Complaint sub-issue: Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed

Regarding previously filed XXXX Case # XXXX, I received a voicemail from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/2022, at approximately XXXX PST , which I have saved and retained and can provide proof of. In the voicemail, XXXX states, in part, " I absolutely understand that we failed ... in responding to you ..., '' and then invites me to contact her. I spoke with XXXX later the same day at XXXX XXXX for a XXXX phone call. In this phone call, XXXX stated that, in response to my XXXX Case # XXXX and CFPB Complaint ID # XXXX, XXXX XXXX was out of the office on XX/XX/XXXX and failed to turn on his out of office e-mail reply, and that was the reason that XXXX did not respond to me. I then told XXXX that XXXX did not respond to me until XX/XX/XXXX, only after I e-mailed him to follow up to ask if he was not responding to me because I terminated the XXXX XXXX relationship with his counterpart, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX responded both by voicemail and e-mail on XX/XX/XXXX, all of which I have retained and still possess, stating that because he and XXXX XXXX are a team, he would not work with me but would assist me only temporarily in completing a credit card application while they await putting in place a longer-term team to service my financial needs. Nowhere in either XXXX 's voicemail to me or his e-mail does he ever mention that he was out of the office ; instead, he says he will not work with me. When I brought to XXXX 's attention the discrepancy between her explanation of XXXX 's conduct and the evidence I have to the contrary, XXXX immediately began to persuade me to use the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX -- because, as she stated, I'd have a connection to them since I'm from XXXX -- rather than work with a private banker locally, which is afforded to everyone as part of the US Bank XXXX XXXX relationship model. I let XXXX know that I felt pressured and retaliated against, being treated differently and forced to use a service center rather than a private banker, because I raised valid, legitimate and verifiable concerns in the XXXX and CFPB Case ID # s I mention herein. XXXX continued to suggest that my wealth management needs might be better met by simply walking into a local branch or using their general call center, rather than a private banker. I then told XXXX that I felt as if she was " showing me the door '' because of the valid, legitimate concerns I raised, and also because I believed she was knowingly and openly dishonest about XXXX 's failure to respond to me at all -- until regulatory complaints were filed against him, and I had verifiable proof in the form of an e-mail and voicemail that stated he would not work with me because I terminated the XXXX XXXX relationship with XXXX XXXX. Once it became clear that XXXX was, what I believed, coercing me away from the financial services I needed, as a direct result of my complaints, XXXX began to tell me that their legal department is involved, my complaints are extremely serious and all this could go against XXXX XXXX 's XXXX license -- all of which I told her seemed not to address my concerns but instead cover up for her own admission of failing me as a US Bank customer. I then let XXXX know that, based on my conversation with her, I did not feel comfortable communicating verbally any longer, and any and all communication from her and her team should only be done in writing. She said she would let their legal team know of my request. In the end, I believe that XXXX and her team have knowingly acted in a retaliatory and discriminatory fashion for my filing of truthful, legitimate, good-faith complaints against XXXX XXXX and XXXX. Their retaliatory and discriminatory actions, I believe, are in the form of refusing to transfer my investment accounts as mentioned in previous complaints ; my money going uninvested, causing financial loss to me ; and coercing me into not working directly with their team, and instead using other methods of banking and investing that are not required of other customers who do not file good-faith complaints against US Bank and US Bank Investments .