XXXX To : XXXX XXXX XXXX , Ass't Vice President Office of the President, Union Bank ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Subject : generally accepted accounting principles not in evidence XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. I believe that the Union Bank has violated the GAAP principles in respect to my account ; resulting in significant errors. As the result of my refusal to accept these errors, based on deliberate misreading the contract terms of the equity account, and the Bank 's refusal to rectify the errors consistent with the Bank 's own Disclosures, as well as generally accepted accounting principles, I have received a false Foreclosure notice rather than an explanation of charges consistent with GAAP standards. Threats, extortion of false payments, harassment, numerous phone calls, all apparently originating from a Bank officer by the name of XXXX XXXX at the Bank 's XXXX XXXX office. 
2. It gets a little complicated so bear with me. XXXX 's letter of XX/XX/XXXX identifies this person as responsible for accounting policy with the title of Customer Work Director. There is no status indication of CPA. Therefore, I assume that this person, is not a professional, although not qualified, makes policy for the West Coast entire system. 
For example, although XXXX terminated his line of credit on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX proclaims that " the interest that accrued on the " principal line of credit '' XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX XXXX was XXXX ''. Although contrary to the Disclosures statements, giving the customer the option to close the equity account whenever he wishes to do so, and thus discontinuing further interest charges as it is transferred to a fixed mortgage this policy is followed by the entire XXXX XXXX staff, in bad faith with Union Bank policy. ( Disclosure XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ) There was none, nor is there a line of credit labeled or nominated as " principal line of credit '' ; it is a manufactured fiction, a subterfuge for manufacturing negative amortization. From here on it gets a little complicated. But you remember the Federal statute that I cited ; Sections 1005 and 1006 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits false entries. After it became apparent to me that my payments were not being credited to the principle it took six months of queries, where the Bank responded with threats, before XXXX received an answer in writing from XXXX describing the process by trickery, of negative amortization. The toll adds up to {$5500.00} to avoid Bank 's threat of illegal foreclosure, 3. Instead of applying monies to the monthly payment, as directed by XXXX, where did his money actually end up? The payment was divided between two places, one was appended to a closed equity account, and the other hung in space without number or name ; without notice or agreement. XXXX 's intention, at the time of the Transfer date, ( XX/XX/XXXX ), was to end the equity account ; in accordance with Disclosure XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). Nevertheless, XXXX indicates in a letter that a portion of the money was assigned to this account for payment of interest, although it had become non-functional and paid off by transfer, otherwise. Yet peculiarly it does show a XXXX balance on the statement. Of course, in any event interest is not available as a balance to draw on, the account is closed in any event, therefore what is the purpose of the entry? The payment was altered by XXXX ; it quickly lost utility, and became negative amortization.

4. By way of further explanation, a check sent by XXXX was received by the Bank on XX/XX/XXXX, for the amount of {$830.00}. Using a paper statement of the closed account, without prior agreement or notice the amount of {$330.00} was taken from the XX/XX/XXXX check and allocated to some other, unidentified purpose. leaving a balance of {$510.00} which was applied elsewhere. Location unknown, known only to XXXX XXXX. 
5. XXXX XXXX without permission, did not have XXXX 's agreement to misapply the money or subtract any amount from his intended location as a fixed mortgage payment. The amount missing, {$330.00} was allocated by K to an unidentified account, misusing the account number of the closed line of credit, for false interest that he claims was owed between XXXX and XXXX. It was not, of course, true ; but a mechanism to trap the consumer in a spiral of negative amortization. XXXX states that this unidentified, unnumbered account " is a segment of the line of credit. '' By calling this diminished piece of a payment a segment he/she then feels justified in attaching this piece of a payment, ( now called a " segment '' ) to interest between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ; however the equity account number is no longer on the books and only results in a partial payment for the intended account ; of course a partial payment that is unacceptable according to XXXX 's rules which keeps the account open and in arrears. A good stroke for manifesting profit and a cause for charging more interest. With a simple change of category, as with a stroke of magic, there are now two accounts generating more interest, although prohibited by Sections 1005 and 1006 of Title 18, United States Code, which prohibits false entries 6.. Although the term "  segment '' is never applied in American accounting practice as used by XXXX, he calls the closed account, now nominated as a segment of a segment, back into existence with characteristic hubris. Unilaterally moving money around to satisfy an obtuse sense of order to squeeze additional profit from the terminated equity loan ; based on a fictional reading that it is only the Bank 's decision, not the customer 's option as to when to terminate the equity loan ; an incorrect allegation if one was to look through the Disclosures. Nevertheless, the entire Bank staff took up the cry that only the Bank can decide when to terminate the account, and it chose a date late in XXXX ; therefore, the period between XX/XX/XXXX and the end of XXXX has unpaid interest! But more importantly, now there are three accounts generating negative amortization interest and more profit for the Bank. Under the theory that, although small, initially, it adds up over time. Altering contracts without notice or permission is apparently not a problem if one is a financial magician seeking approbation and the customer is a trusting senior. XXXX is also uncomfortable with the notion that, in accounting practice, there is some thing, a device employed by XXXX, such as a " segment of a line of credit '' utilized in accomplishing the feats of financial legerdemain. Mixing different species of accounts together, cutting and splicing, referring to them as " segments '' isn't standard accounting. It is creative malpractice, and it does arouse suspicions about the use of negative amortization to generate profits at the expense of seniors. 
I have never heard of an accounting procedure where vastly different types of entries are allocated to closed or unidentified accounts by classifying them as " segments '' ; that also generate partial payments that generate interest ; where even old closed accounts are recruited, resurrected and maintained for the purpose of flim flam accounting. Who says that there is no afterlife? When it's stated by XXXX, in explanation that he/she " can not prevent the ( terminated ) line of credit from printing the monthly statement '' XXXX is attributing the fraudulent mish mash to malign spirits. Like XXXX 's XXXX, although it has no identity, or number, nor name, is entirely without location or definition ; a thing composed of segments of various types, like a piece of monstrous DNA. And this is why the Congress created Sections 1005 and 1006 of Title 18, United States Code, which prohibits false entries such as these, correlative to 1 U.S.C. 656 and 657.

In total, first of all, there is a breach of contract wherein the Bank alleges that only by means of its own actions could a date for closing the Equity account be established. Secondly, there was a breach by falsely charging undue interest between the two dates XX/XX/XXXX when XXXX closed the account, and the date XX/XX/XXXX when the Bank closed the account ; although in fact the account was no longer justifiable or operative. Third of all, there was a breach the Bank by charging interest on the interest that was falsely alleged to have accumulated after XXXX had closed the Equity account. Fourthly, falsely using an account for that purpose that had been closed and barred for any purpose ; also bearing an account number that was in fact fictional simply for the purpose of generating further profits as interest. Fifth, by charging penalties on a fictional cause of late and missing payments in the first place. Sixth, attributing and excusing these illegal acts with a bizarre practice that the Bank calls " segmenting '', a totally unorthodox procedure inconsistent with standard American accounting practice. Hope that this clarifies things for you. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX page XXXX