Product: Credit card or prepaid card

Everything you are about to read pertains to a dispute filed with the dispute center of Citibank , N.A . The dispute case involves a solitary transaction that is directly related to the business entity known as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXfor short and is part of XXXX bilking scheme as it is detailed in the FTCs complaint document. The transaction date of this transaction is XX/XX/XXXX and the amount is {$8300.00}. The case number of the dispute is XXXX. 

Additionally, the transaction being disputed is the result of a good-faith purchase of a service from a merchantXXXXthat was not provided prior to XXXX being shut down by the federal court system on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission and now can not ever be provided by the merchant. Pursuant to that reality, I feel that I am justly entitled to a full refund of the purchase price of the service that was not provided. 

For your convenience in helping me get this dispute case resolved in my favor, a brief timeline of events between myself and the banking entitys dispute center is documented below. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed a letter to the dispute center of Citibank , N.A . to get my dispute case ( XXXX ) reopened because it had been inadvertently given the wrong classification when the case was originally disputed in early XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from the dispute center informing me that my dispute case had been reopened and was now under review. The dispute initiation date that they assigned to my case was XXXX. 

Also on XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from the dispute center requesting additional information. And, via email response, I provided the requested information on that same day. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from the dispute center acknowledging that they had received my emailed response to their XX/XX/XXXX email requesting additional information. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a second email from the dispute center requesting additional information. And, via email response, I provided the requested information on that same day. 

Also on XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from the dispute center acknowledging that they had received my emailed response to their XX/XX/XXXX email requesting additional information. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from the dispute center informing me that they had contacted the merchant regarding my dispute case and were allowing the merchant until XXXX to respond. The XX/XX/XXXX deadline date was derived by taking the dispute initiation date ( XXXX ) and advancing it forward by 91 days. 

Of note here is thatbased on my dealings with other banking entitiesthis variety of email is received when the dispute center considers the case to be essentially closed and ruled in my favor and that the X-day response period given to the merchant is only a following-protocol formality due to the dispute center knowing that theyregarding this particular merchantcannot and will not hear back from the merchant. 

Also on XX/XX/XXXX a temporary credit of {$8300.00} was issued to my account. This action reduced the present outstanding balance from {$7400.00} to a negativeor creditamount of {$960.00}. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from the dispute center informing me that they had been contacted by the merchant ; that they were reviewing the information that the merchant had provided ; and that they would let me know the details of what the merchant had provided within 10 business days with the first of those 10 business days beginning on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Of note here is that pursuant to the indefinite-duration Preliminary Injunction in effect against the merchantXXXXever since XX/XX/XXXX is that it is not possible for any dispute center to have heard from the merchantor XXXX. For proof of this communication impossibility, please visit the website provided below and click on Revised Stipulated Preliminary Injunction on the leftward region of your screen. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX Also of note here is that considering the number of dispute cases the dispute center has been working on since and prior to XX/XX/XXXX, the dispute center should know by now that it is impossible for them to have received any variety of communication from the merchantXXXXand that any documentation received from any entity claiming to be the merchantXXXXshould be summarily dismissed as bogus and illegitimate and resultantly not taken into consideration while reviewing any dispute case. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from the dispute center providing me with the information received from the alleged merchant. This information took the form of a XXXX XXXX document that was an attachment to the message portion of the XX/XX/XXXX email. For this documents content, please see Attachment CB_ATCH_D. 

Of note here, is that this information from the alleged merchant was delivered to me 22 days after the receipt of the XX/XX/XXXX email received from the dispute center instead of being received within the 10-business-day window specified in the dispute centers XX/XX/XXXX email. 

Also on XX/XX/XXXX, I responded to the dispute centers XX/XX/XXXX email with an email which rebuked the contents of the document received by the alleged merchant and went on to further validate my dispute case. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from the dispute center acknowledging that they had received my emailed response to their XX/XX/XXXX email which rebuked the contents of the document received by the alleged merchant and went on to further validate my dispute case. 

Of note here is that the dispute centers receiving of information from the alleged merchant and their receiving of my XX/XX/XXXX rebuttal email response had no impact on the dispute case initiation date of XXXX whichin turnshould have allowed no impact on the XXXX date in which my temporary credit was scheduled to become permanent in harmony with my dispute case becoming closed in my favor. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, my temporary credit was reversed and my outstanding balance was restored to XXXX. 

Of note here is that considering the reality of the impossibility of the dispute center having heard from the genuine merchant and the commonsense reality that the document received from the alleged merchant should have been summarily dismissed as being bogus and illegitimate, I feel that the dispute centers action on XX/XX/XXXX constitutes an unfair billing and business practice. 

Also on XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the dispute center via telephone regarding the reversal of my temporary credit. During the telephone conversation, I was told that the temporary credit would eventually be reissued to my account and that the original case closure date of XXXX would be pushed forward another 90 days to some point in time in XX/XX/XXXX. 

Of note here is that again considering the reality of the impossibility of the dispute center having heard from the genuine merchant and the commonsense reality that the document received from the alleged merchant should have been summarily dismissed as being bogus and illegitimate, I feel that the dispute centers action on XX/XX/XXXX and what I was told by the dispute center via telephone conversation on that same day constitutes an unfair billing and business practice. 

For your convenience in helping me get this dispute case resolved in my favor as it was scheduled to do on XX/XX/XXXX, I am including seven attachments which are named and described below. 

CB_ATCH_A is a copy of the XX/XX/XXXX email I received from the dispute center informing me that they had contacted the merchant and had given the merchant until XX/XX/XXXX to respond. 

CB_ATCH_B is a copy of the XX/XX/XXXX email I received from the dispute center informing me that they had received contact from the merchant and would be sending me the merchants response within 10 business days. 

CB_ATCH_C is a copy of the XX/XX/XXXX email I received from the dispute center which contained the attached XXXX XXXX document received from the merchant. 

CB_ATCH_D is a copy of the actual XXXX XXXX document that was attached to the XX/XX/XXXX email I received from the dispute center. 

CB_ATCH_E is a version of CB_ATCH_D that I transitioned into a XXXX XXXX document and increased the font size to make the contents of CB_ATCH_D more easily read. Please note that the increasing of the font size was the only change made to the contents of CB_ATCH_D. 

CB_ATCH_F is a copy of my email response to the XX/XX/XXXX email I received from the dispute center. 

CB_ATCH_G is a copy of the email received from the dispute center acknowledging the receipt of my email response to the XX/XX/XXXX email I received from the dispute center. 

Also for your convenience in helping me get this dispute case resolved in my favor as it was scheduled to do on XX/XX/XXXX, my issue with this particular banking entity and its dispute center is summarized below. 

Even just a quick visual analysis of the contents of Attachment CB_ATCH_D reveals numerous elements. 

1. The document was not composed upon the merchants logo-bearing stationary. 

2. The document possesses no date specifying when the document was composed. 

3. The document possesses no address identifying from where the document was mailed. 

4. The document possesses no telephone number to be used as evidence that the document was faxed rather than mailed to the dispute center. 

5. The document possesses no name indicating the identity of who composed the document. 

6. The document contains verbiage professing that I made statements about the transaction being disputed which I never uttered either vocally or in writing to the dispute center. 

7. The latter portion of the documents last paragraph possesses such poor and flawed wording as to be unintelligible overall and certainly paints a clear picture that the document was not composed and released by any genuine merchant. For, if the document had been composed and released by any genuine merchant, the writing would be professional, error-free, and easily readable. 

8. The documents verbiage contains the wrong date regarding when my association with the merchant began. If the document were legitimate, the accurate date of when my association with the merchant began would have been utilized. 

9. The existence of a document-building computer-systems database node number ( XXXX ) in place just above the leftward region of the documents first paragraph. 

Given the aforementioned elementsespecially elements 1 through 7I find it most disturbing that the dispute center would be gullible and unknowing enough to accept such a document as being legitimate and as having been received from the merchant when the document should have been summarily dismissed as being bogus and illegitimate as it pertains to my dispute case because the document could have been generated by anyone having access to a word-processor program and the internet. 

Additionally, the documentas it is described abovewould not be admissible as evidence in a court of law. Instead, the document would be summarily dismissed due to the realities that it possesses no direct identifying ties back to the merchant and that it could have been generated by anyone having access to a word-processor program and the internet. 

With respect to what you have just read, the dispute center should not have allowed this visibly obvious bogus and illegitimate document to have any impact on my dispute case. And, the reality that the dispute center did allow this visibly obvious bogus and illegitimate document to have an impact on my dispute case is an action that I feel constitutes an unfair business practice. 

Grossly more disturbing is thatconsidering the number of XXXX-related dispute cases that the dispute center is working onit is conceivable that the dispute centerperhaps under the orders of an upper-echelon member of the banking entitys managementcreated the document used against my dispute case of its own accord and for the deliberate purpose of delaying and impeding the progress of my dispute case toward permanent resolution in my favor that is scheduled to take place on XXXX. Such an act would constitute both an unfair and an illegal business practice, neither of which would be tolerated in a court of law. 

Am I accusing the dispute center of having done what is expressed in the preceding paragraph? No, I am notat least not presently. However, the possibility of the dispute center having done what is expressed in the preceding paragraph does provide a plausible explanation as to why the document used to delay and impede the progress of my dispute case contains no evidence whatsoever at all that directly links the document to the merchant who supposedly created it and delivered it to the dispute center. 

Even now, running virulently rampant on XXXX and other social media platforms are rumors of this banking entitys dispute center self-creating reasons to deny perfectly valid and well-documented dispute cases when those cases come within a certain number of days of being permanently resolved in the card-holders favor. I usually do not put much stock in rumors. However, considering how my dispute case has been affected by the dispute centers actions and the visibly obvious bogus and illegitimate document used to spawn those actions, perhaps those rumors are not without certain amounts of merit and truthfulness. 

With respect to what you have just read, if I had any say in how the banking entity operates, I would devote significantly less time endeavoring to acquire reasons to deny perfectly valid and well-documented dispute cases in favor of devoting significantly more time in the arenas of damage control and public relations so as to avoid the potential loss of present and future banking customers, the potential loss of present and future business-entity investors, the potential loss of present and future credit-card holders, and also to prevent legal action against the banking entity itself from making the transition from probable to imminent. 

In closing, let me state that I am not a malicious and greedy person. I am only seeking for myself and my dispute case to be treated fairly. 

Allow me to also state that I am doing everything I can to keep this case out of a courtroom. And, to that end, cooperation from the banking entityfor its own sakewould be appreciated.