Consumer complaint received 2017-09-30 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Banking errors
Company: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - SAN FRANCISCO MAIN BRANCH
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX responded to Case # XXXX, which was in itself a complaint filed in response to XXXX XXXX XXXX response to Case # XXXX. 
Once again, XXXX XXXX obfuscates and misrepresents to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so egregiously that it is clear that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should take civil and criminal action against XXXX XXXX 
1 ) XXXX XXXX purports to never have heard the term " force posted. '' Force posting is when a merchant is able to post a charge to an account WITHOUT RECEIVING normal computer authorization from a bank. XXXX XXXX XXXX own records would reflect that no authorization code was ever given to XXXX XXXX to charge my account.
2 ) XXXX XXXX puts forth the statement that somehow I am responsible for overdrawing my account by withdrawing {$1500.00} that was in the account?!? If that withdrawal had overdrawn the account I would not have been able to withdraw the money?!? Then XXXX XXXX further puts forth the statement that somehow the charges from XXXX, for which there was no authorization, AND WHICH CAME IN AFTER I HAD WITHDRAWN THE {$1500.00}, are somehow not responsible for the fact the account was overdrawn?!? 
3 ) XXXX XXXX attempts to cover up its blatant violation of rules regarding overdrafts and the fact they must be authorized by a customer by putting forth the bizarre scenario that apparently there were authorizations -- of which there were not -- lurking somewhere that only appeared after I had withdrawn {$1500.00}. XXXX XXXX can present no evidence that there were legal authorizations because there were no legal authorizations.
4 ) But even if we were not talking about force postings, XXXX XXXX, in its response, highlights yet another example of why I am not liable. XXXX XXXX puts for the entirely irrelevant and misleading statement " Once a Debit Card is  used to pay for good or services and the merchant asks us to authorize the transaction in advance, we commit to paying the merchant and may immediately place a temporary hold on your account for the amount requested by the merchant. '' I suppose that would be relevant if I had purchased something from XXXX XXXX with my XXXX XXXX debit card. But because I NEVER HAVE PURCHASED ANYTHING FROM XXXX XXXX WITH MY XXXX XXXX CARD IN MY LIFE it is beyond bizarre for XXXX XXXX  to even put forth this statement, although, as indicated, what it actually does is provides yet another clear example of why I am not in any way liable for XXXX XXXX allowing XXXX XXXX to withdrawal money from the account. And it also thus must be pointed out that the clear responsibility, legal and otherwise, to pursue criminal action against XXXX XXXX rests with XXXX XXXX, not me. I am simply a witness and perhaps secondary victim. XXXX XXXX does not get to attempt to shield its own involvement in this matter, and well as perpetuate to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau an illusion, by trying to shift to me responsibility. 
5 ) At this point it is nothing short of civil and criminal fraud for XXXX XXXX to put forth to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that I owe XXXX XXXX {$190.00} and that I should contact XXXX XXXX to make payment arrangements. This is akin to a business allowing a burglar to break into your house and then having the audacity to ask you for costs the business may have been stuck with in the process of allowing the burglar to break into your house. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX fraudulent behavior and misrepresentation to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be sanctioned in the strongest possible manner by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

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 non-monetary relief