Consumer complaint received 2023-08-30
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: CA
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report
Sub-issue: Reporting company used your report improperly

Complaint:
Under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, XXXX v. XXXX ( Mo ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact, exists.

In a reasonable effort to resolve the matter amicably, I restate my demand for proof of the debt, specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature, and proof of your authority in this matter. Absent such evidence, you must terminate this collection action and correct any erroneous reports of this debt as mine.

For the record, I state again : As I have no account with you, nor am I your customer, nor have I ever entered a contract with you, I must ask you to provide the following information : Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692 ( e ) and 15 USC 1692 ( f ) in this alleged matter.

What is your authorization of law for your collection of information?

What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt?

Please evidence your authorization to do business or operate in this state.

Please provide evidence of the alleged debt, including specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature.

You have fifteen ( 15 ) days from receipt of this notice to respond. Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and promptly will work as a waiver to any of your claims in this matter and will entitle me to presume that you placed this on my credit report ( s ) in error and that this matter is permanently closed.

Your continued silence in this matter is unacceptable. Either provide the proof or correct the record and remove this invalid debt from all sources you have reported it to.

For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This Notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be collected as evidence should further action be necessary. This is a request for information only and is not a statement, election, or waiver of status.

Regards, 14th Amendment violation right to Due Process No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

4th Amendment Rights to Privacy The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that " [ t ] he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. '' The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect peoples right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. 

BLESSING, XXXX, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX et al. 
certiorari to the united states XXXX XXXX XXXX for the ninth circuit No. XXXX. Argued XX/XX/XXXX -- Decided XX/XX/XXXX Respondents, five Arizona mothers whose children are eligible for state child support services under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against petitioner, the director of the state child support agency, claiming, among other things, that they properly applied for child support services ; 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 IV-D provisions creating rights in them that are enforceable through a 1983 action, and an injunction requiring the director to achieve substantial compliance with Title IV-D throughout all programmatic operations. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. Without distinguishing among the numerous provisions of the complex Title IV-D program or the many rights those provisions might have created, the latter court held that respondents had an enforceable individual right to have the State achieve " substantial compliance '' with Title IV-D. It also disagreed with the District Court 's conclusion that Congress had foreclosed private Title IV-D enforcement actions by authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( Secretary ) to audit and cut off funds to States whose programs do not substantially comply with Title IV-D 's requirements.

Held : Title IV-D does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with Title IV-D. Pp. 9-18. 

( 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. Three principal factors determine whether a statutory provision creates a privately enforceable right : ( 1 ) whether the plaintiff is an intended beneficiary of the statute ; ( 2 ) whether the plaintiff 's asserted interests are not so vague and amorphous as to be beyond the competence of the judiciary to enforce ; and ( 3 ) whether the statute imposes a binding obligation on the State. See, e.g., XXXX v. Virginia 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, 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. 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, well defined claims. See, e.g., XXXX v. XXXX XXXX and 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, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX A. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX XXXX 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 State 's federal grant 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 Ninth Circuit XXXX 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 IV-D 's 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 complaint into specific allegations can the XXXX XXXX proceed to determine whether any specific claim asserts an individual federal right. Pp. XXXX. 

( c ) XXXX 's argument that XXXX XXXX 's remedial scheme is sufficiently comprehensive to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude XXXX suits is rejected. XXXX does not claim that any XXXX XXXX provision expressly curtails XXXX actions, and she has failed to make the difficult showing that allowing such actions to go forward in these circumstances would be inconsistent with XXXX ' XXXX tailored scheme. That scheme is far more limited than those at issue in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, the only cases in which the XXXX has found preclusion ; in particular, Title IV-D contains no private remedy -- either judicial or administrative -- through which aggrieved persons can seek redress. The only way that XXXX XXXX assures that States live XXXX to their child support plans is through the XXXX 's oversight, but the XXXX 's limited powers to audit and cut federal funding are not comprehensive enough to foreclose XXXX liability. Pp. XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX DEPARTMENT Balance details Paid off - Balance {$3000.00} Balance updated XX/XX/XXXX Original balance - Account info Account number XXXX Open/closed Open Date opened XX/XX/XXXX Account type Child Support XXXX XXXX DEPARTMENT Balance details Paid off - Balance {$2600.00} Balance updated XX/XX/XXXX Original balance - Account info Account number XXXX Open/closed Open Date opened XX/XX/XXXX Account type Child Support

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation