your response didn’t even try. was this like—quasi pro bono?

was this paid work?
(aka exhibit a in why i had to sue,
straight out of their own emails)

exhibit a: the “yo katie, stfu”
they really filed: “no legal duty.”
meanwhile the emails i attached
in the goddamn complaint
(files, jan 2025–jun 2025)
show denver compliance
snatching my file on 6/18/25 +
literally telling my advisor
not to respond.
and their own answer admits:
my advisor was/ is
the servicing rep,
and i own + pay
the current child policy.

you don’t get to
cut out my direct line,
seize control,
admit you’re on the call—
then file
“we weren’t even here.”
my attachments
already ate
that contradiction
alive.

??

exhibit b: the bill
their answer claims
“reasonable administration.”
but the files
already show
payment drafts +
hidden beneficiary changes
reminders in jan–feb 2025,
while i was locked out
of my account +
then routed away
from my advisor.

reasonable where?
my exhibits
literally prove
they were charging
the card
while blocking the door.
that’s not administration,
that’s extortion babe.

exhibit c: the shield
their favorite line:
“independent contractor.”
in our corporate logo polos.
LMFAO.
except the exhibits
i filed prove
network-office affiliation,
compliance directives,
and routing through corporate.

that’s control.
not independent,
not freelance,
not fucking cute.
courts call it
“apparent agency.”
i call it:
puppet strings
in a bad business suit.

closing argument:
the files already answered
the questions
they’re pretending
don’t exist.
they controlled the channel.
they billed the account.
they managed the file.

now they want to
shrug “no duty”? lol.
babe,
the contradiction
is already in evidence.
and it’s civil court,
not open mic night
bad insurance satire edition.

✶ commentary based
on their filed answer (8/29/25) +
my own files (complaint + exhibits).