Factual Elements [Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] acted unreasonably, that is, without proper cause, by failing to conduct a proper investigation of [his/her/its] claim. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: 1. That [name of plaintiff] suffered a loss covered under an insurance policy issued by [name of defendant]; 2. That [name of plaintiff] properly presented a claim to [name of defendant] to be compensated for the loss; 3. That [name of defendant], failed to conduct a full, fair, prompt, and thorough investigation of all of the bases of [name of plaintiff]’s claim; 4. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and 5. That [name of defendant]’s failure to properly investigate the claim was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm. When investigating [name of plaintiff]’s claim, [name of defendant] had a duty to diligently search for and consider evidence that supported coverage of the claimed loss. New September 2003; Revised December 2005, December 2007, April 2008, December 2015, June 2016 Directions for Use This instruction sets forth a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the insurer’s failure or refusal to conduct a proper investigation of the plaintiff’s claim. The claim alleges that the insurer acted unreasonably, that is, without proper cause, by failing to properly investigate the claim. (See Rappaport-Scott v. Interinsurance Exch. of the Auto. Club (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 831, 837 [53 Cal.Rptr.3d 245].) The instructions in this series assume that the plaintiff is the insured and the defendant is the insurer. The party designations may be changed if appropriate to the facts of the case. Sources and Authority • “[A]n insurer may breach the covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it fails to properly investigate its insured’s claim.” (Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 817 [169 Cal.Rptr. 691, 620 P.2d 141].) • “To fulfill its implied obligation, an insurer must give at least as much consideration to the interests of the insured as it gives to its own interests. When the insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withholds payment of the claim of its insured, it is subject to liability in tort. And an insurer cannot reasonably and in good faith deny payments to its insured without fully investigating the grounds for its denial.” (From moethelydo v. Fire Insurance Exchange (1986) 42 Cal.3d 208, 214–215 [228 Cal.Rptr. 160, 721 P.2d 41], internal citation omitted.) • “To protect [an insured’s] interests it is essential that an insurer fully inquire into possible bases that might support the insured’s claim. Although we recognize that distinguishing fraudulent from legitimate claims may occasionally be difficult for insurers, . . . an insurer cannot reasonably and in good faith deny payments to its insured without thoroughly investigating the foundation for its denial.” (Egan, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 819.) • “When investigating a claim, an insurance company has a duty to diligently search for evidence which supports its insured’s claim. If it seeks to discover only the evidence that defeats the claim it holds its own interest above that of the insured.” (Mariscal v. Old Republic Life Ins. Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1620 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 224].) • “While we agree with the trial court . . . that the insurer’s interpretation of the language of its policy which led to its original denial of [the insured]’s claim was reasonable, it does not follow that [the insurer]’s resulting claim denial can be justified in the absence of a full, fair and thorough investigation of all of the bases of the claim that was presented.” (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066 [56 Cal.Rptr.3d 312], original italics.) • “An unreasonable failure to investigate amounting to . . . unfair dealing may be found when an insurer fails to consider, or seek to discover, evidence relevant to the issues of liability and damages. . . . [¶] The insurer’s willingness to reconsider its denial of coverage and to continue an investigation into a claim has been held to weigh in favor of its good faith.” (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 880 [93 Cal.Rptr.2d 364], internal citation omitted.) • “[The insurer], of course, was not obliged to accept [the doctor]’s opinion without scrutiny or investigation. To the extent it had good faith doubts, the insurer would have been within its rights to investigate the basis for [plaintiff]’s claim by asking [the doctor] to reexamine or further explain his findings, having a physician review all the submitted medical records and offer an opinion, or, if necessary, having its insured examined by other physicians (as it later did). What it could not do, consistent with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, was ignore [the doctor]’s conclusions without any attempt at adequate investigation, and reach contrary conclusions lacking any discernable medical foundation.” (Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, 722 [68 Cal.Rptr.3d 746, 171 P.3d 1082], original italics.) • “[W]hether an insurer breached its duty to investigate [is] a question of fact to be determined by the particular circumstances of each case.” (Paulfrey v. Blue Chip Stamps (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 187, 196 [197 Cal.Rptr. 501].) • “[L]iability in tort arises only if the conduct was unreasonable, that is, without proper cause.” (Rappaport-Scott, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 837.) • “[W]ithout actual presentation of a claim by the insured in compliance with claims procedures contained in the policy, there is no duty imposed on the insurer to investigate the claim.” (California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1, 57 [221 Cal.Rptr. 171].) • “It would seem reasonable that any responsibility to investigate on an insurer’s part would not arise unless and until the threshold issue as to whether a claim was filed, or a good faith effort to comply with claims procedure was made, has been determined. In no event could an insured fail to keep his/her part of the bargain in the first instance, and thereafter seek recovery for breach of a duty to pay seeking punitive damages based on an insurer’s failure to investigate a nonclaim.” (Paulfrey, supra, 150 Cal.App.3d at pp. 199–200.) Conclusion: Delay in resolution alone or lack of courtesy does not constitute bad faith. It requires an intent on the part of the insurance company to evade responsibility. Insurance companies do not make money by paying out claims: they make money by selling insurance. In such a situation it is not surprising that some insurance companies begin to slant their investigation and actions to minimize the chance of paying out on claims.  Even if not explicitly stated, employees of an insurance company are going to understand that monies spent to compensate policy holders are not monies retained by the employer. It is because of this implicit economic interest that bad faith law was developed so that the insurance companies face greater exposure than that available in a simple breach of contract action. After a few sizable judgments, the cost benefit analysis radically alters for the insurance companies and the number of instances of bad faith can be expected to decline. But they still exist and the wise policy holder will keep that in mind as he or she interacts with the insurance company to develop appropriate payout for a claim. POINTERS ON SETTLEMENT CONCERNS (not included in the email ) https://www.nycbar.org/member-and-career-services/committees/reports-listing/reports/detail/formal-opinion-1995-13-threatening-criminal-prosecution-agreements-to-forbear-from-presenting-criminal-charges-in-connection-with-civil-settlements SCREENSHOT ALL EXPRESS DRY, INC. BY OPEN CORPORATES SOURCE FILE https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/C3905526 COMPOUNDING CRIME OFFENSE https://law.jrank.org/pages/5494/Compounding-Offense.html BAD FAITH INSURANCE 332.Bad Faith (First Party)—Failure to Properly Investigate Claim—Essential Factual Elements [Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] acted unreasonably, that is, without proper cause, by failing to conduct a proper investigation of [his/her/its] claim. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: 1. That [name of plaintiff] suffered a loss covered under an insurance policy issued by [name of defendant]; 2. That [name of plaintiff] properly presented a claim to [name of defendant] to be compensated for the loss; 3. That [name of defendant], failed to conduct a full, fair, prompt, and thorough investigation of all of the bases of [name of plaintiff]’s claim; 4. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and 5. That [name of defendant]’s failure to properly investigate the claim was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm. • “When investigating a claim, an insurance company has a duty to diligently search for evidence which supports its insured’s claim. If it seeks to discover only the evidence that defeats the claim it holds its own interest above that of the insured.” (Mariscal v. Old Republic Life Ins. Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1620 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 224].) • “To protect [an insured’s] interests it is essential that an insurer fully inquire into possible bases that might support the insured’s claim. Although we recognize that distinguishing fraudulent from legitimate claims may occasionally be difficult for insurers, . . . an insurer cannot reasonably and in good faith deny payments to its insured without thoroughly investigating the foundation for its denial.” (Egan, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 819.) • “To fulfill its implied obligation, an insurer must give at least as much consideration to the interests of the insured as it gives to its own interests. When the insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withholds payment of the claim of its insured, it is subject to liability in tort. And an insurer cannot reasonably and in good faith deny payments to its insured without fully investigating the grounds for its denial.” (Frommoethelydo v. Fire Insurance Exchange (1986) 42 Cal.3d 208, 214–215 [228 Cal.Rptr. 160, 721 P.2d 41], internal citation omitted.) • “[A]n insurer may breach the covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it fails to properly investigate its insured’s claim.” (Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 817 [169 Cal.Rptr. 691, 620 P.2d 141].) What You Should Know about the Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Be aware of what you're getting into before signing a large-chain franchise contract. By Catherine Pastrikos Kelly https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/business-torts-unfair-competition/practice/2016/duty-of-good-faith-fair-dealing/