Consumer complaint received 2022-09-24
Company: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE
State: OR
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service
Sub-product: Debt settlement
Issue: Fraud or scam

Complaint:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( and the clerks thereof - in whatever capacity ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Police Department State of Oregon XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX release services Oregon XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Each of the above named companies established under the laws of the United States and of Oregon, have engaged in, or are engaged in fraud currently in connection to the below described financial instruments and actors. 

" Officer '' XXXX XXXX of XXXX Police Department submitted under penalty of perjury, a falsely completed affidavit for probable cause to initiate fraudulent charges out of retaliation, against my SSN Account XXXX XXXX XXXX, account number XXXX, and personal liberty, and to create a penal bond as well as a bail bond. " Officer '' XXXX XXXX falsified business records in the form of an officer report to aid and abet XXXX XXXX and secure the proceeds of their crimes. Sgt XXXX XXXX supervised and participated in the conspiracy as well. XXXX XXXX District Attorney XXXX XXXX and her subordinate XXXX XXXX are also fully engaged in the fraud as well as Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, both of whom have violated their fiduciary duties as well in the same pattern of racketeering activity. 

Both Bails below were generated by the same fraudulent affidavit - related transactions : {$5000.00} bail paid to Pre-Trial release services of XXXX XXXX, Oregon on XX/XX/XXXX - ( fraudulent ) Case # XXXX {$5.00} bail paid to Pre-Trial release services of XXXX XXXX, Oregon on or about XX/XX/XXXX - ( fraudulent ) Case # XXXX This is a continuing and ongoing matter, unresolved. I have more emails and evidence than can be attached to this report, but am willing to divulge it by other means if necessary, XXXX XXXX etc. 

This fraudulent activity directly affects the amount of " lawfully/legally available funds '' of the " general fund '', supported by " Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties : ie : criminal charges. 

This fraudulent activity is creating Liability for ; FISCAL AGENT The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX, Suite XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX {>= $1,000,000} STATE OF OREGON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS VARIOUS SERIES Resources Available for Payment The XXXX Bonds are expected to be paid from biennial appropriations from the States General Fund budgeted by the Legislative Assembly or, as appropriate, from any other amounts **lawfully available** for expenditure for that purpose. 


OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED XX/XX/XXXX $ XXXX XXXX XXXX, Oregon Full Faith and Credit Refunding Obligations, Series XXXX SECURITY Pursuant to the terms of a financing agreement ( the Financing agreement ) the Countys payment obligations ( the Financing Obligations ) are to be secured by and payable from any and all of the Countys **legally available** taxes, **revenues** and other funds, including the proceeds of the Financing Agreement and any taxes levied by and for the County within the restrictions of Sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. The obligation of the County to make payments is a full faith and credit obligation of the County, and is not subject to appropriation. The Beneficial Owners of the Obligations do not have a lien or security interest on the property refinanced with the proceeds of the Financing Agreement. The Obligations do not constitute a debt or indebtedness of the State of Oregon, or any political subdivision thereof other than the **County**. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Georgia v. Rachel, 384 US 780 - Supreme Court XXXX " As I indicate in my opinion in the Peacock cases, post, p. XXXX, equal civil rights of a citizen of the United States are " denied '' within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. 1443 ( 1 ) ( 1964 ed. ) when he is prosecuted for asserting them. Section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( 78 Stat. 243, 42 U. S. C. 2000a ( 1964 ed. ) ) gave these defendants a right to equal service in places of public accommodation. Section 203 ( 78 Stat. 244, 42 U. S. C. 2000a-2 ( 1964 ed. ) ) gave them a right against intimidation, coercion, or punishment for exercising those rights. And we held in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306, that 201 and 203 precluded state criminal trespass convictions of sit-in demonstrators even though the sit-ins occurred and their prosecution had been instituted prior to the effective date of the XXXX Act. 

Congress, in other words, gave these defendants the right to enter the restaurants in question, to sit there, and to be serveda right that was construed by this Court to include immunity from prosecution after the effective date of the Act for acts done prior thereto.

It is the right to equal service in restaurants and the right to be free of prosecution for asserting that right not the right to have a trespass conviction reversedthat the present prosecutions threaten. It is this right which must be vindicated by complete insulation from the State 's criminal process if it is to be wholly vindicated. It is this right which the defendants are " denied '' so long as the present prosecutions persist. '' Evans v. United States, 504 US 255 - Supreme Court XXXX " Second, even if the statute were parsed so that the word " induced '' applied to the public officeholder, we do not believe the word " induced '' necessarily indicates that the transaction must be initiated by the recipient of the bribe. Many of the cases applying the majority rule have concluded that the wrongful acceptance of a bribe establishes all the inducement that the statute requires. [ XXXX ] They conclude that the coercive element is provided by the public office itself. And even the XXXX courts that have adopted an inducement requirement for extortion under XXXX of official right do not require proof that the inducement took the form of a threat or demand. See United States v. O'Grady, 742 F. 2d, at 687 ; United States v. Aguon, 851 F. 2d, at 1166. '' Bell v. Maryland, 378 US 226 - Supreme Court 1964 " Whose conduct is entitled to the " law 's protection ''? Of course every member of this Court agrees that law and order must prevail ; the question is whether the weight and protective strength of law and order will be cast in favor of the claims of the proprietors or in favor of the claims of petitioners. In my view the Fourteenth Amendment resolved this issue in favor of the right of petitioners to public accommodations and it follows that in the exercise of that constitutionally granted right they are entitled to the " law 's protection. '' Today, as long ago, " [ t ] he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws.... '' Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163.

CONCLUSION. 
The constitutional right of all Americans to be treated as equal members of the community with respect to public accommodations is a civil right granted by the people in the Constitutiona right which " is too important in our free society to be stripped of judicial protection. '' Cf. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 7; Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186. This is not to suggest that Congress lacks authority under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, or under the Commerce Clause, Art. I, 8, to implement the rights protected by 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the give-and-take of the legislative process, Congress can fashion a law drawing the guidelines necessary and appropriate to facilitate practical administration and to distinguish between genuinely public and private accommodations. In contrast, we can pass only on justiciable issues coming here on a case-to-case basis. 

It is, and should be, more true today than it was over a century ago that " [ t ] he great advantage of the Americans is that... they are born equal '' and that in the eyes of the law they " are all of the same estate. '' The first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, spoke of the " free air '' of American life. The great purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to keep it free and equal. Under the Constitution no American can, or should, be denied rights fundamental to freedom and citizenship. I therefore join in reversing these trespass convictions. ''

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation