Complaint sub-issue: Not given enough info to verify debt

I, XXXX XXXX, hereby file a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on a law firm that is trying to obtain a wage garnishment on a judgment illegally filed against me in XXXX. I attach copies of my complaint with the Office of Attorney General, XXXX of Massachusetts, stating that the original law firm that obtained this judgment obtained this judgment illegally. Since XXXX, the Federal Trade Commission has been active pursuing hundreds of collection agencies that obtain and enforce illegal judgment procedures and subsequently wage garnishments against American consumers illegally. The ethical procedures were simply not followed in my case, and the documentation process on ownership of a debt were not followed by XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

The Federal Trade Commission, as the main consumer protective federal agency now has under its supervision another federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This complaint will be forwarded to this agency as part of my request for a true investigative process. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ( 15 USC 1692 et seq. ), which became effective in XXXX XXXX, was designed to eliminate abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. The Federal Trade Commission, by federal court action was able to establish a firm collection process for all citizens under FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). As part of a federal lawsuit for a collection agency using abusive collection practices, the following directive was established for debt mitigation for any licensed collection agency against consumers. That mandate is as follows : A consumer, if given notice of a collection process must be made aware of the original creditor. The balance must be certain along with any applied interest and penalties based upon the original contractual agreement signed upon by the credit obligator. 

If the debt was assigned for collection, the fact that a validation request was sent to the credit obligator is not relevant unless the collector shows proof of debt assignment from the original creditor. There are no exceptions to this stipulation. As in my lawsuit, I have no knowledge of who the original creditor was, nor given any proof of a legal transfer, either for debt collection purposes or if purchased by a debt buyer. In all aspects of my complaint, there has never been proof of a connection from any original creditor to XXXX XXXX, XXXX. There can not be a connection by electronic transfer through a debt pooling agreement, and there can be no robo-signature procurement, as the validity of such an arrangement is purely a federal and state violation of my rights in legal collection activities. 

The debt, if established valid by the XXXX previously mentioned criteria, can not be enforced if deemed no longer collectible by XXXX of Massachusetts statutes. On this issue there is also no exception. 

From my research, XXXX XXXX XXXX is not licensed as a debt collector or debt buyer. There is great ambiguity as to what XXXX XXXX is pertaining to the XXXX of Massachusetts Division of Banks. " A debt buyer purchases debt that is already in default and attempts to collect on the purchased debt. A debt buyer must be licensed as a debt collector by the Division of Banks. Debt buyers are subject to the XXXX collection laws and regulations. '' My complaint shows serious violations of my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and legal precedents on proper debt collection procedures with the Attorney General 's Office in Massachusetts. " I believe that in my original lawsuit there consisted of little more than a summary electronic data file from the debt buyer. I have been given no proof of meaningful account-level documentation!!!