✶ mini-series: civil conspiracy edition 🧌✨ pt. 6 “independent?”🕊️ she was nm’s goblin-on-a-leash
burnbook mini-series ✶ civil conspiracy edition
part 6 ✶ goblin on a leash: an outline of employment 🧌⛓️✨
aka: wait so like—“independent contractor” my fucking ass
—
welcome to your
“independent” career,
hope you like—
scripts,
quotas,
and corporate surveillance.
✨🧌💫
the outline of
a malevolent insurance goblin
under
complete💫
company control.
i. statutory presumption — colorado says “employee first”
★ c.r.s. § 8-70-115 makes it crystal:
every worker is presumed an employee. 💫
nm only flips that presumption if it proves
(1) the worker is free from control, and
(2) the worker is actually running an independent trade.
babe, the cubicle goblin 🧌✨ was in training,
apparently—not even fully licensed.
she literally could not transact outside nm’s walls.
that’s not an “independent trade,” 🧌💳✨
that’s fucking daycare.
—
ii. woloson precedent — stockbrokers ≈ nm reps
★ in woloson v. icao,
the colorado courts held stockbrokers
were employees because they couldn’t transact
outside their broker-dealer. ✨😩🧌🖇️✨
★ cubicle goblin 🧌✨ was the same:
➝ no license without nm endorsement.
➝ no clients outside nm’s crm. leash: tight. ⛓️✨
➝ subject to nm’s discipline; when shit got awkward? yank.
➝ if woloson = employment, then goblin = employment. period.
—
iii. walfish (d.n.j. 2019) ≠ this case ✨
★ nm will wave around walfish like a get-out-of-liability free card. but nah.
★ that was new jersey, under the abc test, ✨🏠🧑💻💸
with facts like: home offices, flexible schedules, reps paying costs.
aka: seems like none of these fuckers were independent lmfao.
★ here?
➝ colorado’s totality + presumption test.
➝ nm compliance wasn’t “just regulatory,” ✨
it was operational control: compliance telling new fraudgirl rep
not to answer me, corp locking portals, docs fucking vanishing.
➝ goblin 🧌 sat in mandatory onboarding, office mornings, denver briefs.
➝ and again: training status, not a fucking OG producer.
🧌💻✨
—
iv. agency law still nails nm
★ even if nm gaslights the court with
the “ic” label, colorado agency law says:
if you put an agent in position to commit fraud, ✨
you eat the liability. 💫👏⚖️
(grease monkey v. montoya, restatement §§ 261–62).
★ cubicle goblin 🧌✨ was literally my financial rep of record.
the “face of nm” on my policies. nm owns that.
—
v. deceptive trade practices — consumer protection ✨
★ nm markets reps as “be your own business.” in reality?
➝ mandatory meetings,
➝ compliance gags,
➝ exclusive platform control,
➝ unilateral removal powers.
➝ that’s a bait-and-switch…
—actionable💫 under the
colorado consumer protection act (§ 6-1-105).
👏⚖️✨
✶
in essence—
nm wants the benefits
of total control 💫✨
with none of the liability.
✨🐷💰🤑
sorry babes,
colorado law✨
doesn’t let you
eat your cake,
choke your reps,
and then
ditch the fucking bill.
✨😩💰
✶
and when
the goblin 🧌✨
on your leash
bites a client?
sweetie—
the handler gets sued.
💫
