Equifax is reporting two alleged accounts with erroneous and impossible information. 
First alleged account : Alleged first date of delinquency - XX/XX/XXXX Alleged date of major delinquency first reported - XX/XX/XXXX Alleged account is noted as 3 months reviewed but 8 months between first date of delinquency and date of major delinquency first reported Second alleged account : Alleged date major delinquency first reported - XX/XX/XXXX Alleged date of first delinquency - XX/XX/XXXX Alleged date of last payment - XX/XX/XXXX How can the alleged date of last payment be after the alleged date major delinquency? How can the alleged date of first delinquency be reported before the alleged date of last payment? How is the alleged date of major delinquency first reported 8 months after the alleged date of first delinquency? 

Do NOT send me statements from alleged creditors. I am holding Equifax, responsible for blatant discompliant reporting. I've demanded proof that all derogatory claims be demonstrated as certifiably COMPLIANT, even to the requisite standards mandated by the Metro 2 format. To date, Equifax has failed to present physically verifiable proof of validation and COMPLIANCE, each REQUIRED FOR REPORTING with legal standing. I demanded the reported allegations to be proven compliant to any and all aspects of REPORTING REGULATIONS and/or standards to include the mandatory METRO 2 FORMAT reporting compliance and they have failed to do so. 

LAWFUL reporting MUST be such that any claim is in its validity to being fully TRUE, CORRECT, COMPLIANT as reported, elsewise it is unethical and unlawful to retain much less report. 

Equifax MUST DELETE this unjust injurious allegation because it is significantly deficient of the requisite certified reporting compliance ( such as perfect metro 2 format reporting ) and testimonial evidence of the PHYSICALY VERIFIABLE PROOF OF VALIDATION as related to the full truth, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, ownership, identity of true debtor, dates, balances, audits, calculations, source codes, creditor collection code, 426-chrc P6 statement and its associated trailing fragments, the minimal five portioned personal identifiers, the pay statuses, the required 386-pieces of confirmation to collection, and elsewise standard or mandatory for proper reporting, mentioned or not. I have asked for this physically verifiable proof and they have, once again, failed. 

Although I am checking for and addressing missing and or deficient aspects of REPORTING COMPLIANCES, I should make you aware that since unlawful reporting transitions collection into an equally not complaint circumstance. Being still yet not validated by document fact in compliance to requisite standards, it is to be announced yet again that legally I have no knowledge of the validity of the alleged claims of delinquency and or derogatory nature, nor of the certifiably compliant matter to either any of its collection attempts and or its reporting despite previous consumer filed composed complaints checking for each. Might it be known, especially shall I elect to take this matter up to a civil court, any debt and or derogatory claim must be pursued ( particularly for collection ) in a very defined and precisely compliant and physically verifiable or certifiable manner as detailed in the requisite obeyed federal and state collection and reporting regulations associated with any of the above noted said claim ( s ) to include but not limited to the FCBA, FCRA, HIPAA PRIVACY RULE, FACTA, FDCPA and TCPA, etc. ADDITIONALLY, if an entity acts as a collector and also elects to act as a reporting party of consumer credit they must as well adhere to every single one even each any and all of the regulatory reporting requisites and standards of reporting with legal standing in full accordance of laws and accepted reporting standards. To date, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any capacity or willingness to validate the alleged debt much less certify the fair, accurate, complete and compliant reporting of the claims, particularly being significantly deficient is any display of certified metro 2 compliance. As such, given the fact of recent breaches of information collection repositories, I am hesitating to readily accept what is presented without testimonial and certified physically verifiable document evidence of claim as being legitimate. I deny nothing, yet I reserve the right to question any unproven claim.