Consumer complaint received 2024-04-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
THIS IS REF # XXXX Let us examine the facts : My son, aged XXXX, independently applied for a credit card with JP Morgan Chase , with no involvement or cosigning from me. He used this card and unfortunately passed away on XX/XX/XXXX, in a different state, Colorado. Subsequently, on XX/XX/XXXX, JP Morgan Chase contacted me in VA, the father, to settle my son 's outstanding debt. However, I reiterate that I had no part in this credit card agreement, nor was I a joint account holder or cosigner. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX? 
Should JP Morgan Chase Pay Slavery Reparations? 
Should XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the father ) pay XXXX XXXX XXXX ( dead son ) Debt? 

Should the USA Offer Reparations to XXXX for the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX? 

Subject : Isn't it ironic? The same folks who wash their hands of a deceased man 's debt are now trying to pin it on XXXX, the living father. It's a twist of logic, isn't it? They say the past is the past, but suddenly want to collect on ancient debts from someone who had no part in them. Oh, the irony! 


Isn't it intriguingly ironic? Those who vehemently disavow responsibility for the actions and debts of the deceased are now conveniently attempting to shift the burden onto XXXX, the living father. It's a peculiar reversal of logic, isn't it? The same individuals who adamantly argue that the past should not hold sway over the present are now attempting to capitalize on a deceased man 's debt to extract payment from someone who bears no responsibility for it whatsoever. Oh, the tangled web of irony we find ourselves ensnared in. I respectfully bring to the court 's attention the glaring double standard evident in the actions of JP Morgan Chase in pursuing debt repayment from me, despite my clear lack of involvement in the matter. 

I am compelled to address a glaring double standard and hypocrisy that has surfaced in the actions of JP Morgan Chase. On one hand, JP Morgan Chase adamantly denies any liability for historical events such as their involvement in the 19th-century slave trade, arguing that they can not be held accountable for actions that occurred long ago and in which they were not directly involved. Yet, on the other hand, they insist that I, an individual who had no part in my late son 's credit card agreement, shoulder the burden of his debt solely because of our familial connection. 

This discrepancy in JP Morgan Chase 's stance raises fundamental questions of fairness and equity. How is it justifiable for JP Morgan Chase to absolve themselves of responsibility for past transgressions while simultaneously demanding that I accept liability for a debt that I did not incur and was not party to? The answer is simple : it is not. 

Furthermore, I am compelled to draw attention to the sheer hypocrisy of JP Morgan Chase 's position. If they argue that events from the past are irrelevant to their present-day operations and should not result in financial liability, then why do they persist in pursuing repayment for a debt that is similarly rooted in the past and has no direct connection to me? If we are to apply the principle of accountability consistently, then JP Morgan Chase must be held to the same standard they espouse. 

In light of this glaring double standard and hypocrisy, I am left with no choice but to question the integrity of JP Morgan Chase 's actions. It is time for accountability to be applied impartially and without exception, whether it pertains to historical injustices or contemporary financial obligations. 

On one hand, JP Morgan Chase expects me, as the father of a deceased individual, to bear responsibility for a debt that my son incurred independently, without my knowledge or consent. They insist on holding me accountable for financial obligations that I had no part in, despite the absence of any legal obligation or agreement on my part. 

Yet, on the other hand, when we scrutinize JP Morgan Chase 's own historical actions, we are confronted with a stark contrast in accountability. JP Morgan Chase, along with other financial institutions, has faced criticism and legal action for their involvement in the 19th-century slave trade, a heinous practice that inflicted immeasurable suffering on countless individuals and families. 

While JP Morgan Chase may acknowledge the grave injustice of their past actions, they are quick to absolve themselves of any present-day responsibility or accountability. They conveniently evade the repercussions of their historical involvement in human rights abuses, hiding behind legal technicalities and corporate structures. 

This double standard is not only unjust but also morally reprehensible. It reveals a glaring inconsistency in the application of accountability, where individuals are held to a higher standard of responsibility than powerful corporations with a history of egregious wrongdoing. 
I respectfully submit that the situation presented by JP Morgan Chase 's pursuit of debt repayment from me, despite my clear lack of involvement in the credit card agreement, calls into question the fairness and consistency of their actions. consider the principle of fairness and consistency in our actions. If JP Morgan Chase expects me to assume responsibility for a debt that I did not incur nor had any role in, is it not fair to question their own actions in light of their historical involvement in the 19th-century slave trade? As an XXXX American, the mere suggestion of such a comparison may seem audacious, yet it prompts reflection on the concept of hypocrisy. 

Hypocrisy, as defined, refers to someone who claims certain beliefs but behaves in a manner contrary to those beliefs. By holding individuals accountable for debts they did not incur, JP Morgan Chase may inadvertently display a form of hypocrisy if they fail to acknowledge their own historical actions and their moral implications. 

It has come to my attention that JP Morgan Chase has staunchly denied any liability for the billions of dollars being claimed in relation to their historical involvement in the 19th-century slave trade. JPMorgan Apologizes for Links to Slavery XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX ET JPMorgan Chase & Co. acknowledges that two of its predecessor banks received thousands of slaves as collateral prior to the Civil War. The bank apologized for contributing to " a brutal and unjust institution. '' In considering the notion of reparations, some individuals argue against it, citing the fact that those directly involvedboth the victims and perpetratorsare deceased, and that these events occurred in the past. This raises a pertinent question : why should present-day individuals, who bear no responsibility for historical injustices, be held accountable? 

Similarly, in the case at hand, why should the living father, XXXX, be implicated in the financial affairs of his deceased son, XXXX? XXXX, who is no longer alive, can not be held accountable for his actions, just as those who were directly involved in historical wrongs can not be held accountable today. 

It is a fundamental principle of justice that individuals should only be held responsible for their own actions, not those of others, especially when those others are deceased. Just as it would be unjust to hold present-day individuals responsible for historical injustices, it would be equally unjust to hold XXXX accountable for the financial obligations of his deceased son, XXXX. 

In both instances, the key lies in recognizing the distinction between past and present, and ensuring that accountability is appropriately assigned to those who are truly responsible. 

Another article even stated : XXXX XXXX Saying she has proof the founder of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. profited from the toil of American slaves, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX said Friday she would seek to sever city ties to the firm. XXXX said she would present evidence of founder XXXX XXXX Morgans onetime commerce with industries built on slave labor Wednesday to the City Council and ask the council to revoke city contracts with the firm. If the City Council fails to do that, we will sue the City CounciXXXX, she said. She spoke at the fourth annual XXXX XXXX XXXX, for which she serves as national chairman. The group seeks reparations for descendants of American slaves. We have not seen the allegations, so it would be inappropriate for us to respond, said XXXX XXXX, a spokesman for New York-based J.P. Morgan , which is seeking to merge with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 


How curious, isn't it? The very ones who disavow any responsibility for the debts of the departed are now aiming to shift the burden onto XXXX, the living father. It's a curious paradox, wouldn't you agree? While advocating that the past should remain in the past, they seem eager to hold XXXX accountable for debts he had no hand in. Oh, the twists and turns of irony! 

As established and duly recorded in the court proceedings prior to my appointment as the administrator, it was repeatedly confirmed that XXXX possessed no financial assets, spouse, or children. My sole purpose in seeking this appointment was to ascertain the circumstances surrounding his passing, with no intent or obligation to assume responsibility for any financial matters. recognize the inherent injustice in JP Morgan Chase 's actions and to uphold principles of fairness and equity in this matter. It is imperative that accountability be applied consistently and impartially, without regard to wealth, power, or privilege. I urge the court to consider the broader implications of JP Morgan Chase 's actions and to uphold principles of fairness and consistency in this matter. It is not just a matter of financial responsibility but also one of moral integrity and accountability. 


Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, VA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation