Consumer complaint received 2020-01-18 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Other personal consumer report
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information is incorrect
Company: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - SAN FRANCISCO MAIN BRANCH
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Settlement Proposal to Union Bank XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX XXXX, XXXX When the lender recast the loan, after the Bank admitted to numerous false filings, the Bank should have created a new amortization schedule, among other required documents i.e. ; a table of loan payments showing the principal and interest that comprises each payment until the loan is paid in full for consideration of the customer. Unfortunately, the Bank 's proposal turned out to be a demand contract of adhesion ; the take-it-or-leave-it contract. Mr. XXXX XXXX defined a contract of adhesion as follows : " The term signifies a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it. '' This contract turned out to be an expired Heloc, dated XXXX, that Ms. XXXX may have found in the waste container. Nevertheless she claimed that it represented a collectible debt. The reuse of a null and void contract has no legal consequences because it is null from the start ; but XXXX XXXX lied, claiming that it was a valid new Heloc, misinforming Customer and demanded repayment on that basis. After the recast, the Bank had suddenly begun referring to the loan as a personal loan, a term never previously used and incorrectly applied to a Heloc, even a false one, which relies on equity assets. It was a strategy to draw consumers attention away from the Civil Code limit of 10 %, for business purposes for which the money was used. Customer was fooled for over a year when he realized it was fraudulent ; non-conforming to Truth in Lending so that she could perfect a fraud. Customer was fooled for a couple of years because he had believed her. Even a false contract has to look real. 
The Truth in Lending Act, which banks are required to follow, requires a lender to divulge sufficient information for a customer to make a thoughtful choice. Options were totally concealed by the Bank. Yet Ms. XXXX sent several copies of the null contract to Consumer, insisting each time that it was the real contract, Consumer finally realized that it was a facsimile of those he had already received, and void, ( Void means that there is none ). Although the Bank has endeavored to create the illusion of legality the reality is that there is no legal contract. Just old garbage from XXXX. In order to maintain a pretense. Mr. XXXX directed the Bank to use standard billing forms for a Line of  Credit, a clumsy ploy to hide evidence of fraud and of the Misrepresentation. There is no contract at all between the parties. There was an habitual payment as the result of deception rather than acceptance, encouraged by mis-statement and deceit from Ms. XXXX, who sought to maintain both the lie and the illusion.of Agreement.Customer then filed a legal Complaint. Although the Bank did pay back {$5000.00}, previously eaten, the recast account also carries an onerous and punitive interest rate as a reprisal, over 36 % APR. Ms. XXXX acted maliciously and despicably in demanding over 36 % APR, thereby putting customers assets at risk ; and grossly out of step with excellent credit ratings. Customer has suffered monetary damages for money paid out in response to false billing. Elder Financial Abuse may result in significant punitive damages when oppression is a factor. 
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - TILA requires listing the amount financed, the Payment schedule, the Amortization schedule and Finance charges, including any additional fees and penalties, and the cost of the interest. The Heloc was a false contract of adhesion.The Ca Penal Code, Section 368, deals with theft ; which may result in mental suffering. ( 368 ( c ) Lenders have specific responsibilities under Regulation Z and TILA, including : Disclosures must be provided timely and redisclosure must be completed as required ; Disclosures must be expressed accurately and completely ; and, Terms, rates, and charges, including the annual percentage rate ( APR ) and finance charges, must be expressed consistent with required formats, amortization schedule, and tolerances ) .APR is calculated by multiplying the periodic interest rate by the number of periods in a year in which the periodic rate is applied. It does not indicate how many times the rate is applied to the balance, information required by Truth in Lending.One could assume anything at all.There was no meeting of the minds ; and a void Heloc, as the curtain of a performance. Consumer has since learned that the Union Bank had a business relationship with the XXXX, the XXXX crime syndicate, specializing in white collar crime. 
Allegations 1. Bank presented the discarded, null Heloc contract as a new fixed rate contract, which it was not. ( Fraudulent Misrepresentation ) Customer received a communication from Ms.XXXX dated XXXX XXXX attemp ; ting to soothe his concerns : ... In response to your numerous claims of violations, Union Bank firmly embraces the concept of responsible banking. The actions taken on your Heloc were handled appropriately and not in violation of any laws. We have offered you this lowered rate and reimbursement simply as a goodwill gesture. No error has occurred on your Heloc. 
In fact, the Heloc that Ms. XXXX writes about had expired six months previously and was null. The rate within the Heloc was excessive ; and the assertion that no error had occurred on your Heloc was a lie. The Heloc cited by MsXXXX XXXX was a fraud, and Ms. XXXX knew that she was misrepresenting it. 
2.Nevetheless the Bank used the null Heloc as a vehicle to filing a false Foreclosure Notice when customer objected to false filings and stealing from his account 3.With the  intent to deceive, the Bank concealed the true purpose of a recast ; which was to place a high interest rate on the account, replacing the low, flexible interest of the Heloc. Saying something is true when there was no reason to believe it was true ; making promises that the Bank had no intention of fulfilling violates ( PC487 ) 4. Bank misrepresented the expired, null and void Heloc as a new fixed rate ; erasing evidence of the low flex rate within the Heloc.

5.The Bank agreed to return most of the money that it had stolen from customer 's  account if the customer dropped his legal complaint. ( XXXX ) 6.In the meantime, Bank had hidden the employee, the named Defendant in the Complaint and refused to provide his location and address to insure that he would not be there to testify, thus unlawfully interfering in the Court process ; compelling Consumer to accept recast offer of the Bank. ( Title 18 U.S.C. 1501 violation ) 7.By concealing violations of the Truth in Lending Act the Bank, by false pretense, with intent to deceive, was able to weigh in with demands that were actual illegal and onerous.

8. Although the Bank returned some money stolen from Customers account it failed to pay interest on the money that it had taken. 
9.Billing statements were sent to customer on Heloc forms, with the pretense that the Heloc was still operative, substituting non-contractual and onerous interest rates.

10. Bank concealed false billing by insisting that the contract mailed to customer was operative or double billing interest ; with sly changes to the interest rate. Saying something is true when Ms. XXXX had no reason to believe that it was true, was habitual. ( XXXX ). 
11. Bank employees as a group together conspired to embezzle customers funds, and laughed at him when he complained ; then sent a foreclosure notice basednona nullity.Bank conspired to conceal the true nature of the recast ; as in legalizing a series of fraudulent actions to raise interest rates on the account ; taking unfair advantage of a senior customer in violation of statutes that protect seniors from unfair and exploitative actions.Ms. XXXX, the principal actor, conspired with other employees to embezzle customers money, a violation of PC 487 ( intention to steal property ) and PC 503 (  Embezzlement ) 12 Conclusion : There is no contract, written or verbal nor lien agreement between the Bank and the Customer. The Bank contends that it has loaned a certain sum to the Customer, with a null and void Heloc. The Bank, a sophisticated lender, uses an inappropriate form of contract to bill the customer, with deceitful intent, typical of white collar crime practiced by the XXXX, the XXXX crime syndicate, with whom the Bank does business. The Bank misrepresents the meaning of the word, annual, commonly understood to mean once a year, to mean once a month to deceive the literate public.Ms. XXXX was a part of the conspiracy to defraud the customer by soothing him with falsehoods that she knew were fictional. As the point person for a XXXX style attack on US banking laws, Ms. XXXX enmeshed Truth in Lending law in misrepresentations, to weaken its enforcement. 
Customer received a letter from Ms. XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, in response to Customer queries : Mr. XXXX, in response to your numerous claims of violation, Union Bank firmly embraces the concept of responsible banking. The actions taken on yourHeloc were handled appropriately and not in violation of any laws. We have offered you this lowered rate and reimbursement simply as a goodwill gesture.No error has occured on your Heloc ... Our goal is to provide exceptional service and we trust that the courtesy interest reimbursement rate decrease and explanation are helpful to you. 
In fact, the rate bordered on usury, the payback was for money stolen from his account and false filings ; to avoid a legal Complaint ; the recast was for numerous errors, and Customers demand was, in sum, to cease and desist from white collar crime. 

Contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party 's agent, or it appears that the client has accepted the conditions. 
Customer was deceived, and Mr. XXXX, XXXX XXXX President, shall cease and desist from false billing on the basis of a null contact. There is no subscribed legal Agreement with contract conditions, nor trace of validity in the current system that justifies an interest rate far in excess of the current market rate. The use of fraud and misrepresentation to demand an inflated interest rate based on a null Heloc ; in retaliation, will cease. While Customer has been paying36 %, the current bank interest rate is 3.24 % APR. Mr. XXXX will cease and desist from imposing excessive interest. a fraud in the factum. Bank will further provide program analysis information required by Truth in Lending. 
Finally, on financial industry data banks Union Bank has enrolled my property as their mortgage, thus a deterrent to legitimate banks and providing an obstacle to refinancing. 


XXXX XXXX

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