Consumer complaint received 2024-10-22
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: EQUIFAX, INC. (CA)

PERSONAL STATEMENT FORMALLY INFORMING YOU OF MY DISPUTE ; AND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Contents of Complaint : This CFPB Complaint has been filed to request pursuant to The FCRA 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ) that you : The Credit Reporting AgencyIn Question ; REMOVE and BLOCK the information appearing on My Consumer Credit Report, that is a result of a Data Breach, Identity Theft and Fraud within 4 Business Days of you receiving this complaint. 

This Fraudulent, Inaccurate and False Information consists of : A Derogatory Account from XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, Account Number : XXXX, Opened : XX/XX/XXXX .. this Derogatory Account is appearing on My Consumer Credit Report, and is negatively affecting my Consumer FICO Score as well as My Financial and Personal Life.

This Account is Fraudulent and NEEDS to be REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. It goes against my constitutional rights to be reporting this account against my will. See below : [ See- 15 USC 1681c-2 c ( a ) the credit reporting agency must block and remove any alleged pieces of information the consumer considers identity theft within 4 business days of receiving a complaint consisting of the information below. ] [ See- Jurisdiction - The Power and Authority constitutionally upon ( or constitutionally recognized as existing in ) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons ( or a res ) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. ] [ See- 28 U.S.C. 1738B ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) plainly declares that the court or administrative agency must have subject matter jurisdiction ] [ See- Coercion-The term " coercion '' means- ( A ) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person ; ( B ) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person. or ( C ) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process. ( All Emphasis Added ) ].

[ See also-F.S. 817.568 - Criminal Use of Personal Information- ( 2 ) ( a ) Any person who willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, personal identification information concerning an individual without first obtaining that individual 's consent, commits the offense of fraudulent use of personal identification information, which is a felony of the third degree punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.775.083, or s. 775.084. ( Emphasis Added ) ].

[ See F.S. 836.05 Theat ; Extortion.Whoever, either verbally or by written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chasity to another, with intent therby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. XXXX, s. XXXX, or s. XXXX ( Emphasis Added ) ]. 

According to : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX in dissenting opinion : The public welfare can not override constitutional privileges, and if the rights of free speech and of free press are, in their essence, attributes of national citizenship, as I think are, then neither Congress nor ANY State, since the adoption of The 14th Amendment, can, by Legislative enactments or by Judicial Action, Impair or abridge them. In my judgment the action of the court below was in violation of the rights of free speech and free press as guaranteed by The Constitution.

I go further and hold that the privileges of free speech and of free press, belonging to every citizen of The United States of America, Constitute essential parts of every mans and/or womans liberty, and are protected against violation by the clause of The 14th Amendment, forbidding a state to deprive any person of their liberty without due process of law. 

According to : XXXX XXXX XXXX of Wisconsin XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX It would be impossible to hold that the liberty to combine to inflict such mischief, even upon such intangibles as business or reputation, was among the rights which The 14th Amendment was intended to preserve.

No conduct has such an absolute privilege as to justify all possible schemes of which it may be part. The most innocent and constitutionally protected of acts or omissions may be made a step in a criminal plot, and if it is a step in a plot, neither its innocence nor The Constitution is sufficient to prevent the punishment of the plot by law. 

According to : XXXX v. Ohio XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) This court held that the doctrines of those Amendments apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a mans home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, [ XXXX ] that constitutes the essence of the offense, but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property. 
Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation ; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a mans own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of a crime or to forfeit his goods, is within condemnation of those Amendments. 
The court noted that ; constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, against any stealthy encroachments thereon.

[ See - Jurisdiction - The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon ( or constitutionally recognized as existing in ) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts. proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons ( or a res ) who present themselves, or who ar
e brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 1 Black, Judgm. Received from : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( All Emphasis Added ] [ See- Substantive Law- That part of the law which the courts are established to administer, as opposed to the rules according to which the substantive law itself is administered. That part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion ( Retrieved From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ( Emphasis Added ) ] According to : Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 ( 1914 ) The 4th Amendmentput the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints [ and ] forever secure [ d ] the people, their persona, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all entrusted under our Federal System with the enforcement of the laws. Specifically dealing with the use of the evidence unconstitutionally seized, the Court concluded. If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used as evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of The 4th Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no
value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from The Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land.

Finally, the Court in that case clearly stated that use of the seized evidence involved a denial of The Constitutional Rights of the accused. At p. 398. Thus, in the year XXXX, in the Weeks case, this court for the first time held that, in a federal prosecution, The 4th Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.

According to : Wolf v. Colorado, supra, at 28. 
This court has ever since required of federal law officers a strict adherence to that command which this court has held to be a clear, specific, and constitutionally required even if judicially implied deterrent safeguard without insistence upon which The XXXX XXXX would have been reduced to a form of words. 

XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX United States, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). 
It meant, quite simply, that conviction by any means of unlawful XXXX and enforced confessionsshould find no sanction in the judgment of the courts Weeks v. United States, XXXX, at XXXX, and that such evidence shall not be used at all. XXXX XXXX XXXX v. United States, XXXX, at XXXX. 

Independent of these views, there are many considerations which lead to the conclusion that the power to impair contracts [ either The XXXX or The XXXX XXXX ], by direct action to that end, does not exist with the general [ federal ] government. In the first place, one of the objects of The Constitution, expressed in its preamble, was the establishment of justice, and what that meant in its relations to contracts is not left, as was justly said by the late XXXX XXXX, in XXXX v. XXXX, to inference or conjecture. As he observes, at the time The Constitution undergoing discussion in the convention, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was engaged in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwestern Territory, in which certain articles of compact were established between the people of the original States and the people of the Territory, for the purpose, as expressed in the instrument, of extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, upon which the States, their laws and constitutions, were erected. By that ordinance it was declared, that, in the just preservation of right and property, no law ought ever be made, or have force in the said Territory, that shall, in any manner, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements bona fide and without fraud previously formed. The same provision, adds the Chief Justice, found more condensed expression in the prohibition upon the States [ in Article 1, Section 10 of The Constitution ] against impairing the obligation of contracts, which has ever been recognized as an efficient safeguard against injustice ; and though the prohibition is not applied in terms to the government of The United States, he expressed the opinion, speaking for himself and the majority of the court at the time, that it was clear that those who framed and those who adopted The Constitution intended that the spirit of this prohibition should pervade the entire of legislation, and that the justice which The Constitution was obtained to establish was not thought by them to be compatible with legislation [ or judicial precedent ] of an opposite tendency. 8 Wall. 623. [ 99 U.S. 700, 765 ] Similar views are found expressed in the opinions of the other judges of this court. [ Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700 ( 1878 ) ] Inference means based on the conclusion of evidence. 
Conjecture means based on opinion or incomplete information. 
The whole scheme is unconstitutional. 

Ive attached a letter below going into more detail on the dispute and why it needs to be removed.