I believe I have hinted at my enjoyment of mocking bad attorneys who are representing my adversaries. In the Cookman case, my schooling of them led to two attorneys being fired by the school (their in-house/on-campus counsel, then the outside counsel they hired after they fired her). In another case, while going back-and-forth in a factual disagreement with the defendant's attorney (I proved him wrong in front of his staff), I sent all of the parties on the email old pictures of the attorney posing in a speedo and flexing while he was pursuing a professional bodybuilding career. I asked the defendants "is this the guy you really want representing you in a case with this much financial repercussions"? That attorney was dropped off the case due to "his disdain for you not allowing him to do his job properly."
Yesterday, I had some fun with the legal counsel for Liberty Mutual. As I mentioned before, two years ago, I hired a company to install a washer/dryer unit in a rental property that I own. The techs neglected to turn off the water (a basic. common sense move anytime you're working on or near water pipes). While installing the unit, they "clipped" a water pipe causing flooding and damage. I still remember where I was when the tech frantically called me asking for help; I was in a Seattle hotel eating breakfast. I was polite to him about the mistake, he assured me their insurance would cover it, etc. It required moving my tenants out, paying for their hotel for a week, a lot of my time, and substantial damages out of my pocket to fix things. Even though the owner of the company, in writing, said their insurance company (Liberty Mutual) would pay for it, they denied the claim. They denied it due to "inadequate building material and/or age of the building." The building was about seven years old and the material was standard and widely accepted/used piping. The claims adjuster didn't even know what material was used nor the age of the building but just denied it with hopes that I didn't have the motivation to pursue it legally, which is an ethical violation of the insurance company.
Fast forward two years when I had time to pursue it legally . . . after filing suit, Liberty Mutual's legal team got involved. I represented myself. Liberty Mutual agreed to pay a five-figure settlement to me. After that check cleared, I filed a request to dismiss with prejudice to the court, which they approved. I also signed and returned a release to Liberty Mutual. More than a month later, that same Liberty Mutual law team reached out to me wanting to waste more of my time for things that had already been done, and the fun began. They have asked twice for me to sign a document requesting the court to dismiss the case with prejudice (even though that was finalized more than a month ago) and sign a release even though I signed and returned a release many weeks ago. Even after explaining that to them, the legal secretary continues to hound me about it. Note, one of their attorneys is named "Ryan," so don't be confused by that:
Their firm requests me to sign three documents, all of which are for processes that have already been finalized:
I explain this to them:
The attorney agrees that two have been finalized and I only need to sign one of the three documents they had just asked me to sign all three of.
I then don't respond to signing the other document, since again, that was signed and sent to them weeks ago. Their legal secretary sends a follow-up email asking me to sign the documents (which their own attorney said that two of didn't need to be signed since I already filed with the court):
I explain this to their legal secretary:
She responds that I never sent her the signed documents (no shit, because they were already sent to the court, and the court already executed what was asked and closed the case):
I then become a little bit more with the mocking:
Their attorney responds with bogus claims:
I then added their managing partner into the email chain:
Yesterday, I had some fun with the legal counsel for Liberty Mutual. As I mentioned before, two years ago, I hired a company to install a washer/dryer unit in a rental property that I own. The techs neglected to turn off the water (a basic. common sense move anytime you're working on or near water pipes). While installing the unit, they "clipped" a water pipe causing flooding and damage. I still remember where I was when the tech frantically called me asking for help; I was in a Seattle hotel eating breakfast. I was polite to him about the mistake, he assured me their insurance would cover it, etc. It required moving my tenants out, paying for their hotel for a week, a lot of my time, and substantial damages out of my pocket to fix things. Even though the owner of the company, in writing, said their insurance company (Liberty Mutual) would pay for it, they denied the claim. They denied it due to "inadequate building material and/or age of the building." The building was about seven years old and the material was standard and widely accepted/used piping. The claims adjuster didn't even know what material was used nor the age of the building but just denied it with hopes that I didn't have the motivation to pursue it legally, which is an ethical violation of the insurance company.
Fast forward two years when I had time to pursue it legally . . . after filing suit, Liberty Mutual's legal team got involved. I represented myself. Liberty Mutual agreed to pay a five-figure settlement to me. After that check cleared, I filed a request to dismiss with prejudice to the court, which they approved. I also signed and returned a release to Liberty Mutual. More than a month later, that same Liberty Mutual law team reached out to me wanting to waste more of my time for things that had already been done, and the fun began. They have asked twice for me to sign a document requesting the court to dismiss the case with prejudice (even though that was finalized more than a month ago) and sign a release even though I signed and returned a release many weeks ago. Even after explaining that to them, the legal secretary continues to hound me about it. Note, one of their attorneys is named "Ryan," so don't be confused by that:
Their firm requests me to sign three documents, all of which are for processes that have already been finalized:
I explain this to them:
The attorney agrees that two have been finalized and I only need to sign one of the three documents they had just asked me to sign all three of.
I then don't respond to signing the other document, since again, that was signed and sent to them weeks ago. Their legal secretary sends a follow-up email asking me to sign the documents (which their own attorney said that two of didn't need to be signed since I already filed with the court):
I explain this to their legal secretary:
She responds that I never sent her the signed documents (no shit, because they were already sent to the court, and the court already executed what was asked and closed the case):
I then become a little bit more with the mocking:
Their attorney responds with bogus claims:
I then added their managing partner into the email chain:
