Claim Number 55-06c6-44x CONSTANT ASSERTION OF FACTS AND 34 COUNTS OF BAD FAITH DATED AUGUST 23, 2020

AUGUST 23,  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 CONSTANT ASSERTION OF FACTS WITHOUT VALID SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO IT IS HABITUAL LYING, MISREPRESENTATION AND  34 COUNTS BAD FAITH NIXES  CLAIMS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING Dear Mr. Liu: PLEASE SEE, PAR. 4 DENIAL LETTER dated August 21, 2020 You wrote, "State Farm has previously responded to your emails that contained allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. All such contentions are denied. We handle each claim on its own merits. State Farm and I have complied with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the investigation and handling of your claim." You wrote, specifically,  "State Farm has previously responded to your emails that contained allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. " COMMENTS : Please show proof of emails you are referring to supporting your statement,   "State Farm has previously responded to your emails that contained allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. " May you please name and identify the emails you are referring to and the corresponding response to those emails. FAILURE ON YOUR PART  to present necessary evidences supporting your assertions as you have been doing in denial letters dated May 6, 2020 to August 21, 2020 is a manifestation of propensity of telling of facts and statements bereft of truth as you have constantly failed to show valid and convincing proofs of the stated facts and assertions.  This is tantamount to habitual lying on your part which merits severe punitive penalties to deter notorious affiant from doing the same unscrupulous and dishonest acts again. May I present back to you the basis of these discussions: PAR. 4 DENIAL LETTER dated August 14, 2020  You wrote, " Your email contains allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. All such contentions are denied. We handle each claim on its own merits. State Farm and I have complied with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the investigation and handling of your claim.  " You wrote, specifically,  " State Farm and I have complied with the implied covenant of good faith  and fair dealing in the investigation and handling of your claim." COMMENTS : Please RESPOND to each one of the THIRTY-FOUR (34) COUNTS OF AGGRAVATING BAD FAITH EVIDENCES AGAINST STATE FARM/GORDON LIU DATED JULY 31, 2020 and post your reasonable opposition on each one of the 34 counts of  AGGRAVATING BAD FAITH ALLEGATIONS and prove by exhibiting convincing evidence that STATE FARM AND YOU are not guilty of bad faith on each one of them. After which you may honestly state that STATE FARM AND YOU  had complied to the IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING.  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 CONTINUING INQUIRY-IDENTIFY ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY STATE FARM AND YOU IN MY EMAILS

AUGUST 23,  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-IDENTIFY ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY STATE FARM AND YOU IN MY EMAILS Dear Mr. Liu: PLEASE SEE, PAR. 4 DENIAL LETTER dated August 21, 2020 You wrote, "State Farm has previously responded to your emails that contained allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. All such contentions are denied. We handle each claim on its own merits. State Farm and I have complied with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the investigation and handling of your claim." COMMENTS : You wrote, specifically, " State Farm has previously responded to your emails that contained allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. All such contentions are denied  "  Please SHOW, NAME AND IDENTIFY MY EMAILS THAT CONTAINED ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY STATE FARM AND YOU WHICH YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO AND ALSO SHOW, NAME AND IDENTIFY YOUR RESPONSE EMAILS TO EACH ONE OF THEM. AFTER WHICH YOU FAILED TO PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS WITH SPECIFIC DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF EMAILS YOU ARE REFERRING TO SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH OF US LYING AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEVERE PUNITIVE PENALTY. MORE OVER, I HAVE THE PLEASURE TO SHOW BACK TO YOU: PAR. 4 DENIAL LETTER dated August 14, 2020  You wrote, " Your email contains allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. All such contentions are denied. We handle each claim on its own merits. State Farm and I have complied with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the investigation and handling of your claim.  " You wrote, specifically  " Your email contains allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. All such contentions are denied." COMMENTS : Please name and identify allegations  of misconduct by STATE FARM AND YOU which you read contained in my emails. Then, deny each one of them substantiated with valid proofs and evidence why you are denying each one of them. Then give me a chance to contradict each one of them WITH  EXACT JUSTIFICATIONS  to prove that STATE FARM AND YOU are guilty of those allegations. 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 CONTINUING INQUIRY-WANTED VALID EXPLANATION WHY YOU DISAGREE DATED AUGUST 23, 2020

AUGUST 23,  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 VALID EXPLANATION WHY YOU DISAGREE  Dear Mr. Liu: PLEASE SEE,  DENIAL LETTER DATED AUGUST 21, 2020, paragraphs 1 to 9. Please show me your valid explanation for this statement," We disagree that information communicated verbally by a witnesses is useless.  " I can not find any.  Now if you just forgot to include an explanation to this information then you may rewrite your denial letter dated August 21, 2020 showing your reasons why you stated so.  Now if you failed to provide reasons or justifications to this statement, then we shall have a common understanding that you are withdrawing that statement AND HAD WAIVED YOUR RIGHT TO ASSERT THAT STATEMENT AND JUSTIFICATIONS LATER. DENIAL LETTER DATED AUGUST 21, 2020 I have the pleasure to show back to you : 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, " We disagree that information communicated verbally by a witnesses is useless "  COMMENTS : Please show me a valid explanation why you disagree that "the information communicated verbally is useless".  Please cite the particular email from where you derived that conclusion. Then please write your reasons why for a clear understanding of your views and deliver exactly what you meant to tell us  and include those justifications to the denial letter that we requested you to be re-written.  Again, you may re-write your denial letter reflecting additional 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 5-pages  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

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.