Product: Bank account or service

Below is a weblink which Bank of America repeatedly refuses to comprehend. The recent court case makes precisely the point I have made to Bank of America to no avail. I recieved yet an other letter U. S. Mail from this bank and it enclosed previous letters regarding this same account that was closed in XX/XX/XXXX, opened in XX/XX/XXXX and closed again a year later. Despite the contents of the letters - which are wrong - the furnishing of payment history by the bank that year was illegal. It matters not that it has since been removed at my request on XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. The letter says they will continue to report it to all XXXX agencies. This letter today, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX, the XXXX did not understand the point of including such examples as below. Instead, he cites privacy of other customers. Seriously? No one asked about other customers. Other customers in those complaints ' weblinks and attachments spoke for themselves. Let us begin at the legal point in the quoted text below about the recent court case that reiterates the FCRA. As it says, by furnishing 13 months of consecutive payment history on XXXX ( I have this printout mailed by XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX ) and telling me now they will continue to furnish data and its current being on XXXX is not legal. XXXX was the last payment! Yet, BOA told the XXXX agencies payments were made in XX/XX/XXXX. It additionally acts as if it has no record of it. The Fraud department at XXXX confirmed that payment history was in fact furnished that entire year ; XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX showed the account was closed after all those payments, per their legend. To close it, by definition, it was re-opened. The bank ca n't open an account in XXXX XXXX ; furnish 13 payments and then close again. So, just because the bank does n't have a clue that each month there was a XXXX balance and XXXX payment made on an account that was closed in XX/XX/XXXX, they just re-started the clock. The bank is and has provided letters since XXXX XXXX XXXX which lie and are contradictary to each other as well as in direct conflict with common sense. This account was not touched by Bank of America while it was open. It was closed by me. It was in good standing. It was a XXXX-dollar asset to them that required nothing on their part past XX/XX/XXXX. It is evident that the SEC should be informed. For this to have happened and continuing to happen and telling me it will continue to happen the bank must be manipulating assets to mislead investors on quarterly and annual filings. Nothing else makes sense. I will therefore provide my XXXX credit reports to the SEC and all letters from BOA denying what is plainly printed by all XXXX agencies plus their BOAs refusal to admit, fix, and correct it. I have other evidence I will provide them as well. Sufficed to say, it would be wise to get XXXX to remove it by telling them to do so. According to XXXX, BOA affirmed the account as if the XXXX date is not obvious. Regardless, my communication with the SEC I XXXX teach out to the candidates running for office as I have heard that oversight is an issue they are contemplating. I will send it to all. They need to know how horrible it is to deal with this bank and others over the simplest thing. Hours wasted. No ethical reaction to my complaints. BOA has bent over backwards to do nothing very slowly to pretend to have investigated this matter. I will continue to what it takes to have a credit report that to drive XXXX " As in that case, there is no circumstance under which Defendant could legally report an obsolete debt to a credit reporting agency or make a positive report in the event of payment. The implication that Defendant could do so here is misleading.