Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE 69 DATED 11MAR21 11:14PM

from: antonio jr. Buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com> to: louis.e.gueniot.bomz@statefarm.com, gordon.c.liu.gprx@statefarm.com cc: rosalina buensuceso <rosebuensuceso@gmail.com>, Mosses <mosses@alumni.nus.edu.sg>, Noemi Buensuceso <mimikyut@yahoo.com>, Aaron Buensuceso <aaronbuensuceso@gmail.com>, veronica buensuceso <vcbuensuceso@gmail.com>, "miriambuens@gmail.com" <miriambuens@gmail.com>, eddie.atchley.toco@statefarm.com date: Mar 11, 2021, 11:14 PM subject: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE 69 DATED 11MAR21 mailed-by: gmail.com MARCH 11, 2021 LOUIS E. GUENIOT TEAM MANAGER 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 STATE FARM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 69 DATED 11MAR21 11:42AM NOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : PERTAINING TO INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 69. NUMBER 1. MR. GUENIOT, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE AN EDUCATED MAN AND YOU ARE NOT DUMB, PLEASE PARDON ME FOR THE WORD BUT I AM FORCED TO WRITE IT IN ACCOUNT OF YOUR DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL IDIOCY AND MALEVOLENCE.  THE ASSISTANCE SOUGHT IS,  PLEASE PROVIDE ME A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER ON MY CLAIMS FOR SECONDARY DAMAGES FILED IN JUNE 2020 AND VANDALISM WHICH COVERAGE I DISCOVERED JUST IN NOVEMBER 4, 2020 WHEN YOU BELATEDLY FURNISHED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE POLICY BEYOND ON WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION. WHY DO YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER? 1. Your denial letter must be accurate and not confusing. State Farm had an affirmed denial letter dated July 17, 2020. On paragraph 3 of this letter, Mr. Gordon Liu wrote the following: "In your request that our correspondences be re-organized and re-written,  we respectfully respond that we will not. Please refer to May 6, 2020                         correspondence and specifically the one year suit against us paragraph. The  one year cited begins again as of the date of this letter." Meaning, according to Mr. Liu, the one year suit begins again as of the date of that letter, July 17, 2020 and not June 12, 2020 as in your responses dated  February 11, 2021 and February 25, 2021. Without prejudice to the continuing violation doctrine which I have invoked, State Farm had a denial letter dated July 17, 2020 where it specifically mentioned the date of July 17, 2020 is the date when the one year suit statute of limitations shall begin, meaning that the one year limitation for suit is tolled again to the date of the July 17, 2020 denial letter. Kindly make your position clear consistent with the established facts. If you still insist that the one year limitation date shall start June 12, 2020 then this is intentional and deliberate manifestation of misrepresentation, an obvious CONTINUING display of bad faith. 2.  Again, your denial letter must be accurate and not confusing. ON PAR.2 June 12, 2020 DENIAL LETTER, Mr. Liu 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, Mr. Liu impressed upon us a copy of the written report of JOHN TITOUAH. BUT HOW COME MR. LIU IS DENYING  THE EXISTENCE OF JOHN TITOUAH's REPORT ON PAR.3 JULY 31, 2020 DENIAL LETTER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY JOHN TITOUAH WAS PROVIDED VERBALLY AND NOT IN WRITTEN FORM.   PAR. 3 July 31, 2020 DENIAL LETTER Mr. Liu wrote, "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." Again, kindly clear the conflicting contrary position. 3. Please write a clear denial letter on my claim on vandalism which coverage I discovered just only on November 4, 2020 when you belatedly furnished me with a copy of the policy which I requested far beyond what is required by the regulation. 4. Your plumber informant is not authorized to search for pipe break on May 5, 2020. Your contention that huge excavation to search for pipe break on May 5, 2020 is not vandalism is out of order and had no legs to stand on. Your alibi that Titouah did a huge excavation to search for leak is a gross misrepresentation because he had already done the search for the pipe break some four days ago in his leak detection procedure and based on the heat signatures he had taken according to Titouah, assuming without agreeing, the pipe break is located some twelve (12) inches under the foundation. Likewise according to Titouah First American will not allow excavating deeper than ten (10) inches. Since he confirmed that the pipe break is some twelve (12) inches under the foundation and First American does not allow him to dig that depth. Therefore, he should not have come on May 5, 2020 anymore to excavate. The fact is though he is not authorized to do excessive excavation he still did it to satisfy your plan to make that huge excavation to produce a video footage of a huge excavation with a rigged no leak  scenario for your benefit, to deny our secondary claim for damages. 5. With regard to the depth of the excavation made by Titouah, it is from four (4) to six (6) inches only.  If you would want to dispute it, then please come again to the site and bring with you a ruler. I have preserved the excavation for farther investigation for you. If you refused to come then this dispute on depth measurement  shall be resolved according to measurements we have taken invalidating the report of Titouah of eight (8) or nine (9) or ten (10) inches. 6. I vehemently object this paragraph 4 of your response,  "Your email contains allegations of misconduct. All such contentions are denied. You should not interpret our silence as any agreement with you, or any waiver of our rights under the policy or law.  We reserve all rights under the policy and the law. " Why? Because this paragraph had already been rendered debunked on  Wednesday November 13, 2020 where I have proven through substantial evidence  that when you feel that you have a valid argument to contradict my contentions you respond in comprehensive details but when you do not have any, you just remain silent and seek refuge on paragraph 4. Next is the email evidence dated November 13, 2020. EVIDENCE OF BREAKING SILENCE  WHEN IN POSSESSION OF A VALID ARGUMENT 7. I am equally objecting to paragraph 2 of your response: "This claim file remains closed.  Our position as communicated in our letters and responsive emails are unchanged.  All conditions previously quoted still apply." Why? Because there is a pending criminal complaint against your informant that has to be resolved first before you close our claim file. Besides, I am still negotiating in good faith with you, whether you like it or not,  although you are showing manifestations of continuing bad faith. TO WIT: FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN A CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO THEM  ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS  OF SECTION 2695.5.  Section 2695.5. Duties upon Receipt of Communications (b) Upon receiving any communication from a claimant, regarding a claim, that reasonably suggests that a response is expected, every licensee shall immediately, but in no event more than fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of that communication, furnish the claimant with a complete response based on the facts as then known by the licensee. This subsection shall not apply to require communication with a claimant subsequent to receipt by the licensee of a notice of legal action by that claimant. NUMBER 2. DELIBERATE INTENTION TO SOW CONFUSION. IT IS AN IMPROPER RESPONSE FOR RESPONDING TO AN EMAIL ASKING FOR A CLEAR AND CONCISE DENIAL LETTER LIKE "As I previously communicated to you on November 13, 2020, we have done our best to answer your questions and provide a reasonable explanation for the basis of the denial of the claim based on the policy language. " WHERE IN YOUR EMAIL IN NOVEMBER 13, 2020 YOU PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXPLANATION? YOU  DID NOT EVEN MENTION OF MY DAMAGES CLAIM FROM VANDALISM COMMITTED BY YOUR INFORMANT PLUMBER TITOUAH? NUMBER 3.  YOU ARE SAYING "we have done our best" WHAT EFFORTS HAVE YOU MADE TO EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION? WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN ME ARE JUST A TEMPLATE OF EMPTY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED FIVE (5), THREE (3) OR LESSER FEEBLE MINDED OR FEW INSANE SENTENCES, REPEATEDLY ALL OVER AGAIN. WHAT YOU HAVE DONE BEST IS TO SOW MORE AND MORE CONFUSIONS AND FRIVOLOUS DELAY TO DETER ME CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU. BUT I ASSURE YOU, I WILL CONTINUE GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU THOUGH YOU CONTINUALLY DISPLAY OBVIOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE MANIFESTATIONS OF BAD FAITH. NUMBER 4.  MR. GUENIOT , PLEASE DO NOT DERAIL EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT TOWARD A HOLISTIC RESOLUTION. THIS EMAIL WHICH YOU ARE RESPONDING TO IS INITIALLY INTENDED FOR MR. EDDIE ATCHLEY AND NOT FOR YOU TO ANSWER. I FURNISHED YOU A COPY OF IT FOR THE SAKE OF COURTESY JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM PRUDENTLY EXPLORING OPTIONS TO NEGOTIATE THESE INSURANCE CLAIMS BETWEEN RESPECTABLE AND HONORABLE MEN. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY DESERVES MEN OF HIGH HONOR AND INTEGRITY IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SHOWING. PLEASE LET MR. EDDIE ATCHLEY DO WHATEVER HE COULD TO HELP US OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT. NUMBER 5. objection to par 4 INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 69 REPEATED MISCONDUCTS FROM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES MULTIPLE MISCONDUCTS  1 TO 8 AND 9/10/11/12/13 AND 14 AND 15/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23/24/25/26/27/28/29/30/31/32/33/34/35/36 AND 37/38/39/40/41/42/43/44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52/53/54/55/56/57/58/59/62/63/64/65/66/67/68 BEING NOT DISPUTED, OBJECTED AND HABITUALLY REPEATED WITH IMPUNITY.  HENCE, PROVEN TO BE INTENTIONAL, DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS, WILLFUL, WANTON, OPPRESSIVE AND OUTRAGEOUS AND BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Dear Messrs Gueniot and Liu: PLEASE SEE, As Mr. Gueniot responded to email as shown next: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 68 DATED 25FEB21 10:48PM NOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : PERTAINING TO INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 68 SHOWN ABOVE. THIS SHOWS: EVIDENCE OF THE 69TH RECORDED MISCONDUCT, PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF, REPEATED HABITUALLY,  INTENTIONALLY,  DELIBERATELY OF OUTRAGEOUS  MISCONDUCTS RESPONDING TO EMAILS SUBJECT OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION AND/OR RESPONDING TO EMAILS NOT ADDRESSED TO HIM TO RESPOND AND/OR RESPONDING TO SEVERAL EMAILS ONCE LEAVING OTHER EMAILS NOT RESPONDED. AND VIOLATION OF DUTIES UPON RECEIPT OF COMMUNICATION SECTION 2695. HE HAD SHOWN A TOTAL OF SIXTY NINE (69) RECORDED INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES AND/OR MISCONDUCTS TO SOW CONFUSION AND INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY DERAIL AND DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, AGAIN, HIS  INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 69,  THOUGH WORTHLESS  SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CONTENTS ARE NOT RELATED TO THE QUESTION POSTED FOR HIM TO ADDRESS AND/OR OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION AND/OR PROFESSIONALLY DISRESPECTFUL RESPONSE BUT BECOME A BIG HELP TO BOLSTER MANIFESTATION OF BAD FAITH CLAIM AGAINST STATE FARM. YOUR ACTIONS, MR. GUENIOT TEND TO SHOW  THAT YOU MIGHT BE THE REAL MASTERMIND OF  TITOUAH'S CRIMES. SO, MR. GUENIOT, AGAIN, MAY I REQUEST FOR YOUR KIND UNDERSTANDING BUT YOU DELIBERATELY, INTENTIONALLY AND OUTRAGEOUSLY REFUSED. WE NEED TO HAVE OUR NEGOTIATION ORGANIZED AND RECORDS CLEAR,  SO THAT WE MAY AVOID CONFUSION. OBVIOUSLY, IT APPEARS THAT YOU WANTED MUCH EAGERLY TO CLOSE THE NEGOTIATION AND THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS. HOWEVER, YOUR EFFORTS ARE IN VAIN AS I SEE YOUR INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES NOW ARE WANING TO ONLY FEW OR FIVE (5) OR THREE (3) WEAK,  OR TWO (2) SENILE FEEBLE AND DESPICABLE PARAGRAPHS AND THUS, SIMPLY THIS FACT LEAD ME TO THINK YOU  REALLY JUST WANTED TO AVOID QUESTIONS, WHICH ANSWERS OR NO ANSWER FROM YOU TEND TO SPILL THE BEANS OF MOST PROBABLY TITOUAH AND YOUR CRIMES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM SIMPLY BY READING THE QUERIES SPECIALLY CRAFTED FOR YOU, WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR ANSWERS. NEXT ARE MY PROOFS THAT BY SIMPLY READING THE QUERIES ESPECIALLY CRAFTED FOR BOTH OF YOU, WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR ANSWERS RELEVANT FACTS CAN BE VERY WELL ESTABLISHED TO EXPOSE YOUR GUILT. MR. GUENIOT, KINDLY DIGEST THE FOLLOWING EMAIL I SENT FOR MR. LIU DATED AUGUST 6, 2020 WITH SUBJECT: SHOW ACTIONS TO PROVE YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TO THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY TITOUAH; AUGUST 6,  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 SHOW ACTIONS TO PROVE YOU ARE NOT PARTY  TO THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY JOHN TITOUAH Dear Mr. Liu: While waiting for your response on the  THIRTY-FOUR (34) COUNTS OF BAD FAITH EVIDENCES dated July 31, 2020,  PLEASE SEE, PAR. 4 July 31, 2020 DENIAL LETTER 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, " Your email contains allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. All such contentions are denied." COMMENTS : Mere words of denials to the allegations of misconduct by State Farm and you are worthless without showing actions proving that State Farm and you are not party to his crime. TO WIT, AMONG OTHERS: STATE FARM AND YOU ARE MOST PROBABLY PARTY TO HIS CRIMES OF PRODUCING AND DISTRIBUTING A RIGGED FRAUDULENT VIDEO AND BY WAY OF VANDALISM, DIGGING A HUGE EXCESS EXCAVATION MORE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED TO ACCESS PIPE WITHIN THE SLAB AND REPAIR PIPE, being you as: 1. THE MAIN BENEFICIARY OF THE RIGGED FRAUDULENT VIDEO PRESENTATION AND STATEMENTS  AS YOU USED AND RELIED ON THEM TO DENY OUR CLAIM. 2. DESPITE THE FACT THAT I HAVE REPORTED HIS CRIME TO CONCERNED POLICE AGENCIES AND THIS FACT HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU, I AM PERPLEXED WHY YOU HAVE  NOT SHOWN OR WRITTEN CONCRETE ACTIONS TO INVESTIGATE OR AT LEAST VERIFY FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD BY TITOUAH OR WRITE ACTIONS TAKEN TO SEEK HELP FROM THE POLICE IN INVESTIGATING TITOUAH. 3. HAVING BEEN VISITED THE SITE OF HIS CRIME AND INVITED PURPOSELY TO TAKE MEASUREMENTS OF THE EXCAVATION, BUT YOU DID NOT TAKE MEASUREMENTS OR EVEN AT LEAST BRING WITH YOU A MEASURING TOOL AND WORSE, YOU STILL MAINTAIN YOUR POSITION OF 10, 8 TO 9 AND 8 INCHES DEPTH OF THE EXCAVATION IN YOUR DENIAL LETTERS, WHICH ARE FAR FROM THE ACTUAL DEPTH MEASUREMENT OF 4 TO 6 INCHES. 4. HAVING YOU STATED  THAT " It does not matter which plumber is called, who they worked for, and what they charge, the only way to confirm the Predominant cause of water losses is to contact and discuss the facts of the discharge directly with the plumber who discovered, located, and repaired the leak.",  You wrote, "what they charge, " MEANS THAT YOU IMPLICITLY ADMITTED THAT THE PLUMBER TITOUAH CHARGES FEES AND YOU PAID HIM FOR THE SERVICES HE HAD RENDERED FOR YOUR BENEFIT. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE  CREATED A BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP WITH TITOUAH WHERE YOU ARE HIS CLIENT FOR THE RIGGED VIDEO PRESENTATION HE PRODUCED.  DOUBTLESS, THAT TITOUAH AND YOU ARE PARTNERS IN THIS ENDEAVOR . AND, THEREFORE,  YOU CAN NOT DENY THAT STATE FARM AND YOU ARE PARTY TO THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY TITOUAH. 5.  HAVING YOU STATED  THAT " It does not matter which plumber is called, who they worked for, and what they charge, the only way to confirm the Predominant cause of water losses is to contact and discuss the facts of the discharge directly with the plumber who discovered, located, and repaired the leak." MEANS THAT ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN, " the only way to confirm the Predominant cause of water losses is to contact and discuss the facts of the discharge directly with the plumber who discovered, located, and repaired the leak." THEN IT FOLLOWS YOU NEED TO CONTACT A PLUMBER  WHO DISCOVERED, LOCATED  AND REPAIRED THE LEAK. BUT YOUR PROBLEM IS, THERE IS NO PLUMBER WHO DISCOVERED NOR LOCATED THE LEAK, BUT THE FACT IS IT IS US WHO DISCOVERED THE LEAK  NOT JOHN TITOUAH AND NEITHER HE REPAIRED THE LEAK. THEREFOR, THE RIGHT PERSON TO TALK TO IS NOT JOHN TITOUAH BUT US.  WHY NOT TALK TO US AND IGNORE TITOUAH?  IF NOT BOTH OF YOU ARE PARTNERS TO HIS CRIMES, HOW COME UP TO THIS TIME BOTH OF YOU ARE ONE TOGETHER IN HIS LIES?  SOURCE FOR NO. 4 and 5 ON PAR.4 June 12, 2020 denial letter You wrote,  "As far as State Farm's relationship with All Express Plumbing and John Titouah, all insurance carriers after a water loss has been immediately contacts and discusses causation and location of pipe breaks. It does not matter which plumber is called, who they worked for, and what they charge, the only way to confirm the Predominant cause of water losses is to contact and discuss the facts of the discharge directly with the plumber who discovered, located, and repaired the leak. In regards to the costs of a re-route, that would be up to the discretion of the Insured. 1. You wrote, "what they charge " meaning, in other words, plumber John charges fees and you paid him in return for his rigged live video presentation and fraudulent statements. How much did he charge you and the amount you paid him? 2. You wrote, "to contact and discuss the facts of the discharge directly with the plumber who discovered, located, and repaired the leak. " Why talk to John Titouah extensively and rely heavily on his statements? John Titouah, Yes he is a plumber. But he is not the one who discovered the leak. It is us. He is not the one who located the leak, It is us; and he is not the one who repaired the leak. Hence, John Titouah is not the right person to talk to but us. So talk to us not John.  AGAIN, JOHN DID NOT DISCOVER, LOCATE AND REPAIR the leak. Therefore,  he can not be called to testify on matters he did not witness or see. Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and kindly inform me when  I expect a reply to this email. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso END OF EMAIL FOR MR. LIU DATED AUGUST 6, 2020 Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail. THIS EMAIL RESPONSE IS INTENDED FOR YOUR  COLLECTION OF NEW INFORMATION ON INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES WHICH TO MY TALLY RIGHT NOW ROSE TO 69.  IN OTHER WORDS,  SIXTY EIGHT (69) COUNTS OF STATE FARM RECORDED MISCONDUCTS. THOSE UNRECORDED MISCONDUCTS, I AM STILL COLLECTING THEM AND I PROMISE I WILL ADD THEM TO THE LIST WHICH INFORMATION YOU MAY STILL WANTED TO KNOW. MOREOVER, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE REFUGE ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AS A LEGAL DEFENSE TO DISCOURAGE ME IN PURSUING GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY INFORM YOU THAT IN ACCOUNT OF YOUR UNABATED CONTINUING VIOLATION IN MULTIPLE WRONGFUL ACTS, FAILURES TO ACT, OR DECISIONS SUCH THAT THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN ON THIS COLLECTED MALFEASANCE ONLY WHEN THE DEFENDANT, YOU MR. GUENIOT, CEASES YOUR IMPROPER CONDUCT. SINCE YOU HAVE NOT STOPPED YOUR IMPROPER CONDUCT; HENCE, THE ONE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD TO FILE SUIT AGAINST STATE FARM HAS NOT BEEN STARTED YET.  PLEASE RESTRICT ISSUES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER TO AVOID INAPPROPRIATENESS AND CONFUSION. PLEASE NOTE THAT  WRITING A LOUSY REPLY TAKEN BASED FROM A TEMPLATE JUST A FEW MINUTES OR HOURS OR FOURTEEN (14) DAYS TO DEVIATE ATTENTION FROM WHAT YOU ARE PROVEN YOU ARE HABITUALLY DOING.  SO IT WON'T MATTER ANYMORE, WHETHER IT TOOK YOU A FEW MINUTES OR HOURS OR FOURTEEN (14) DAYS BECAUSE  IT DID NOT ERASE NOR BLEMISH THE ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THE MAY 6, 2020 DENIAL LETTER WAS RELAYED AND SENT TO US IN A FEW MINUTES IS ABSOLUTELY PART OF YOUR PLAN CONCEIVED AND PREPARED MANY DAYS IN ADVANCE. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso

STATE FARM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 69 DATED 11MAR21 11:42AM

INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 69 INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO EMAIL:  Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 68 DATED 25FEB21 10:48PM NOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : PERTAINING TO INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 69 NUMBER 1. MR. GUENIOT,  MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE AN EDUCATED MAN AND YOU ARE NOT DUMB, PLEASE PARDON ME FOR THE WORD BUT I AM FORCED TO WRITE IT IN ACCOUNT OF YOUR DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL IDIOCY AND MALEVOLENCE.  THE ASSISTANCE SOUGHT IS,  PLEASE PROVIDE ME A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER ON MY CLAIMS FOR SECONDARY DAMAGES FILED IN JUNE 2020 AND VANDALISM WHICH COVERAGE I DISCOVERED JUST IN NOVEMBER 4, 2020 WHEN YOU BELATEDLY FURNISHED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE POLICY BEYOND ON WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION. TO WIT: FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN A CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO THEM  ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS  OF SECTION 2695.5.  NUMBER 2. DELIBERATE INTENTION TO SOW CONFUSION. IT IS AN IMPROPER RESPONSE FOR RESPONDING TO AN EMAIL ASKING FOR A CLEAR AND CONCISE DENIAL LETTER LIKE "As I previously communicated to you on November 13, 2020, we have done our best to answer your questions and provide a reasonable explanation for the basis of the denial of the claim based on the policy language. " WHERE IN YOUR EMAIL IN NOVEMBER 13, 2020 YOU DID NOT MENTION OF MY DAMAGES CLAIM FROM VANDALISM COMMITTED BY YOUR INFORMANT PLUMBER TITOUAH? NUMBER 3.  YOU ARE SAYING "we have done our best" WHAT EFFORTS HAVE YOU MADE TO EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION? WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN ME ARE JUST A TEMPLATE OF EMPTY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED FIVE (5) FEEBLE MINDED OR FEW INSANE SENTENCES, REPEATEDLY ALL OVER AGAIN? WHAT YOU HAVE DONE BEST IS TO SOW MORE AND MORE CONFUSIONS TO DETER ME CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU AND SUBJECT OUR CLAIM TO FRIVOLOUS DELAYS.  BUT I ASSURE YOU, I WILL CONTINUE GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU THOUGH YOU ARE CONTINUALLY DISPLAYING OBVIOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE MANIFESTATIONS OF BAD FAITH AND/OR I WILL EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS AVAILABLE  BE IT WITHIN THE PREMISES OF STATE FARM, THROUGH MS. TIFFANY WYATT OR THROUGH THE MANAGERS ABOVE YOU OR THROUGH OUR INSURANCE AGENT, MR. EDDIE ATCHLEY OR THROUGH PUBLIC ADJUSTING SERVICES. I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT I WILL CONTINUE MY GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU AND STATE FARM UNTIL I HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE. NUMBER 4. MR. GUENIOT PLEASE DO NOT DERAIL EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT  TOWARD A HOLISTIC RESOLUTION. THIS EMAIL WHICH YOU ARE RESPONDING TO IS INTENDED FOR  MR. EDDIE ATCHLEY INITIALLY AND NOT FOR YOU TO ANSWER. I FURNISHED YOU A COPY OF IT FOR THE SAKE OF COURTESY JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM PRUDENTLY EXPLORING OPTIONS TO NEGOTIATE THESE INSURANCE CLAIMS BETWEEN RESPECTABLE AND HONORABLE MEN. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY DESERVES MEN OF HIGH HONOR AND INTEGRITY IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SHOWING. PLEASE LET MR. EDDIE ATCHLEY DO WHATEVER HE COULD TO HELP US OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT. HIGHLIGHTS :  CONTINUING REITERATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTERS ON VANDALISM FILED IN NOVEMBER 2020 AND SECONDARY DAMAGES CLAIM FILED IN JUNE 2020. NUMBER 1. MR. GUENIOT, THE ASSISTANCE SOUGHT IS,  PLEASE PROVIDE A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER ON MY CLAIMS FOR SECONDARY DAMAGES FILED IN JUNE 2020 AND VANDALISM WHICH COVERAGE I DISCOVERED JUST IN NOVEMBER 4, 2020 WHEN YOU BELATEDLY FURNISHED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE POLICY BEYOND ON WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION. WHY YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER? 1. Your denial letter must be accurate and not confusing.     State Farm had an affirmed denial letter dated July 17, 2020.     On paragraph 3 of this letter, Mr. Gordon Liu wrote the following:     "In your request that our correspondences be re-organized and re-written, we respectfully respond that we will not. Please refer to May 6, 2020 correspondence and specifically the one year suit against us paragraph. The one year cited begins again as of the date of this letter."      Meaning, according to Mr. Liu, the one year suit begins again as of the date of that letter, July 17, 2020 and not June 12, 2020 as in your responses dated February 11, 2021 and February 25, 2021. Mr. Liu wrote July 17, 2021 and not June 12, 2020. Please read my supporting document  for date July 17, 2020  as the beginning of the one year statute of limitations : STATE FARM  RESPONSE DATED JULY 29, 2020 WITH ATTACHED AFFIRMED THIRD  DENIAL LETTER DATED JULY 17, 2020 . Without prejudice to the continuing  violations doctrine which I have invoked, as far as State Farm is concerned the date July 17, 2020 shall prevail over June 12, 2020 because  July 17, 2020 is the date specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 of the July 17, 2020 denial letter.  If you still insist it to be June 12, 2020, then this is deliberate and intentional misrepresentation, a manifestation of bad faith and futile efforts to sow more confusions. 2.  Again, your denial letter must be accurate and not confusing. ON PAR.2 June 12, 2020 DENIAL LETTER, Mr. Liu 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, Mr. Liu impressed upon us a copy of the written report of JOHN TITOUAH. BUT HOW COME MR. LIU IS DENYING  THE EXISTENCE OF JOHN TITOUAH's REPORT ON PAR.3 JULY 31, 2020 DENIAL LETTER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY JOHN TITOUAH WAS PROVIDED VERBALLY AND NOT IN WRITTEN FORM.   PAR. 3 July 31, 2020 DENIAL LETTER Mr. Liu wrote, "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." Again, kindly clear the conflicting contrary position. 3. Please write a clear denial letter on my claim on vandalism which coverage I discovered just only on November 4, 2020 when you belatedly furnished me with a copy of the policy which I requested far beyond on what is required by the regulation. 4. Your plumber informant is not authorized to search for pipe break on May 5, 2020. Your contention that huge excavation to search for pipe break on May 5, 2020 is not vandalism is out of order and had no legs to stand on. Your alibi that Titouah did a huge excavation to search for leak is a gross misrepresentation because he had already done the search for the pipe break some four days ago in his leak detection procedure and based on the heat signatures he had taken according to Titouah, assuming without agreeing, the pipe break is located some twelve (12) inches under the foundation. Likewise according to Titouah First American will not allow excavating deeper than ten (10) inches. Since he confirmed that the pipe break is some twelve (12) inches under the foundation and First American does not allow him to dig that depth. Therefore, he should not have come on May 5, 2020 anymore to excavate. The fact is though he is not authorized to do excessive excavation he still did it to satisfy your plan to make that huge excavation to produce a video footage of a huge excavation with a rigged no leak  scenario for your benefit, to deny our secondary claim for damages. 5. With regard to the depth of the excavation made by Titouah, it is from four (4) to six (6) inches only.  If you would want to dispute it, then please come again to the site and bring with you a ruler. I have preserved the excavation for farther investigation for you. If you refused to come then this dispute on depth measurement  shall be resolved according to measurements we have taken invalidating the report of Titouah of eight (8) or nine (9) or ten (10) inches. 6. I vehemently object this paragraph 4 of your response,  "Your email contains allegations of misconduct. All such contentions are denied. You should not interpret our silence as any agreement with you, or any waiver of our rights under the policy or law.  We reserve all rights under the policy and the law. " Why? Because this paragraph had already been rendered debunked on  Wednesday November 13, 2020 where I have proven through substantial evidence  that when you feel that you have a valid argument to contradict my contentions you respond in comprehensive details but when you do not have any, you just remain silent and seek refuge on paragraph 4. Next is the email evidence dated November 13, 2020. EVIDENCE OF BREAKING SILENCE  WHEN IN POSSESSION OF A VALID ARGUMENT 7. I am equally objecting to paragraph 2 of your response: "This claim file remains closed.  Our position as communicated in our letters and responsive emails are unchanged.  All conditions previously quoted still apply." Why? Because there is a pending criminal complaint against your informant that has to be resolved first before you close our claim file. Besides, I am still negotiating in good faith with you, whether you like it or not,  although you are showing manifestations of continuing bad faith. TO WIT: FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN A CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO THEM  ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS  OF SECTION 2695.5.  NUMBER 2. DELIBERATE INTENTION TO SOW CONFUSION. IT IS AN IMPROPER RESPONSE FOR RESPONDING TO EMAILS WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECTS WHICH TEND TO CREATE MORE CONFUSIONS. DENIALS AND ASSERTIONS NEEDED TO BE  SUBSTANTIATED, OTHERWISE, CRIMINALS MERE  SAYING EMPTY WORDS OF DENIAL AND STATEMENTS  WOULD NEVER BE CONVICTED. CLEARER READING BELOW OF THE EMAIL SCREENSHOT ABOVE: Dear Mr. Buensuceso,   The email below has been received.   This claim file remains closed.  Our position as communicated in our letters and responsive emails are unchanged.  All conditions previously quoted still apply.    The one year “Suit Against Us” time period referred to in the May 6, 2020 letter includes the time period from the date of loss (April 26, 2020) to the date the claim was reported to State Farm (April 29, 2020).  The one year time period was tolled during our investigation of this claim (April 29, 2020) to the date the claim was initially denied (May 6, 2020).  The one year time period was tolled upon receipt of Antonio Buensuceso Jr.’s email dated May 29, 2020 for additional investigation until the date the denial of the claim was confirm in our June 12, 2020 letter.  That one year time period continues to run as of the date of our June 12, 2020 letter.     Your email contains allegations of misconduct. All such contentions are denied. You should not interpret our silence as any agreement with you, or any waiver of our rights under the policy or law.  We reserve all rights under the policy and the law.    Sincerely,   Louis     Louis E Gueniot III Claim Team Manager State Farm General Insurance Company

BERNIE SANDERS FEARED BY MANY IN THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT

HOTLINE 8888 PRESIDENTIAL COMPLAINT CENTER RESPONSE MARCH 2, 2020

PCC Code No. GE-MLS-09-06-2017-053 REMINDER OF PENDING COMPLAINTS

PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE HOTLINE 8888 PRESIDENTIAL COMPLAINT CENTER

from: antonio buensuceso <antoniobuensucesoshell@gmail.com> to: pcc@malacanang.gov.ph date: Mar 2, 2020, 10:38 AM subject: PCC Code No. GE-MLS-09-06-2017-053 REMINDER OF PENDING COMPLAINTS mailed-by: gmail.com PCC CODE-MLS-09-06-2017-053  PART 1 OF THE COMPLAINT 1  ANO PO BA ANG KANILANG PORMAL    AT LEGAL NA LIHAM NG  PAGPAPALIWANAG? ATIN PONG UNAWAIN NA ANG REKLAMONG ITO AY LABAN KINA DEAN AMADO VALDEZ, SEC SILVESTRE BELLO III, MARIO SIBUCAO, MARIA TERESA CRUZ, MARIAN BAROT, VOLTAIRE AGAS, EMMANUEL F. DOOC, AND FERNANDO NICOLAS AT HINDI PO SI FERNANDO NICOLAS LAMANG.PINANGALANAN KO PO SILANG LAHAT KAYA SANA PO AY BIGYAN NINYO SILA NG PAGKAKATAONG IPALIWANAG ANG KANYA KANYANG PANIG. SUBALIT, ANG PAGHIHINTAY PO SA KANILANG SAGOT AY WAG PO SANANG HABAMBUHAY. NAKALIPAS NA PO ANG 2 TAON  at 5 BUWAN,  MULA  Sept. 7, 2017, ANG ARAW NA INUTUSAN SILANG SUMAGOT NG  HOTLINE 8888. PERO,  PATULOY PO SILANG HINDI SUMUSUNOD; WALA PONG IPINAKIKITANG TUMPAK NA TUGON SA INYONG KAUTUSAN. SANA PO ISAMA NYO NA SILA SA MGA OPISYALES NA INYONG IBINALITA NGAYON NA INYONG SISIBAKIN PARA WAG NA PO SILANG PAMARISAN PA NG IBA. EBIDENSYA PO ITO NG PATULOY NA PAGKUKUTSABAHAN NG SHELL AT SSS SA PAGPAPATULOY NG PANG-AAPI SA ISANG DUKHANG POBRENG MANGAGAWA NA ANG KASALANAN LAMANG KUNG KASALANAN MANG MAITURING AY IPAGTANGGOL ANG KANYANG KARAPATAN LABAN SA MAPAPAGSAMANTALANG KOMPANYA, SHELL, SA KABILA NG HIRAP GUTOM, PAGDARAHOP AY NANANATILING TUMATAYO AT LUMALABAN LABAN SA KORAPSYON SA SHELL MULA PA NOONG 1978 NANG MA EMPLEYO  NG SHELL HANGGANG NGAYON. PART 2 OF THE COMPLAINT 2 KAYA PO BA NINYONG IPATUPAD ANG BATAS SA RETIREMENT PAY AT ESTAFA LABAN SA SHELL ? IPAALAM PO SA MADLA ANG INYONG PORMAL NA KASAGUTAN. Ilalathala ko po para makita ng madla ang inyong katugunan sa aking personal blog diary para po makunan ng inspirasyon para mga taong nawawalan ng pag-asa na magpatuloy sa pag gigiit sa pagtatanggol ng sa katarungan at katotohonan sa kabila ng dambuhalang nagnanais na supilin ito. Kalakip po nito ang dalawang (2) signed pdf file ng mga katanungan.

DIGONG HOTLINE 888 KAYA PO BA NINYONG IPATUPAD ANG BATAS SA RETIREMENT PAY AT ESTAFA LABAN SA SHELL ?

PCC CODE-MLS-09-06-2017-053  PART 2 OF THE COMPLAINT KAYA PO BA NINYONG IPATUPAD ANG BATAS SA RETIREMENT PAY AT ESTAFA LABAN SA SHELL ? IPAALAM PO SA MADLA ANG INYONG PORMAL NA KASAGUTAN. EBIDENSYA PO ITO NG PATULOY NA PAGKUKUTSABAHAN NG SHELL AT KORTE SUPREMA SA PAGPAPATULOY NG PANG-AAPI SA ISANG DUKHANG POBRENG MANGAGAWA NA ANG KASALANAN LAMANG KUNG KASALANAN MANG MAITURING AY IPAGTANGGOL ANG KANYANG KARAPATAN LABAN SA MAPAPAGSAMANTALANG KOMPANYA, SHELL, SA KABILA NG HIRAP GUTOM, PAGDARAHOP AY NANANATILING TUMATAYO AT LUMALABAN LABAN SA KORAPSYON SA SHELL MULA PA NOONG 1978 NANG MA EMPLEYO  NG SHELL HANGGANG NGAYON. SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR 2.  MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED  RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA HOT PURSUIT DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR 1018counts ON JANUARY 30, 2020 SEE BELOW FOR THE 1018TH   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.