772ND PERSUASIVE APPEAL_23AUG19_TO THE SCP JUSTICIDES_ WHAT NOW ENDO BILL, BAYAN?

1 CERTIFICATE OF SEPARATION FROM LAST EMPLOYER COMPLAINT 2.  MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED  RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA HOT PURSUIT DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES 917counts SEE BELOW FOR THE 917TH    TIME THE REITERATION OF DEMAND PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY WHICH SHELL REFUSED TO HONOR IN THE PRESENCE AND DEEMED APPROVAL OF THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES GEUS_15MAR16_66th FOLLOW UP_REITERATION OF DEMAND  PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight... Proverbs Chapter 11  v. 1 Retirement Pay Law circumvented by Shell subject to penal provision provided for by Article 288 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x CONTINUING INQUIRY WANTED A VALID EXPLANATION FOR CONFLICTING CONTRARY INFORMATION

AUGUST 22,  2020 GORDON LIU CLAIM SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE RE: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 DATE OF LOSS: April 26, 2020 CONTINUING INQUIRY-  WANTED A VALID EXPLANATION  FOR CONFLICTING CONTRARY INFORMATION Dear Mr. Liu: PLEASE SEE, PAR. 1 to 9 DENIAL LETTER dated August 21, 2020 COMMENTS : Please read paragraphs one (1) to nine (9) of denial letter dated August 21, 2020. Show me among those paragraphs is  A VALID EXPLANATION FOR CONFLICTING CONTRARY INFORMATION in your set of denial letters dated August 14, 2020, July 31, 2020 and June 12, 2020. I can not find any?  If you happened to forget including that "explanation" in denial letter dated August 21, 2020, then I am giving you another chance to rewrite your denial letter showing which one among those denial letters shall prevail to be clear on your position to avoid confusion in the conduct of our negotiations or discussions of issues pertaining to our claim.  I have the pleasure to show back to you : WANTED A VALID EXPLANATION  FOR CONFLICTING CONTRARY INFORMATION PAR. 2 DENIAL LETTER dated August 14, 2020  You wrote, "Our letter dated July 31, 2020 confirmed that the information provided by John Titouah was provided verbally and not in a written form. We disagree that information communicated verbally by a witnesses is useless.. You wrote, specifically, " Our letter dated July 31, 2020 confirmed that the information provided by John Titouah was provided verbally and not in a written form. "  PAR. 3 DENIAL LETTER dated July 31, 2020 Attached is a copy of the photo media sheet with the photographs obtained during our virtual Claims Xperience inspection which took place on May 5, 2020. The information provided by John Titouah was provided verbally and not in a written form. The information contained in our claim file notes are not considered claim-related documents, as defined by Insurance Code Section 10082.3 and will not be provided. ON PAR.2 June 12, 2020 DENIAL LETTER You wrote, "As outlined in our May 6, 2020 declination letter, the predominant cause of the water damages was wear, tear, and deterioration to the forty one year old "hot" side copper water line located under the concrete foundation which resulted in a continuous and repeated seepage of water below the foundation, eventually migrated upwards and manifested itself on the date of the discovery to the interior of the home. My virtual inspection on May 5, 2020, the photographs of the excavating of the pipe, multiple discussions with All Express Plumbing, his written report and a detailed follow up conversation with the plumber, John Titouah on June 5, 2020 confirmed all the original facts of the loss." "his written report  " This means on the denial letter dated June 12, 2020, you impressed upon us a copy of the written report of JOHN TITOUAH. BUT HOW COME YOU ARE DENYING  THE EXISTENCE OF JOHN TITOUAH's REPORT ON PAR.3 DENIAL LETTER DATED JULY 31, 2020 AND PAR 2  DENIAL LETTER DATED  AUGUST 14, 2020, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY JOHN TITOUAH WAS PROVIDED VERBALLY AND NOT IN WRITTEN FORM. COMMENTS : Please show me a valid explanation for these conflicting contrary information contained in your denial letters as shown above. After which you have written a valid explanation, may re-write your denial letter reflecting corrections you have made. Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and kindly inform me when I should expect a reply to this email. Please be reminded that your DENIAL LETTER DATED MAY 6, 2020 was prepared, relayed to us, sent and read by us in just a few minutes. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x EFFORT TO SOW CONFUSION BLOCKED DATED AUGUST 22, 2020

NOTE : EMAIL RESENT RE CORRECTION ON DATE AUGUST 21, 2020             TO AUGUST 22, 2020....MY SINCERE APOLOGIES...SORRY AUGUST 22,  2020 GORDON LIU CLAIM SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE RE: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 DATE OF LOSS: April 26, 2020 PATTERN of SOWING CONFUSION ON  EMAIL RESPONSES BY GORDON LIU (GROSSLY RESPONDING ONCE TO SEVERAL EMAILS WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER) Dear Mr. Liu: May I most respectfully call your attention: 1.         ON PAR.1 DENIAL LETTER AUGUST 21, 2020 You wrote, " I am writing in response to your fifteen emails received since my last communication to you on August 14, 2020.  " 2.         ON PAR.1 DENIAL LETTER AUGUST 14, 2020 You wrote, "I’m writing in response to your emails received August 3, 2020 at 11:25 PM, August 4, 2020 at 9:09 PM, August 5, 2020 at 2:32 PM, August 5, 2020 at 2:28 PM, August 5, 2020 at 4:40 PM and August 6, 2020 at 10:26 PM. I will do my best to answer questions presented." 3.         ON PAR.1 DENIAL LETTER JULY 17,  2020 You wrote, "This letter is in response to our previous correspondence of July 13, 2020 and your E-Mail to State Farm dated July 14, 2020." 4.        ON PAR.1 THIRD DENIAL LETTER July 13, 2020 You wrote, "This letter is to acknowledge and respond to your E-mails to State Farm on July 2, 2020, the second E-mail of July 2, 2020, your July 4, 2020 E-mail, the two E-mails of July 10, 2020, and your July 13, 2020 E-mail." COMMENTS: This shows State Farm and Gordon Liu BY GROSSLY RESPONDING ONCE TO SEVERAL EMAILS WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER constantly in an established pattern  intended to sow confusion on the issues presented. Each email is unique as each of them had its own subject matter that had to be addressed, in particular.  Now, I am confused which one of those paragraphs is an answer to what particular email SUBJECT MATTER. I have been  presenting facts, information and issues  in our negotiation and each one of them distinctly in comprehensive details but  there State Farm and you muddled issues altogether purposely to derail the negotiations as shown above four (4) times in the DENIAL LETTERS  dated August 21, 2020, August 14, 2020 July 17, 2020 and July 13, 2020, though I have complained about it in DENIAL LETTER  dated July 13, 2020 but you again,  intentionally, deliberately and effectively denied me the opportunity to read clear messages from you by doing the same "sow confusion" reply strategy against me.  PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL AND WRITE YOUR  RESPONSE ACCORDINGLY UNDER THE NAMED SUBJECT . LIKEWISE, PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR DENIAL LETTER  DATED MAY 6, 2020  WAS PREPARED, WRITTEN, RELAYED TO US  AND SENT BY YOU IN JUST WITHIN  A FEW MINUTES. Thank you very much.  Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x EFFORT TO SOW CONFUSION BLOCKED DATED AUGUST 21, 2020

AUGUST 22,  2020 GORDON LIU CLAIM SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE RE: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 DATE OF LOSS: April 26, 2020 EFFORT TO SOW CONFUSION BLOCKED RE   NO EMAIL DATED AUGUST 3, 2020 Dear Mr. Liu: PLEASE SEE, PAR. 1 DENIAL LETTER dated August 14, 2020  You wrote, "I’m writing in response to your emails received August 3, 2020 at 11:25 PM, August 4, 2020 at 9:09 PM, August 5, 2020 at 2:32 PM, August 5, 2020 at 2:28 PM, August 5, 2020 at 4:40 PM and August 6, 2020 at 10:26 PM. I will do my best to answer questions presented. You wrote,  "  I’m writing in response to your emails received August 3, 2020 "  COMMENTS : Please show me that particular email. I just wanted  to inform you that I have no email sent to you dated August 3, 2020. If ever you received one in your email box please show it to me . I just wanted to be sure that it is  in fact actually sent by me. If you are unable to show it to me, then please re-write your DENIAL LETTER dated August 14, 2020 removing that information from the emails you received from me. THEN  ON, PAR. 3 DENIAL LETTER dated August 21, 2020 You wrote, "The reference to the August 3, 2020 at 11:25 PM email was incorrect. The email from you was dated Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:25 PM and was accepted into the claim file on Monday, August 3, 2020. We will not resend our letter dated August 14, 2020." CONTINUING COMMENTS: THE FACT IS I HAVE NO EMAIL DATED AUGUST 3, 2020 TO YOU, as you claimed for email dated July 31, 2020  to be the email in reference to the email dated August 3, 2020. I just wanted to make records of our negotiations correct.  FOR YOUR INFORMATION NEXT IS THE EMAIL YOU REFERRED TO AS EMAIL DATED AUGUST 3, 2020 TO AVOID YOUR DELIBERATE EFFORT TO SOW CONFUSION ON RECORD OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION.   Claim Number 55-06c6-44x THIRTY-FOUR (34) COUNTS OF   AGGRAVATING BAD FAITH EVIDENCES AGAINST                                     STATE  FARM/GORDON LIU 31July20 11:24pm BESIDES, IN THE RECORD OF OUR NEGOTIATIONS YOU HAVE NOT SHOWED  EVIDENCES CONTRARY TO ANY  OF THE THIRTY-FOUR (34) ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH AGAINST STATE FARM AND YOU. MOREOVER, EFFORTS TO SOW CONFUSION CONSTANTLY IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS IS VERY CLEAR BY USING INACCURATE TERMS AS IN USING resend IN PLACE OF MY REQUEST FOR re-write of denial letter dated August 14, 2020 AND BY deliberate refusal to write denial letter corrections and UNEQUIVOCALLY STATING, "We will not resend our letter dated August 14, 2020."  Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail INFORMATION and kindly inform me when I expect a reply to this email. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x PATTERN of SOWING CONFUSION ON EMAIL RESPONSES BY GORDON LIU DATED AUGUST 21, 2020

AUGUST 22,  2020 GORDON LIU CLAIM SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE RE: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 DATE OF LOSS: April 26, 2020 PATTERN of SOWING CONFUSION ON  EMAIL RESPONSES BY GORDON LIU (GROSSLY RESPONDING ONCE TO SEVERAL EMAILS WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER) Dear Mr. Liu: May I most respectfully call your attention: 1.         ON PAR.1 DENIAL LETTER AUGUST 21, 2020 You wrote, " I am writing in response to your fifteen emails received since my last communication to you on August 14, 2020.  " 2.         ON PAR.1 DENIAL LETTER AUGUST 14, 2020 You wrote, "I’m writing in response to your emails received August 3, 2020 at 11:25 PM, August 4, 2020 at 9:09 PM, August 5, 2020 at 2:32 PM, August 5, 2020 at 2:28 PM, August 5, 2020 at 4:40 PM and August 6, 2020 at 10:26 PM. I will do my best to answer questions presented." 3.         ON PAR.1 DENIAL LETTER JULY 17,  2020 You wrote, "This letter is in response to our previous correspondence of July 13, 2020 and your E-Mail to State Farm dated July 14, 2020." 4.        ON PAR.1 THIRD DENIAL LETTER July 13, 2020 You wrote, "This letter is to acknowledge and respond to your E-mails to State Farm on July 2, 2020, the second E-mail of July 2, 2020, your July 4, 2020 E-mail, the two E-mails of July 10, 2020, and your July 13, 2020 E-mail." COMMENTS: This shows State Farm and Gordon Liu BY GROSSLY RESPONDING ONCE TO SEVERAL EMAILS WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER constantly in an established pattern  intended to sow confusion on the issues presented. Each email is unique as each of them had its own subject matter that had to be addressed, in particular.  Now, I am confused which one of those paragraphs is an answer to what particular email SUBJECT MATTER. I have been  presenting facts, information and issues  in our negotiation and each one of them distinctly in comprehensive details but  there State Farm and you muddled issues altogether purposely to derail the negotiations as shown above four (4) times in the DENIAL LETTERS  dated August 21, 2020, August 14, 2020 July 17, 2020 and July 13, 2020, though I have complained about it in DENIAL LETTER  dated July 13, 2020 but you again,  intentionally, deliberately and effectively denied me the opportunity to read clear messages from you by doing the same "sow confusion" reply strategy against me.  PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL AND WRITE YOUR  RESPONSE ACCORDINGLY UNDER THE NAMED SUBJECT . LIKEWISE, PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR DENIAL LETTER  DATED MAY 6, 2020  WAS PREPARED, WRITTEN, RELAYED TO US  AND SENT BY YOU IN JUST WITHIN  A FEW MINUTES. Thank you very much.  Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso