Consumer complaint received 2016-11-10
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: GA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card
Issue: Taking/threatening an illegal action
Sub-issue: Sued where didn't live/sign for debt

Complaint:
XXXX XXXX, XXXX, a subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who CFPB has taken action against for using deceptive tactics to collect bad debts is doing so in Georgia and getting away with it. The firm that filed suit on their behalf is XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX GA XXXX. The attorney who filed the suit is XXXX XXXX XXXX who claimed Citibank N.A/ Best Buy had issued me a credit card in XXXX and at issue I used the card and left owing a debt ; Citibank NA Best Buy has never reported negative or otherwise on any of my credit reports. She submitted forged/doctored evidence and three affidavits that had four different purchase dates for alleged account and claimed the alleged account was an account opened in XXXX & charged off late XXXX ; one of their purchase dates shows they would have purchased a non-charged off acct., they submitted the court a XXXX Citibank Credit Card Agreement XXXX In my filed answer, I showed their information inconsistent and inaccurate and how they accessed my credit report to try to piece together mailing address and other personal information to try and make the debt mine, they submitted unnecessarily redacted information represented by a black line, they have bills that I believe are doctored and stated in four affidavits the info to be true and correct electronic file documents. She did not object to my answer she just employed deception three days before court by using an associate, XXXX XXXX XXXX, to use his influence as a Georgia XXXX ( XXXX ), and his frequency w/ XXXX XXXX Ga Magistrate Court Civil Claims Div. ( he appears XXXX times as Associate Party-AP with the court and appears XXXX times as AP in the same county 's Superior Court. The way they work is their office has an attorney to file the suit and if defendant challenges them they employ XXXX influence and defendant finds themselves in a no-win situation.The judge & atty worked coherently & judge requires defendant prove the matter instead of debt buyer and will not allow you to present your evidence by interrupting you and changing the subject and keeps going in circles .The night before court I accessed the court 's website and learned that XXXX had re-submitted XXXX of XXXX docs that had been filed 1.5 months earlier with the lawsuit.The only NEW document was an affidavit stating the exact lies stated in the other three.The only difference was the submitter who had placed an eye-catching large blue signature on the first three consecutive documents which drew my attention and caused me to investigate him further that 's when I learned he was a GA magistrate judge, then, I knew what he was up to. I investigated XXXX XXXX XXXX - the magistrate judge to hear complaint & learned they shared the same XXXX. Before court the next day, I informed judge of my concerns of conflict of interest ; he did not recuse himself. I had an unfair hearing with an influenced an biased judge ; however, he did ask attorney about the XXXX credit card agreement she had submitted as evidence, but then allowed her to skirt the issue. I showed him a XXXX XXXX Best Buy credit card agreement that I had entered into by electronically signing an agreement at a XXXX XXXX GA Best Buy. He inquired of the address on the alleged bill and asked about possible id theft, I told him I had experienced id theft but informed him that, to date, the alleged account is not on credit report and was there-fore not reported on XXXX police rept. He reset hearing for 3 wks later. I HAD NO HEARING for he called us to the bench, ignored police report & the date of credit card agreement, the other county for XXXX acct and ended up ruling in their favor and told me to appeal in their Sup.Ct where my outcome will more than likely be the same due to XXXX influence

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation