Consumer complaint received 01-09-2018 about Debt collection (Mortgage debt) with SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. (CA).
Issue: Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly
Sub-issue: Contacted you after you asked them to stop

Complaint: Select Portfoliio Servicing has illegally contacted the owers of the property that which is in question and proven to be false and was created by identity theft forgery and creation of document and new documents recently created. As well a investigator hired by SPS  Select Portfolio Servicing hired a man or company by the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX whom apparently are an finacial advisor based out of XXXX and fraudulently claiming to be based out of XXXX which the Country XXXX has denied herein. This has violated my private citisen rights and privacy acts therein. SPS has no contract with us. There are no credit reporting of XXXX XXXX XXXX, where XXXX XXXX by way of XXXX alleges and have been proven to be false that they aquired a loan from such parties, simply a lie. We have been cleared of any wrong doing of loans such as this that SPS has presented by the court of law with record and they have ignored those records and have share our private information with some fraudlulent company XXXX XXXX XXXX. Privacy law refers to the laws that deal with regulating, storing, and using of personally identifiable information of individuals, which can be collected by governments, public or private organizations, or by other individuals. SPS claims that they are following the law and a false contractual agreement. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has provided proof that the attempted loan refinance was canceled on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX notary forged the home owners signatures upon documents dated XX/XX/XXXX which was filed a year or two later in the Los Angeles County Registrar dating it back toXX/XX/XXXX but seems clearly to be out of date and inaccurate. SPS simply has not show any laws that they are following but meerly states they are following the law, which law? SPS must provide the law they are following not a CCP of a FCP these are proceedures and not law, nor is it constitutional for SPS XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MERS and XXXX to share our private information ill gotten by a notary whom by the way does not have our drivers liscence information nor the correct names matching the state of California drivers liscence wherein XXXX XXXX stated on the forged Deed " XXXX XXXX normaly signs as XXXX XXXX XXXX '' What is that? That is forgery. We never met XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX and it has and can be proven with time sheets witnesses such as XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX whom provided the right to cancel documents on the same day, so how is it possible that we where in two places or three places at the same time? this is violation of the privacy act. The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, establishes a code of fair information practices that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies. The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended at 5 U.S.C. 552a, Protects records about individuals retrieved by personal identifiers such as a name, social security number, or other identifying number or symbol. The right to privacy refers to the concept that one 's personal information is protected from public scrutiny. U.S. Justice XXXX XXXX called it " the right to be left alone. '' While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, some amendments provide some protections. Therefore they SPS and XXXX XXXX XXXX should be fined based upon Federal Law and State LAW as well a violation of the US CONSTITUTION wherein these companies are foriegn herein to the USA. SPS and XXXX XXXX XXXX are in violation to the laws governed by the United States Of America and in violation to the US Constitution, The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that " the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and ... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation