STATE FARM EVIDENCE OF BREAKING SILENCE WHEN HAVING A VALID ARGUMENT DATED 13NOV20 4:00PM

EVIDENCE OF BREAKING SILENCE  WHEN IN POSSESSION OF A VALID ARGUMENT RESPONSE TO EMAIL: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 53 DATED 13NOV20 3:43PM  IT IS TWO YEARS, MR. GUENIOT, NOT ONE YEAR. DESPITE HAVING BEEN DISCOVERED AND INFORMED YOU, YOU KEPT ON CONTINUING YOUR ACTS OF MISREPRESENTATION. THIS IS DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL, BLAMEWORTHY, SHAMEFUL ACT OF MISREPRESENTATION, A GRAVE DISPLAY OF BAD FAITH. CLEARER READING BELOW OF THE EMAIL SCREENSHOT ABOVE: Dear Mr. Buensuceso,   I’m writing to acknowledge receipt of the email below.   There was no state of emergency, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 8558 of the Government Code, that caused the water leak related to this claim.  Therefore, endorsement FE-1386 does not apply to this loss.  The time period stated in the Condominium Unitowners Policy, Form FP-7956-CA that was included in our May 6, 2020 letter applies.   This claim file remains closed.  Our position as communicated in our letters and responsive emails are unchanged.  All conditions previously quoted still apply.    We are required by California Insurance Regulations, Section 2695.7(b)(3), to advise you that if you believe this claim, or any part of this claim, has been wrongfully denied or rejected, you may have the matter reviewed by the California Department of Insurance, Claims Service Bureau, 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90013, telephone 800 927 4357.   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 MR. GUENIOT  WROTE IN A VERY QUICK RESPONSE, SPECIFICALLY: "There was no state of emergency, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 8558 of the Government Code, that caused the water leak related to this claim.  Therefore, endorsement FE-1386 does not apply to this loss.  The time period stated in the Condominium Unitowners Policy, Form FP-7956-CA that was included in our May 6, 2020 letter applies." PROBABLY AS A VALID ARGUMENT TO RETAIN  THIS NOTICE: 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.   HOWEVER,  I AM SORRY MR. GUENIOT TO INFORM  YOU, THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FALLEN TO A TRAP,     THIS EVENT PROFOUNDLY SHOW  THAT YOU DO  NOT HAVE VALID ARGUMENTS  TO SUPPORT YOUR  DENIALS AND ASSERTIONS AS THEY REMAINED  UNSUBSTANTIATED FOR  LAST SIX (6) MONTHS,  UNLIKE ON THE "ONE YEAR SUIT AGAINST US". MEANING, YOU DO NOT KEEP  SILENT IF YOU HAVE A VALID ARGUMENT. AND CONVERSELY, YOU KEEP  SILENT WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY, EFFECTIVELY  MAKING YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH INVALID AS YOU  HAVE  NOT SHOWN ANY CONVINCING ARGUMENT TO  SUPPORT IT. THEREFORE, FROM NOW ON,  YOUR  SILENCE IS CONSENT AND YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY  SOUND ARGUMENT TO RESPOND OTHERWISE.

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 53 DATED 13NOV20 3:43PM

NOVEMBER 13, 2020 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 53 DATED 13NOV20 7:42AM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 53 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 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 WATER DAMAGES BASIS OF DENIAL DATED 8NOV20 7:57AM WATER DAMAGES BASIS OF DENIAL. PLEASE EXPLAIN IN PLAIN STATEMENTS THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THE WATER DAMAGES DENIAL AND SHOW WHERE IN PAGES 1 TO 45 OF THE POLICY BOOKLET IT IS WRITTEN.   THIS SHOWS: EVIDENCE OF THE 53RD RECORDED MISCONDUCT, PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF, REPEATED HABITUALLY, INTENTIONALLY,  DELIBERATELY OF 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. HE HAD SHOWN A TOTAL OF FIFTY THREE (53) RECORDED INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES AND/OR MISCONDUCTS TO SOW CONFUSION AND INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY DERAIL AND DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, AGAIN, HIS  INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 53RD 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. 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 THREE (3) WEAK,  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.  IT IS TWO YEARS, MR. GUENIOT, NOT ONE YEAR. DESPITE HAVING BEEN DISCOVERED AND INFORMED YOU, YOU KEPT ON CONTINUING YOUR ACTS OF MISREPRESENTATION. THIS IS DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL, BLAMEWORTHY, SHAMEFUL ACT OF MISREPRESENTATION, A GRAVE DISPLAY OF BAD FAITH. 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.   SECTION 1- CONDITIONS, Suit Against Us- The time period for filing suit is extended to 24 months after inception of the loss. MEANING THE ONE YEAR SUIT AGAINST US SHOWN NEXT 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.  IS A CONTINUING REPREHENSIBLE MISREPRESENTATION SINCE JUNE 2020 TO NOVEMBER 2020 WHICH IS DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY INFUSED IN ALMOST ALL RESPONSE LETTERS BY MR. GUENIOT AND LIU TO MISLEAD US. SO PLEASE MR. GUENIOT, KINDLY READ VERY CONSCIENTIOUSLY. DO NOT WORRY, I HAVE PREPARED SOME 100 EASY QUESTIONS ESPECIALLY CRAFTED FOR YOU, I PROMISE, I WILL GIVE YOU THE HONORS TO INTELLIGENTLY AND HONESTLY ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WISHED TO BE SILENT, I RESPECT YOUR CHOICE, IT IS YOUR RIGHT. HOWEVER, CRIMINALS NO MATTER HOW THEY TRIED TO KEEP SILENT ARE CONVICTED THROUGH THEIR ACTS AND OMISSIONS AND CONVINCING FACTUAL AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES. 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 53.  IN OTHER WORDS,  FIFTY-THREE (53) 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. PLEASE RESTRICT ISSUES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER TO AVOID INAPPROPRIATENESS AND CONFUSION. 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

STATE FARM RESPONSE ON WATER DAMAGES (VANDALISM) DATED 13NOV20 7:42AM

STATE FARM RESPONSE  DATED 13NOV20 7:42AM EXCAVATING A PORTION OF THE CONCRETE TO SEARCH FOR THE LEAK IN A SUPPLY LINE TO "FIX IT" IS NOT AN ACCIDENT......... RESPONSE TO EMAIL: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x WATER DAMAGES BASIS OF DENIAL DATED 8NOV20 7:57AM WATER DAMAGES BASIS OF DENIAL. PLEASE EXPLAIN IN PLAIN STATEMENTS THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THE WATER DAMAGES DENIAL AND SHOW WHERE IN PAGES 1 TO 45 OF THE POLICY BOOKLET IT IS WRITTEN. CLEARER READING BELOW OF THE EMAIL SCREENSHOT ABOVE: Dear Mr. Buensuceso,   I’m writing to acknowledge receipt of the email below along with other emails from you since my last response to you on November 4, 2020.   We previously addressed your allegations of misconduct by John Titouah as referenced in your May 29, 2020 email in our June 12, 2020 and July 13, 2020 letters, along with our responsive emails.  Our May 6, 2020 correspondence stated that we insure for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A.  The retaining of a plumber to “fix a leak” that results in the plumber, John Titiouah, excavating a portion of the concrete to search for the leak in a supply line to “fix it” is not an accident, and it is not vandalism to personal property as defined in the policy section included in your November 7, 2020 email.     This claim file remains closed.  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.  Our position as communicated in our letters dated May 6, 2020, June 12, 2020, July 13, 2020, July 17, 2020, July 31, 2020 and responsive emails are unchanged.  The May 6, 2020 letter included the applicable policy language.  All conditions previously quoted still apply.    We are required by California Insurance Regulations, Section 2695.7(b)(3), to advise you that if you believe this claim, or any part of this claim, has been wrongfully denied or rejected, you may have the matter reviewed by the California Department of Insurance, Claims Service Bureau, 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90013, telephone 800 927 4357.   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 emails contain 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 NOTE: ON PARAGRAPH 2, MR. GUENIOT  WROTE ,  We previously addressed your allegations of misconduct by John Titouah as referenced in your May 29, 2020 email in our June 12, 2020 and July 13, 2020 letters, along with our responsive emails.  Our May 6, 2020 correspondence stated that we insure for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A.  The retaining of a plumber to “fix a leak” that results in the plumber, John Titiouah, excavating a portion of the concrete to search for the leak in a supply line to “fix it” is not an accident, and it is not vandalism to personal property as defined in the policy section included in your November 7, 2020 email.   SPECIFICALLY: The retaining of a plumber to “fix a leak” that results in the plumber, John Titiouah, excavating a portion of the concrete to search for the leak in a supply line to “fix it” is not an accident, and it is not vandalism to personal property as defined in the policy section included in your November 7, 2020 email.  I AM SORRY, I AM CONFUSED. KINDLY EXPLAIN WHAT  DO MEAN PRECISELY WITH YOUR STATEMENT :  "John Titiouah, excavating a portion of the concrete to search for the leak in a supply line to “fix it” is not an accident, and it is not vandalism to personal property....." I WILL REWRITE THE STATEMENT HERE  FOR CLARITY.  "John Titouah excavating a portion of the concrete to search for the leak in a supply line to "fixit"is not an accident, and is not vandalism to personal property.....",

STATE FARM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 53 DATED 13NOV20 7:42AM

INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 53 RESPONSE TO EMAIL: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x WATER DAMAGES BASIS OF DENIAL DATED 8NOV20 7:57AM WATER DAMAGES BASIS OF DENIAL. PLEASE EXPLAIN IN PLAIN STATEMENTS THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THE WATER DAMAGES DENIAL AND SHOW WHERE IN PAGES 1 TO 45 OF THE POLICY BOOKLET IT IS WRITTEN. DENIALS AND ASSERTIONS NEEDED TO BE  SUBSTANTIATED, OTHERWISE, CRIMINALS MERE  SAYING EMPTY WORDS OF DENIAL AND STATEMENTS  WOULD NEVER BE CONVICTED. NOTE : INAPPROPRIATE  CONFUSING RE, MR. GUENIOT AS USUAL, A LAZY RESPONSE RESPONDING ONCE TO MULTIPLE EMAILS WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTERS AND DISCUSSING ISSUES OUT OF THE SUBJECT BEING RESPONDED TO, A DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL AND WANTON AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF SECTION 2695.5(b), NOTHING HAD BEEN DISCUSSED AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED. HE DID NOT EVEN SHOW IN THE PAGES 1 TO 45 OF THE POLICY BOOKLET WHERE THOSE INFORMATION CAN BE SEEN. AND WORSE, HE CONTINUES TO MISLEAD US ABOUT "ONE YEAR SUIT AGAINST US" PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT. 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. CLEARER READING BELOW OF THE EMAIL SCREENSHOT ABOVE: Dear Mr. Buensuceso,   I’m writing to acknowledge receipt of the email below along with other emails from you since my last response to you on November 4, 2020.   We previously addressed your allegations of misconduct by John Titouah as referenced in your May 29, 2020 email in our June 12, 2020 and July 13, 2020 letters, along with our responsive emails.  Our May 6, 2020 correspondence stated that we insure for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A.  The retaining of a plumber to “fix a leak” that results in the plumber, John Titiouah, excavating a portion of the concrete to search for the leak in a supply line to “fix it” is not an accident, and it is not vandalism to personal property as defined in the policy section included in your November 7, 2020 email.     This claim file remains closed.  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.  Our position as communicated in our letters dated May 6, 2020, June 12, 2020, July 13, 2020, July 17, 2020, July 31, 2020 and responsive emails are unchanged.  The May 6, 2020 letter included the applicable policy language.  All conditions previously quoted still apply.    We are required by California Insurance Regulations, Section 2695.7(b)(3), to advise you that if you believe this claim, or any part of this claim, has been wrongfully denied or rejected, you may have the matter reviewed by the California Department of Insurance, Claims Service Bureau, 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90013, telephone 800 927 4357.   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 emails contain 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 NOTE CONTINUING MISREPRESENTATION, BAD FAITH 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.

828TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_13NOV19_TO THE SCP JUSTICIDES_ CYANIDE LACED SHABU MORE POTENT THAN DUTERTE'S GUNS AND BULLETS

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 973counts SEE BELOW FOR THE 973RD   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.