Product: Debt collection

XXXX has/is retaliating against a XXXX person on behalf and aided another company to further harass a XXXX after this XXXX person had problems with services and the refusal of services for XXXX to honor their contract. XXXX wouldn't honor their contract after giving the XXXX person grief and using their XXXX against them to justify not providing service. By not honoring their policies for their neglect, We filed a complaint with the FTC. 
XXXX continued to provide defective services in light of the complaint so we told them we no longer needed their negligent services and stopped services in XXXX since XXXX wouldnt honor its own contract by providing services that were not however still seeking payment for their breach of contract and failing to provide goods and services to a XXXX individual on dire t basis of XXXX and after valid oppositions were made of the violations of the Americans with XXXX XXXX and ongoing violations of 28 C.F.R. 36.206 ( b ) /42 U.S.C . 12203 ( b ) where I'm no being financially exploited. 
XXXX and Mountain Run Solutions LLC are in violation of Federal law ( 42 USC 407 ( a ) ) protects Social Security benefits even after deposited into a claimant 's bank account. Title II, Section 208 of the Social Security Act of 1935 provides the most broadly applicable exemption. It exempts Social Security benefits from all legal process, including garnishment. This situation does show further interference with services in for a XXXX person by these illicit mannerisms. 
The statute provides broad protection from any practice rendering benefits 'subject '' to " legal process. '' The Kilkers opposed Stillman 's claim of exemption, arguing that under code of civil Procedure section 704.080, only Social Security funds directly deposited into a bank account by the government are protected by the exemption. ( All further statutory references are to the code of civil Procedure unless otherwise specified. ) True, under section 704.080, subdivision ( b ), a judgment debtor, who receives Social Security payments by direct deposit, does not need to prove that the funds are exempt ( up to certain amounts ). Section 704.080, by providing such automatic exemption for direct deposit amounts, provides additional protection to Social Security payments that are directly deposited.

But neither section 704.080, nor any other legal authority cited by the parties, supports the interpretation that section 704.080, subdivision ( b ) eliminates the availability of the 42 united States code section 407 ( a ) exemption as to Social Security payments that are not directly deposited into a bank account. If funds are directly deposited by the government, there is no need to trace their source. ( See Kilker et al., v Stillman G048473 ( Super. ct. No. 30-2008-00106524 ) ). 
XXXX is using Mountain Run Solutions LLC to produce and publish fraudulent information on my credit report while attempting to take my only source of income protected from this type of practice of both these businesses. 
As well, XXXX 's ongoing conduct has interfered with me securing a loan s a first time home buyer that is XXXX in very present and recent times. I'm deeply concerned, on how this conduct may affect the life of my family and new born son. 
I do understand XXXX has already been fined for this conduct and where even after this and still is continuing to subject me to similar conduct shown in Case No. 2:21-cv-00267-TS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , v. VIVINT SMART HOME, INC. , a corporation, where XXXX  was fined XXXX XXXX dollars for the same conduct I'm still incurring by Mountain Rush Solutions LLC who has also been made aware their actions have been procured by fraud and as well the violations of 42 U.S.C. 407 ( a ) and where this company didn't seem to honor the law or my rights and continues to interfere with my accessibility to housing and all aspects of society which violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, Federal Fair Housing Act and Constitutional laws.