Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

* XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SERVICES ADDRESS XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX WHICH ON MY CREDIT REPORTING PROFILE XXXX XXXX SERVICES ADDRESS IS NOT ACCURATE- IT IS MY BELIEF AND INFORMATION THAT THIS XXXX XXXX  ORDER AND DEMAND FOR PAYMENT IS A RUSH TO JUDGMENT INTO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND BOTH ARE A VIOLATION ON MY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS. PLEASE VALIDATE THIS CLAIMED SIGNED BY A MAN OR WOMAN UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. 
BY : XXXX : XXXX FOR : XXXX XXXX XXXX ATTORNEY IN FACT XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX OF XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Family Code Section XXXX ( a ) The mother of an unemancipated minor child and the XXXX, if presumed to be the father under Section XXXX, are equally entitled to the custody of the child. 

THIS PROVISION CLEARLY STATED MOTHER AND FATHER OF A CHILD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. NOTHING IN THIS PROVISION SAID COSTODIAL PARENT, VISITATION, OR THE MOTHER HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THE FATHER OR VICE VERSA IT SAID EQUAL RIGHTS. 

CIVILIAN DUE PROCESS WAS NEVER GIVEN TO ME, A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING WAS NOT OFFER, ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DOES NOT SUPERSEDES A JUDICIAL ORDER WHICH IS A VIOLATION TO MY XXXX AMENDMENT PROTECTRD RIGHT. 

I ALSO HAVE TO THE RIGHT TO FACE MY ACCUSER IF I INJURE OR HARM SOME ONE. I AM BEING LIABLE FOR AN XXXX CRIME I NEVER COMMITTED BECAUSE THERE IS NO VICTIM. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. SECTION XXXX - THE COURT FIND THAT THE XXXX IS XXXX 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) BLESSING, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX 

XXXX TO THE UNITED STATES XXXX XXXX XXXX FOR THE XXXX XXXX  No. XXXX. Argued XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Respondents, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX children are eligible for state XXXX XXXX  services under Title XXXX -D of the Social Security XXXX, filed this XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX against XXXX, the XXXX of the state XXXX XXXX XXXX  claiming, among other things, that they properly applied for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that, despite their good faith efforts to cooperate, the agency never took adequate steps to obtain child support payments for them ; that these omissions were largely attributable to staff shortages and other structural defects in the State 's program ; and that these systemic failures violated their individual rights under Title IV-D to have all mandated services delivered in substantial compliance with the title and its implementing regulations. They requested broad relief, including a declaratory judgment that the Arizona program 's operation violates Title XXXX XXXX  provisions creating rights in them that are enforceable through a XXXX action, and an injunction requiring the XXXX to achieve substantial compliance with Title XXXX  throughout all programmatic operations. The XXXX XXXX granted summary judgment for petitioner, but the XXXX XXXX reversed. Without distinguishing among the numerous provisions of the complex XXXX XXXX program or the many rights those provisions might have created, the latter court held that respondents had an enforceable individual right to have the XXXX achieve " substantial compliance '' with XXXX XXXX. It also disagreed with the XXXX XXXX 's conclusion that XXXX had foreclosed private Title IV-D enforcement actions by authorizing the XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) to audit and cut off funds to States whose programs do not substantially comply with Title XXXX XXXX  requirements. 

Held : XXXX XXXX does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

( a ) A plaintiff seeking XXXX redress must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely of federal law. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX principal factors determine whether a statutory provision creates a privately enforceable right : ( XXXX ) whether the plaintiff is an intended beneficiary of the statute ; ( XXXX ) whether the plaintiff 's asserted interests are not so vague and amor- XXXX XXXX XXXX as to be beyond the competence of the judiciary to enforce ; and ( XXXX ) whether the statute imposes a binding obligation on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Even if a plaintiff demonstrates such a right, however, there is only a rebuttable presumption that it is enforceable under XXXX. Dismissal is proper if XXXX specifically foreclosed a XXXX remedy, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, either expressly, by forbidding recourse to XXXX in the statute itself, or impliedly, by creating a comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual XXXX enforcement, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX pp. XXXX. 

( b ) Respondents have not established that XXXX XXXX gives them individually enforceable federal rights. In prior cases, the XXXX has been able to determine whether or not a statute created such rights because the plaintiffs articulated, and lower courts evaluated, welldefined claims. See, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Here, respondents have not identified with particularity the rights they claim, and the XXXX XXXX has not engaged in the requisite methodical inquiry. That court erred in apparently holding that individuals have an enforceable right to " substantial compliance '' with XXXX XXXX in all respects. The statutory " substantial compliance '' requirement, see, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX XXXX, Supp. XXXX ), does not give rise to individual rights ; it was not intended to benefit individual children and custodial parents, but is simply a yardstick for the XXXX to measure the systemwide performance of a XXXX 's XXXX XXXX program, allowing her to increase the frequency of audits and reduce the XXXX 's federal XXXX upon a finding of substantial noncompliance. The XXXX XXXX XXXX also erred in taking a blanket approach to determining whether XXXX XXXX creates rights : It is readily apparent that many of the provisions of that multifaceted statutory scheme, including its " substantial compliance '' standard and data processing, staffing, and organizational requirements, do not fit any of the traditional criteria for identifying statutory rights. Although this XXXX does not foreclose the possibility that some Title IV-D provisions give rise to individual rights, the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX not separate out the particular rights it believed arise from the statutory scheme, the complaint is less than clear in this regard, and it is not certain whether respondents sought any relief more specific than a declaration that their " rights '' were being violated and an injunction forcing petitioner to " substantially comply '' with all of Title XXXX XXXX  provisions. This defect is best addressed by sending the case back for the XXXX XXXX to construe the complaint in the first instance, in order to determine exactly what rights, considered in their most concrete, specific form, respondents are asserting. Only by manageably breaking down the XXXX Full Text of Opinion Show Less Opinions Opinions & Dissents Hear Opinion Announcement - XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX TO THE UNITED STATES XXXX XXXX XXXX FOR THE XXXX XXXX No. XXXX. Argued XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Respondents, XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX children are eligible for state XXXX XXXX  services under Title XXXX -D of the Social Security XXXX, filed this XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX against XXXX, the XXXX of the state XXXX XXXX  agency, claiming, among other things, that they properly applied for cXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that, despite their good faith efforts to cooperate, the agency never took adequate steps to obtain XXXX XXXX  payments for them ; that these omissions were largely attributable to staff shortages and other structural defects in the State 's program ; and that these systemic failures violated their individual rights under Title XXXX to have all mandated services delivered in substantial compliance with the title and its implementing regulations. They requested broad relief, including a declaratory judgment that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  provisions creating rights in them that are enforceable through a XXXX action, and an injunction requiring the XXXX to achieve substantial compliance with Title XXXX throughout all programmatic operations. The XXXX XXXX granted summary judgment for petitioner, but the XXXX XXXX reversed. Without distinguishing among the numerous provisions of the complex XXXX XXXX program or the many rights those provisions might have created, the latter court held that respondents had an enforceable individual right to have the XXXX achieve " substantial compliance '' with XXXX XXXX. It also disagreed with the XXXX XXXX 's conclusion that XXXX had foreclosed private Title XXXX  enforcement actions by authorizing the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) to audit and cut off funds to States whose programs do not substantially comply with Title IV-D 's requirements. 
Held : XXXX XXXX does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX BEEN DEFRAUDING ME SINCE XXXX. XXXX XXXX BANK ACCOUNT, GARNISHING MY WAGES, ENFORCE HOLD ON MY LIFE XXXX DRIVERS LICENSE AND PASSPORT WITHOUT MY CONSENT. I DO NOT WISH TO VOLUNTARILY BE APART OF NO XXXX XXXX XXXX CASE IN MY ALL CAP NAME XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
THIS IS XXXX  FRAUD