Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Unconditional Demand for Immediate, Complete Deletion of Fraudulent Account from All Credit Reports Based on Federal Statutory Violations , Legal Penalties, Binding Case Law, and Inviolable Doctrinal Standards from Canon Law , A Treatise on Suits in Chancery, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, and the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX FTC Identity Theft Report Number : XXXX To XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Privacy Compliance Department and all responsible parties : This letter is a firm and irrevocable demand for the immediate, permanent deletion and complete removal of all information regarding a fraudulent charged-off account linked to my : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from my credit reports with XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion XXXX The continued presence of this account on my credit profiledespite clear documentation proving it originated from identity theft ( FTC Identity Theft Report Number : XXXX ) violates multiple federal statutes, binding case law, and core principles of XXXX XXXX, A Treatise on Suits in XXXX, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, and the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. This communication leaves no room for negotiation, as these doctrines universally condemn the perpetuation of falsehoods, demand immediate remedy for unjust harm, and establish the obligation of truth and integrity in all dealings. Each section herein presents exhaustive citations and thorough interpretations from Canon Law and other sources to justify the immediate deletion of this account. 1. Federal Violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) enforces strict standards for accuracy, fairness, and consumer privacy in credit reporting. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX continued reporting of this account, despite its confirmed fraudulent nature, constitutes multiple breaches of FCRA. Each breach is enforceable with substantial statutory penalties, supported by relevant case law and reinforced by the doctrinal and ethical mandates in Canon Law. a. Maximum Possible Accuracy Requirement under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Penalty : {$1000.00} per Violation Statutory Requirement and Principle : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) demands that data furnishers ensure maximum possible accuracy in their reporting. This statutory standard is absolute, particularly critical in situations involving identity theft, as inaccurate information can have devastating and long-lasting effects on a consumers financial reputation. The law requires data furnishers to verify disputed information rigorously, leaving no room for uncertainty or inaction. Violation by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Despite my formal dispute and an FTC identity theft report, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX persists in reporting this account as collectible. This refusal to act on clear evidence of fraud is not only a direct breach of FCRA requirements but a willful perpetuation of a falsehood that has inflicted measurable harm on my credit profile. Such misreporting falsely represents my financial standing, misleading potential creditors and unjustly lowering my creditworthiness. Supporting Case Law : Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220 ( 3rd Cir. 1997 ) : The court emphasized the FCRAs strict accuracy standard, stating that data furnishers must go beyond superficial investigation and ensure data integrity to the fullest extent. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  failure to correct known inaccuracies violates the precedent established in Cushman. Canon Law Justification : Canon Law condemns any action that damages anothers reputation through misinformation or falsehood. According to Canon 220 of the Code of Canon Law, No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  refusal to delete an account that it knows to be fraudulent constitutes a direct violation of this canon. The accounts continued presence damages my reputation without cause or justification. Furthermore, Canon 223 1 reinforces that personal rights are only limited when necessary to protect justice and the common good. Reporting fraudulent information serves neither purpose ; it does not protect society but unjustly injures my standing, contrary to Canon Laws protection of individual reputation and dignity. Statutory Penalty Calculation : Each reporting instance incurs a statutory penalty of {$1000.00}, totaling {$3000.00} for this violation alone. b. Prohibition on Outdated Adverse Information Reporting under 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) Penalty : {$1000.00} per Violation Statutory Requirement and Principle : 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) limits adverse information reporting to a maximum of seven years from the initial delinquency date. This statute safeguards consumers by preventing the perpetual and undue harm that outdated or erroneous information can cause. It reflects the FCRAs intention to balance fairness in credit reporting with consumers rights to rebuild their financial lives. Violation by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting of this fraudulent account extends its negative impact beyond the permissible time frame by creating conflicting delinquency dates across credit bureaus, which effectively renews the adverse information improperly. Supporting Case Law : Miller v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2018 WL 1578440 ( N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018 ) : The court held that extending the reporting period of adverse information is an actionable FCRA violation. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX conduct parallels the violations identified in XXXX, warranting immediate removal and statutory penalties. XXXX XXXX and Ethical Principles from the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX supports the ethical principle that harm should not be prolonged or repeated without just cause. XXXX XXXX XXXX provides that individuals have the right to vindicate their rights in both ecclesiastical and civil forums. When wrongful harm is inflictedespecially repeatedlyit violates XXXX Laws principle of just remediation. Similarly, XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX condemns false representation as an abomination. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX actions prolong harm by falsely renewing adverse information beyond lawful limits, contrary to both Canon Law and Biblical teachings. Statutory Penalty Calculation : Multi-bureau non-compliance incurs a penalty of {$1000.00} per instance, totaling {$2000.00}. c. Requirement to Investigate Disputed Information under 15 U.S.C. 1681i Penalty : {$1000.00} per Violation Statutory Requirement and Principle : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i, upon receiving a dispute, data furnishers are legally required to conduct a reasonable investigation. This obligation is foundational to the FCRAs purpose, as it ensures that consumers can contest inaccuracies that harm their creditworthiness. Failure to investigate in good faith represents a serious breach of consumer protection. Violation by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Despite my submission of a dispute and identity theft report, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX neglected to conduct any investigation or corrective action. This failure to address the dispute leaves erroneous information on my credit profile, in violation of both legal and ethical standards. Supporting Case Law : Cortez v. Trans Union , LLC, 617 F.3d 688 ( 3rd Cir. 2010 ) : The court emphasized that the FCRA mandates an active and thorough investigation by data furnishers, not merely a passive response. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX disregard for my dispute is inconsistent with XXXX, which supports the requirement of corrective action upon notification of an error. Canon Law Justification : Canon Law insists upon truthfulness and fairness in all acts that impact anothers reputation. Canon 221 2 specifically states that individuals have the right to defend and vindicate their good name when harmed unjustly. By ignoring my dispute and failing to investigate this known fraud, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX violates the principles established in Canon Law that mandate corrective action to uphold justice and the individuals good name. The doctrine demands a prompt response to harm, and failing to act when one is aware of anothers suffering is antithetical to Canon Laws principles of justice and restitution. Statutory Penalty Calculation : Each instance of failure to investigate across XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion incurs a penalty of {$1000.00}, totaling {$3000.00}. d. Prohibition on Knowingly Reporting False Information under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) Penalty : {$1000.00} per Violation Statutory Requirement and Principle : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) prohibits creditors from knowingly reporting inaccurate information, particularly when they have clear evidence that the data is erroneous. This standard protects consumers by ensuring that inaccuracies do not remain uncorrected due to neglect or indifference. Violation by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX continued reporting of this fraudulent account, even after receiving an FTC identity theft report, constitutes a direct violation of the FCRA. This deliberate misrepresentation of my financial obligations has perpetuated harm that I have no responsibility to bear. Supporting Case Law : Zabriskie v. Federal Natl Mortgage Assn, 912 F.3d 1192 ( 9th Cir. 2019 ) : This case ruled that knowingly reporting false information is a grave violation of FCRA standards. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX persistence in reporting this debt mirrors the unlawful actions addressed in XXXX, warranting immediate deletion. XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX, particularly XXXX XXXX, prohibits any action that unlawfully harms anothers reputation. The doctrine is unambiguous : knowingly spreading falsehoods about another person constitutes moral wrongdoing. By allowing a fraudulent account to remain on my credit profile, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX contravenes XXXX Laws mandate for truthful and fair representation. Additionally, XXXX XXXX XXXX demands that any limitation of personal rights must be justified by necessity for the common good; allowing fraudulent data to mar my reputation serves no social or moral good. Statutory Penalty Calculation : Each misreporting instance across all three bureaus incurs a penalty of {$1000.00}, totaling {$3000.00}. Total FCRA Violation Penalty : {$11000.00} 2. Additional Violations under the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) The Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) mandates that creditors provide clear, accurate, and transparent disclosures, particularly in cases involving disputed accounts. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ongoing misrepresentation of this account as collectible, despite knowledge of its fraudulent status, constitutes multiple TILA violations. Each is actionable with statutory penalties. XXXX Laws Relevance to TILA Requirements XXXX XXXX, as found in XXXX XXXX, condemns any action that damages anothers good name. Similarly, XXXX XXXX affirms the right to uphold ones honor and integrity when unjustly attacked. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  misrepresentation of my obligations violates this doctrine. XXXX XXXX insists on truth, transparency, and rectification of harm, supporting TILAs own mandates. Final Demand for Immediate and Permanent Deletion Based on federal statutes, enforceable penalties, case law, and XXXX XXXX doctrines of justice and restitution, I demand the immediate deletion of this fraudulent account. Non-compliance will result in formal complaints to relevant authorities. Total Statutory Penalty : {$33000.00}