ABSOLUTE IRREVOCABLE UNCONDITIONAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT DATED 26MAR21

MARCH 26, 2021 ROSALINA C. BUENSUCESO MOSSES C. BUENSUCESO NOEMI C. BUENSUCESO AARON C. BUENSUCESO VERONICA C. BUENSUCESO MIRIAM C. BUENSUCESO ABSOLUTE IRREVOCABLE UNCONDITIONAL  IMMUNITY FROM SUIT DEED DATED MARCH 26, 2021  IN RELATION TO ELDERLY ABUSE LAWS IN CALIFORNIA MY DEAREST WIFE, SONS AND DAUGHTERS, I am 65 years old, and I do not know how much longer God will allow me to be here. I am sorry for the heart aches, pain, frustrations and suffering if there are which I might have imposed on you, particularly on the matter of difference in opinions of handling our problem in claims with State Farm, First American, adjusters Liu and Gueniot and contractor, Titouah. On your collective views that pursuing criminal complaints against these giant companies and mentioned personalities may endangered my life so, you advised me to just keep quiet as these suspects as they behaved appear to be bold, daring with an assumed clout of impunity in doing fraud, unlawful acts and an evil intent to acquire an expectedly huge monetary gain for themselves...simply saying they are hardened criminals.  Hence, they are not far from doing other criminal acts up to maybe, murder....they knew who you are, where you live....it would be very easy for them to do that.....we can just repair the damages in the house ourselves and care more for our safety. However, as I see it, it seems that they have been doing these criminal acts for a long time when it should have been stopped in the time they initially committed it,  if only those victims ahead of us filed and pursued criminal complaints against them. And these problems may not happen to us. We should not have been a victim ourselves. So this time it must be stopped and someone has to act, and this solemn duty, by destiny, is imposed upon me and I shall not renegade on this solemn obligation which is sacred to me, for the sake of our community. Having said that, this serves as a proof that though I am an elderly with my family opting not to assist me in this endeavor,  that I am writing this email to my family as  an : ABSOLUTE IRREVOCABLE UNCONDITIONAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT on law pertaining to elderly abuse in California. Sincerely,  Tatay Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

MOMENTS... 7 PENAL CODE 368 CALIFORNIA ELDER ABUSE LAWS DATED 24MAR21 12:41AM

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x  MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 7 MARCH 24, 2021 GORDON LIU CLAIMS SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE  RE: Claim Number 55-06C6-44X        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 Date of Loss :  April 26, 2020 PENAL CODE 368- CALIFORNIA ELDER ABUSE LAWS  DATED 24MAR21 Dear Mr. Liu, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY THROUGH THE WORDS OF A FORMER DA ATTORNEY FROM "SHOUSE LAW" WHO SHARED THIS PRECIOUS ARTICLE, "PENAL CODE 31-CALIFORNIA ELDER ABUSE LAWS",( SEE 1 BELOW) TO CONVINCE MR. GUENIOT THAT BOTH OF YOU HAD ALREADY SUBJECTED ME TO  CONTINUING UNJUST, ABUSIVE, ARBITRARY, DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL, WANTON, AND PURPOSEFUL  INFLICTION OF PAIN AND MENTAL SUFFERING AND ADVISED HIM THAT YOUR COLLECTIVE  MISCONDUCTS ALTOGETHER ARE BEING AGGRAVATED BY THE FACT THAT I AM AN ELDERLY PERSON AS THIS HAD BEEN KNOWN TO YOU ON YOUR SITE VISIT ON MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2020 11 AM WHERE I SHOWED YOU MY ANTE MORTEM CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT AGAINST TITOUAH (SEE 2 BELOW) AMONG OTHER VIDEOS. SO PLEASE, MAY I HUMBLY AND MOST RESPECTFULLY AND EARNESTLY REQUEST YOU TO HELP ME LOCATE WHERE YOUR OFFICE IS, AND MEET YOU PERSONALLY SO THAT YOU MAY ENDORSE ME TO YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND LIKEWISE MEET YOUR SUPERIORS.   . IN RETROSPECTION, MAY MOST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU TO PONDER UPON IT. Again,   And in my humble opinion consider showing manifestations of your intentions to withdraw from this conspiracy when you still have time. As of today, March 24, 2021 you have not shown any manifestations yet. It is to my understanding, whether you conform or not, the statute of limitations on "the year suit against us" shall be tolled as of the date of this email, March 24, 2021. Any objection to my understanding about this issue is expectedly to be written clearly, formally,  and comprehensively, citing credible reasons or explanations in the defense of your objection. Otherwise, my understanding of the "statute of limitations" clause shall be understood by both of us,  whether you agree or not, to have prevailed over your contentions. WE WOULD WANT TO NEGOTIATE THIS DISPUTE WITH STATE FARM IN GOOD FAITH UNTIL ALL  ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso 1. PRECIOUS ARTICLE, "PENAL CODE 368 PC-CALIFORNIA ELDER ABUSE LAWS" FROM SHOUSE CALIFORNIA LAW GROUP SHARED FROM : https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/368/ 2. SWORN STATEMENT FROM ANTE MORTEM CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x MOMENTS...6 PENAL CODE 31- CALIFORNIA AIDING AND ABETTING LAWS DATED 23MAR21 1:45AM

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x  MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 6 MARCH 23, 2021 GORDON LIU CLAIMS SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE  RE: Claim Number 55-06C6-44X        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 Date of Loss :  April 26, 2020 PENAL CODE 31- CALIFORNIA  AIDING AND ABETTING LAWS DATED 23MAR21 Dear Mr. Liu, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY THROUGH THE WORDS OF A FORMER DA ATTORNEY FROM "SHOUSE LAW" WHO SHARED THIS PRECIOUS ARTICLE, "PENAL CODE 31-CALIFORNIA AIDING AND ABETTING LAWS", TO CONVINCE MR. GUENIOT THAT HE IS THE PERSON IN CHARGE IN NOVEMBER 2020 WHEN THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF THE CRIME OF VANDALISM ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY YOUR INFORMANT TITOUAH AND BEING PERSON IN CHARGE WHEN THE DAMAGES ON VANDALISM WAS DISCOVERED, REPORTED AND FILED, CONSEQUENTLY,  HE HAD THE OBLIGATION TO ISSUE A THOROUGH INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ABOUT IT, THEN ISSUE A FORMAL APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF OUR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES DUE TO VANDALISM COMMITTED BY TITOUAH. IF MR. GUENIOT REFUSED, AND YOU DO NOTHING TO INSIST IT, THEN, THE FBI MIGHT RAISE THE QUESTION, "Why are you allowing yourself alone to be implicated with the crimes committed by Titouah despite of Mr. Gueniot's absolute eventual culpability?" IN RETROSPECTION, MAY MOST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU TO PONDER UPON IT. Again,   And in my humble opinion consider showing manifestations of your intentions to withdraw from this conspiracy when you still have time. As of today, March 23, 2021 you have not shown any manifestations yet. It is to my understanding, whether you conform or not, the statute of limitations on "the year suit against us" shall be tolled as of the date of this email, March 23, 2021. Any objection to my understanding about this issue is expectedly to be written clearly, formally,  and comprehensively, citing credible reasons or explanations in the defense of your objection. Otherwise, my understanding of the "statute of limitations" clause shall be understood by both of us,  whether you agree or not, to have prevailed over your contentions. WE WOULD WANT TO NEGOTIATE THIS DISPUTE WITH STATE FARM IN GOOD FAITH UNTIL ALL  ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso PRECIOUS ARTICLE, "PENAL CODE 31-CALIFORNIA AIDING AND ABETTING LAWS" FROM SHOUSE CALIFORNIA LAW GROUP SHARED FROM :     https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/31/

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x MOMENTS ...5 :The Carrier’s Duty To Investigate DATED 21MAR21 sent 22MAR21 5:42AM

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x  MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 5 MARCH 20, 2021 GORDON LIU CLAIMS SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE  RE: Claim Number 55-06C6-44X        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 Date of Loss :  April 26, 2020 The Carrier’s Duty To Investigate DATED 21MAR21 Dear Mr. Liu, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY THROUGH THE WORDS OF AUTHORS WHO SHARED THIS PRECIOUS ARTICLE, "The Carrier's Duty To Investigate", TO CONVINCE MR. GUENIOT THAT HE IS MANDATED BY LAW TO INVESTIGATE THOROUGHLY ALL THE CLAIMS PRESENTED BEFORE HIM. IF HE EVER REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, HE WOULD BE SUBJECTING STATE FARM TO COSTLY PUNITIVE AND  COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND AS TO MY RESEARCH, MIGHT BE MORE THAN  ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ($100 MILLION) RIGHT NOW. NOW, THROUGH THE COURTESY OF  THE "ADVOCATE " MAGAZINE AND BENEVOLENCE OF THE AUTHORS, Mr. Michael L. Cohen and Ms. Heather M. Mckeon, proudly, I am showing that article below.  Again,   WE WOULD WANT TO NEGOTIATE THIS DISPUTE WITH STATE FARM IN GOOD FAITH UNTIL ALL  ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso The Carrier’s Duty To Investigate An insurer’s failure to completely investigate a claim is a crucial part of any bad-faith case Michael L. Cohen Heather M. McKeon   2015 August Michael L. Cohen  Michael L. Cohen is a principal at Cohen McKeon LLP. Cohen received his J.D. in 1992 from Harvard Law School, and was a member of the Harvard Law Review. He devotes a substantial part of the practice to representing policyholders in cases involving insurance coverage. Heather M. McKeon  Heather M. McKeon is a principal at Cohen McKeon LLP. McKeon graduated in 1996 with honors from Georgetown Law Center. She devotes a substantial part of the practice to representing policyholders in cases involving insurance coverage. Insurance carriers have a duty to investigate all claims. This duty is the same regardless of the kind of insurance at issue. This duty applies to first-party claims – that is, when a policyholder has submitted a claim to her insurance carrier, such as a claim under a homeowner’s policy or a disability policy. This duty also applies to third-party claims – that is, when a policyholder asks her liability carrier to provide her with a defense when she has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit. The duty to investigate is an affirmative duty. A carrier cannot simply sit back and wait for the insured to provide the information necessary to establish coverage. For instance, a carrier cannot request an insured to submit an estimate for a property claim. The carrier has the obligation to get its own as part of its on-going duty to investigate. The same is true for carriers investigating whether they are obligated to provide a defense to a lawsuit. In a third-party situation, a carrier has an affirmative obligation to find coverage even if it is not readily apparent from the allegations in the underlying complaint. A carrier’s failure to fully and completely investigate a claim at its submission can result in the imposition of bad-faith damages in a subsequent lawsuit. This is true even if coverage is eventually afforded, if the delay in payment can be linked to a carrier’s failure to immediately and fully investigate the claim. Accordingly, an insured should always focus on proving that a carrier did not fully investigate a claim in all bad-faith lawsuits. Full, fair and thorough investigation Insurance companies have the obligation to conduct a full, fair and thorough investigation of a claim. In every insurance policy there is an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing that neither the insurance company nor the insured will do anything to injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the agreement. (Comunale v. Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 654, 658; CACI 2332.) “Among the most critical factors bearing on the insurer’s good faith is the adequacy of its investigation of the claim.” (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Mktg., Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 879.) Indeed, insurance companies have “special obligations” to promptly investigate claims. (McCormick v. Sentinel Life Ins. Co. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1030, 1048.) If the insurance company fails to promptly investigate claims, usually within 40 days of receipt of notice of claim, it can be subject to liability in tort for bad faith. (Waller v. Truck Ins. Ex., Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 36; 10 C.C.R. § 2695.7(b).) Failure to investigate can constitute bad faith Failure to conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation can be the sole basis for a finding of bad faith. Because the duty to investigate is so critical, it is possible to win a bad-faith case simply by showing a lack of investigation. For an insurance company to fulfill its obligation of good faith and fair dealing, it must not impair the right of the insured to receive the benefits of the agreement, and must give at least as much consideration to the interests of the insured as it gives to its own interests. (Egan v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 818.) In other words, a one-sided investigation is not sufficient to meet the carrier’s obligation to investigate, because the carrier is not giving the interests of the insured the proper consideration. An example of a one-sided investigation would be if a carrier fails to interview all available witnesses. This is especially true if one of the ignored witnesses had information relevant to coverage, but the carrier refused to interview them. Because courts have placed such a high importance on a carrier’s duty to investigate, an insured’s ability to show that he told a carrier that a third-party witness had information bearing on coverage and the carrier ignored him, can be a very persuasive piece of evidence in a bad-faith case. As is true in every bad-faith case, the insured must show that the insurance company acted unreasonably or without proper cause in withholding benefits. (Egan, supra, 24 Cal.3d at 817.) An insurance company acts unreasonably or without proper cause if it fails to conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation of all the bases of the plaintiff’s claim. (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066.) Thus, a reasonable and proper investigation into the claims of the insured must always be full, fair, and thorough. (Ibid.) In fact, juries are properly instructed that a carrier must both diligently investigate a claim and look for evidence that supports coverage. (CACI 2332.) Specifically, CACI 2332 states that a: “Carrier acted unreasonably or without proper cause if it failed to conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation of all of the bases of the claim. When investigating plaintiff’s claim, carrier had a duty to diligently search for and consider evidence that supported coverage of the claimed loss.” The duty to investigate is the only obligation of a carrier that has its own bad-faith instruction. The other obligations are jointly listed in CACI 2337. This demonstrates the level of importance that California has placed on a carrier’s obligation to investigate. Failue to investigate defeats “genuine dispute” defense Failure to investigate can defeat the “genuine dispute” defense. When an insurance company chooses to deny coverage, yet a reasonable investigation would have brought forth facts evidencing that the claim was covered under the policy, the insurance company’s failure to investigate breaches its implied covenant. (Jordan, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1074.) If the carrier seeks to discover evidence that supports its position by relying only on one expert and ignoring the opinion of the insured’s expert, the insurance company cannot claim that there existed a genuine dispute regarding coverage. (Id. at 1066.) A common defense to a bad-faith case is the “genuine dispute” doctrine, which allows a carrier to seek summary adjudication of the bad faith cause of action if the carrier hires an independent expert to “investigate” the claim. However, if the carrier’s expert ignores evidence that supports the insured’s position or fails to explore all available evidence, then the carrier cannot rely on the expert, because the carrier has an independent duty to investigate. (Jordan, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1074.) Moreover, by failing to investigate, the insurance company has deprived itself of the ability to make a full and fair evaluation of the claim. (Ibid.) There can be no application of the “genuine dispute” defense without evidence of a fair and full investigation by the carrier. Investigate all grounds for coverage The insurance company must investigate all possible grounds for coverage. In order to perform a reasonable and proper investigation, insurance companies must also investigate all bases for the insured’s claim. (Egan, 24 Cal.3d at 819 [“to protect [an insured’s] interests it is essential that an insurer fully inquire into possible bases that might support the insured’s claim”].) California courts have held that in order to perform a reasonable and proper investigation, insurance companies should neither selectively choose which facts to investigate nor should they ignore contrary information which may support the insured’s claim. (Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, 720-21.) The California Supreme Court held that, “a trier of fact may find that an insurer acted unreasonably if the insurer ignores evidence available to it which supports the claim.” (Ibid.) Insurance companies must search for and consider evidence that supports coverage for the claim. Thus, insurance companies cannot close their eyes to evidence that supports coverage and focus solely on the evidence that denies coverage. Too narrow a focus of investigation? It is bad faith for a carrier to focus its investigation solely on evidence that might avoid or eliminate coverage. California courts have consistently held that insurance carriers may not exclusively focus on information and facts that provide evidence for the denial of a claim. (Wilson, at 721.) “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; Wilson, 42 Cal.4th at 721 [“the insurer may not just focus on those facts which justify denial of the claim”].) Moreover, an insurance carrier acts in bad faith not only when it fails to investigate, but when it puts its own interests above those of the insured. The insurance company cannot ignore evidence in support of the claim or elect to focus on just those facts it contends support denial. (Wilson, 42 Cal.4th at 721.) Insurance carriers cannot put restrictions on their adjusters that limit their ability to fully investigate a claim. Adjusters must be taught and trained by insurance carriers to look for coverage, not ways to defeat coverage. (See Downey Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1097-99.) In Downey, the insurance carrier had instructed its claims adjusters to focus on ways to defeat claims. The court held that the insurance company’s conduct placed their own interests above that of the insured, and awarded punitive damages. Conducting discovery into the training of claims adjusters is critical in proving a lack of investigation by the insurance carrier. For instance, if a claims adjuster is trained to try to reach an insured three times, but is allowed to record all three attempts within one hour, then you can prove that the insurance company is trying to create the illusion of an investigation without actually conducting one. Clearly, attempting to contact an insured, without any intention of actually interviewing the insured, is not a sufficient investigation. Another example of insurance carriers teaching their adjusters to create an illusion of an investigation without really conducting one, is a carrier requesting all of an injured party’s medical records without any intention of actually having a proper expert review them. Once you can pierce the illusion of an investigation by showing there was no real attempt to gather information, proving the bad-faith case becomes much easier. Evidence that might establish coverage A carrier must consider all evidence that might establish coverage. Denying a claim on a basis unfounded in the facts, or contradicted by facts known to the insurance company, is unreasonable. (Wilson, 42 Cal.4th at 721.) Once an insurance carrier is in possession of evidence that supports coverage, the carrier must act on that evidence. Therefore, any discovery in a bad- faith case should focus on creating timelines of the insurance company’s investigation. Questions should elicit responses showing when an insurance company knew a fact that supported coverage that the carrier ignored. In the alternative, if facts supporting coverage were discovered later, then the discovery should focus on proving how easy it would have been for the insurer to get access to the evidence supporting coverage. California courts have held that an insurance company can breach the covenant of good faith simply for objectively unreasonable conduct, regardless of the actor’s motive. (Bosetti v. United States Life Ins. Co. in City of N.Y. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1236.) In other words, a carrier’s failure to conduct a full and fair investigation does not have to be on the grounds that the carrier has ill will towards the insured, but simply because the carrier failed to properly review all of the records in its possession or interview all available witnesses. In fact, “if the insurer denies benefits unreasonably (i.e., without any reasonable basis for such denial), it may be exposed to the full array of tort remedies, including possible punitive damages.” (Jordan, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1073.) Therefore, a failure to investigate is sufficient to support a finding of punitive damages. There are only a couple of caveats to a carrier’s almost absolute duty to investigate. For example, the duty to perform a reasonable and proper investigation arises only after the insured has substantially complied in good faith with the policy’s notice provisions. (Cal. Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1, 57 [“without actual presentation of a claim by the insured in compliance with claims’ procedures contained in the policy, there is no duty imposed on the insurance company to investigate the claim”].) In other words, a carrier does not have an obligation to investigate a claim that it does not have knowledge of from the insured. However, the insurance company must acknowledge receipt of notice from the insured within 15 days and must begin its investigation within that 15-day period. (10 C.C.R. § 2695.5(b) & (e).) The insurance carrier must accept or deny the claim for coverage, either in whole or in part, within 40 days of notice. (10 C.C.R. § 2695.7(b).) Therefore, the insurance company is supposed to complete its investigation within 40 days, but this rarely happens and the carrier is allowed to extend the 40 days with notice to the insured that it is still investigating the claim. (10 C.C.R. § 2695.7(b).) But if the carrier continues its investigation for too long after the 40 days, an insured may be able to use that fact in a subsequent bad-faith case as evidence of intentional delay by the carrier. The second caveat is that the reasonableness of the insurance company’s decisions and actions must be evaluated based on the information that was available at the time the decision was made. (Jordan, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1063.) If a carrier could not legitimately have learned a crucial piece of information at the time it denied the claim, then it cannot be responsible for failing to conduct a full investigation. However, the carrier has an on-going obligation to its insureds, so once it is made aware of the information that affords coverage, the carrier has obligation to re-open the claim and its investigation. If the carrier refuses to re-open its investigation after being presented with evidence that potentially affords coverage, then the carrier has now breached its duty to investigate. Conclusion Carriers must conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation of all grounds for a claim. The failure to investigate is a crucial part of any bad-faith case. Courts have repeatedly found the failure to investigate not only supports a finding of bad faith but also punitive damages. An insurance company’s failure to investigate can be as obvious as not reviewing all records or interviewing all witnesses. However, sometimes more thorough discovery is needed to prove the lack of an investigation because the insurance company has successfully created an illusion of an investigation. Proving an insurance company’s failure to investigate should always be one of the main objectives of a bad-faith lawsuit

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 4 DATED 20MAR21 7:39PM

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x  MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 4 MARCH 20, 2021 GORDON LIU CLAIMS SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE  RE: Claim Number 55-06C6-44X        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 Date of Loss :  April 26, 2020 WHAT IF THE FBI FOLLOWS THE PATH OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN US? Dear Mr. Liu, While waiting for your responses on the following: 1. On the inquiry for the right person to negotiate pertaining to our claims, I prudently use these times for retrospection. 2. In our family, as we explore how our negotiations proceed,  think of seeing you personally in your office and kindly lead us to the direction going to your office and our request that we be endorsed to THE HEAD of your legal department. These requests are highlighted in my email to you dated March 18, 2021 shown next: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 3 DATED 18MAR21 With regards to the query, "What if the FBI follows the path of negotiation between us?", on this,  I wanted to most respectfully remind you, that if you decided to refuse to give assistance on 1 and 2 above, the FBI might see a couple of possibilities: a. Mr. Gueniot and you wanted these claim negotiations about my claim be secret among yourselves behind the scrutiny of upper management as there are anomalous transactions you wanted to be hidden from them. b. The FBI might find it that you have kept your silence in exchange for  probable unscrupulous considerations. If in case you had sold your silence, which I hope not, it might send a signal to the FBI to monitor your financial transactions where it might be hard for you to explain where those unexplainable assets came from. In other words, what is the use of having such wealth without the benefit of enjoying them. Today, a Saturday, again, may I humbly suggest for a bit of retrospection. And in my humble opinion consider showing manifestations of your intentions to withdraw from this conspiracy when you still have time. It is to my understanding, whether you conform or not, the statute of limitations on "the year suit against us" shall be tolled as of the date of this email, March 20, 2021. Again,   WE WOULD WANT TO NEGOTIATE THIS DISPUTE WITH STATE FARM IN GOOD FAITH UNTIL ALL  ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso REFERENCES :

STATE FARM DENIAL LETTERS COMPILATION

MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 1 DATED 13MAR21 8:41AM

MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 2 DATED 17MAR21 8:52AM

MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 3 DATED 18MAR21

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 3 DATED 18MAR21 12:19 AM

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x  MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 3 MARCH 18, 2021 GORDON LIU CLAIMS SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE  RE: Claim Number 55-06C6-44X        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 Date of Loss :  April 26, 2020 REQUEST FOR A CONFIDENTIAL PERSONAL MEETING Dear Mr. Liu, While waiting for your response on the inquiry for the right person to negotiate pertaining to our claims, I prudently use these times for retrospection. Our family, as we explore how our negotiations proceed,  think of seeing you personally in your office and kindly lead us to the direction going to your office. And below are some of our concerns to discuss with you personally in addition to a request that we be endorsed to THE HEAD of your legal department. May I most humbly and respectfully inform you candid reflections on the patterns on behavior of your team manager, Mr. Gueniot : Observe closely the pattern of behavior of Mr. Gueniot. 1. I have a claim on vandalism filed on November 7, 2020 seeking  assistance for filing for damages caused by vandalism committed by Titouah. Claim Number 55-06c6-44x CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY VANDALISM DATED 7NOV20 10:23AM ASSISTANCE REQUEST FOR FILING CLAIM FOR DAMAGES  CAUSED BY VANDALISM COMMITTED BY TITOUAH   2.  Then our discussion or negotiation ensues. The dictionary from the web defined negotiation as, "discussion to reach an agreement". It is clear with this evidence record of email communications that Mr. Gueniot and I started negotiations, discussions to reach an agreement about this claim on vandalism. And next is his response. STATE FARM RESPONSE ON WATER DAMAGES (VANDALISM) DATED 13NOV20 7:42AM (TAKEN FROM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 53. EXCAVATING A PORTION OF THE CONCRETE TO SEARCH FOR THE LEAK IN A SUPPLY LINE TO "FIX IT" IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.........as he wrote it. 3.  Then our negotiation continues where I am asking Mr. Gueniot clarifications and asking him to explain what he meant.  And next is my email pertaining to it: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x VANDALISM BY TITOUAH DATED 14NOV20 12:27PM  PLEASE EXPLAIN  "John Titouah excavating a portion of the concrete to search for the leak in a supply line to "fix it" is not an accident, and is not vandalism to personal property.....", 4.  Then our negotiation continues where Mr. Gueniot is unable to write clarifications and I want to clear up matters for him and so I explain the issue for him in my objective point of view. And next is my email pertaining to it: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x VANDALISM BY TITOUH DATED 17NOV20 7:37AM I DISCUSS RE: GUENIOT UNABLE TO EXPLAIN "John Titouah excavating a portion of the concrete to search for the leak in a supply line to "fix it" is not an accident, and is not vandalism to personal property.....", Please read these  items 1 through 4, in between the lines, Mr. Liu. The fact there is a claim of vandalism, in the time when Mr. Gueniot is the person in charge to decide and issue the formal  Letter of Approval or Denial to it, he ignored or renegaded on his mandated obligation. And worse, despite this ever continuing negotiations about our claims up to this present time, he kept on harking, there are no negotiations, the claim file remains closed, etc.  wanting me stop the discovery efforts I am exerting to avoid his expectedly exposure to beyond reasonable doubt culpability. As there are negotiations still raging on,  the "one year suit against us" limitation is consequently, shall be tolled as to the date of this email, November 17, 2020, in that particular time. Then, as months passed by, it consequently shall be moved farther to the date of this email, March 18, 2021, today.  This fact Mr. Liu vividly showed that he intentionally wanted to derail the negotiation process to avoid his involvement with the crimes committed by Titouah to avoid culpability and limit the span of the negotiations up to your level only where he religiously maintained the "one year suit against us" statute of limitations be tolled to June 12, 2020 and worse he moved it maliciously, intentionally closer, May 20, 2021 on his email dated March 15, 2021 paragraph 7, last sentence, AND PLEASE NOTE,  to make it really quick AND earlier to escape. CLEARLY MR. LIU, HE ABSOLUTELY AND INTENTIONALLY, AND DELIBERATELY WANTED TO QUICKLY LEAVE YOU BEHIND. AGAIN: May I most humbly and respectfully inform you that there are eight (8) existing denial letters. These letters dated  MAY 6, 2020, JUNE 12, 2020, JULY 13, 2020,  JULY 17, 2020 ,JULY 31, 2020, AUGUST 14, 2020, AUGUST 21, 2020,  AUGUST 25, 2020.  You will notice that all these eight (8) letters of denial are written and signed by only you. No one but only you.  You can not find any signature anywhere in those denial letters, even an initial by Mr. Gueniot. Therefore, on record it is only you who can be held liable, responsible and accountable on the circumstances stated in those documents. Mr. Gueniot is a mile away to be implicated on whatever is written on them  because he is just quoting what you have written.  That is the reason why he did not want to write any denial letter and merely rely on the information you had provided to him and denial letters you have written.  He knew well if he ever wrote one and adopted expressly as if they were his own,  all the information you provided him and signed it, he would be implicated together with you and he being your team leader would appear most guilty. He merely wanted to save himself leaving you behind. Please think about it. Analyze the inappropriate responses he had written. Those were just templates of general, baseless untenable statements of denials. Then In retrospection, you will realize based in those eight (8) denial letters, it is only you who participated in partnership with Titouah to act beneficial to your interest as evidenced by your written admission of talking to Titouah, many times, extensively, viewing the live video presentation by Titouah and receiving his written report. It is you who wrote that it doesn't matter who plumber to interview, who they work for, how much he charged impliedly admitting that it is you who solicited the services of Titouah and paid for it and deemed conspired with Titouah performed his criminal act for your own interest and clearly showed a business partnership with him.  These are documentary direct evidence of your involvement in the crimes committed by Titouah whereas, as I see it,  in the case of Mr. Gueniot,  it might be just circumstantial, thus he might appear least guilty among the three of you as to the criminal liability is concerned and probably be acquitted for insufficiency of evidence and I think Mr. Gueniot will just point unto you absolutely, as the lone co-conspirator and deny all accusations leveled against him about the crimes committed by Titouah.  However, Mr. Gueniot appears the  most guilty as to bad faith claims against State Farm are taken into consideration but for sure he is free from serving prison terms unlike you who most likely to suffer incarceration aside from losing your job as well as your valuable retirement benefits and most of all your honor and dignity.  Think of your family if ever these nightmares happened to you. In retrospection, please ponder upon it. This is the reason behind sending you this email on a Saturday so you may have time to think deeply about it. Kindly review the email dated September 1, 2020 for deeper retrospection. Words to remember that day are "neck and chopping block". I know you are just doing acts instructed to you. How do I know it? Because if your acts are of your own you must have been reprimanded. However, I believe you must have evidence to prove that what you have written and done are exactly direct and express instructions from Mr. Gueniot. And in my humble opinion consider showing manifestations of your intentions to withdraw from this conspiracy when you still have time. Again,   WE WOULD WANT TO NEGOTIATE THIS DISPUTE WITH STATE FARM IN GOOD FAITH UNTIL ALL  ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso REFERENCES :

STATE FARM DENIAL LETTERS COMPILATION