Consumer complaint received 2021-12-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Notification didn't disclose it was an attempt to collect a debt
Company: Affirm Holdings, Inc
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint as your firm, Affirm, is attempting to violate my consumer rights and replied in a vague manner. I would like to say that you are trying to fraudulently attempt to collect an alleged debt despite the fact that the United States corporation is obligated to all promissory notes, coupons, bills, checks, etc. confirmed by Title 18 U.S.C. 8. Every/ all utility companies have committed embezzlement, theft by deception, and extortion by failing to discharge all debts according to 73rd Congress. SESS 1. CHS. 48 49 XX/XX/XXXX HJR 192HR 1491 PUblic Law 1 48 STAT 1 Public Law 10 Chapter 48 Stat 112 Public Law 73-10 40 STAT 411 Trading With the Enemy ACT XX/XX/XXXX. The short story is that the Corporation of the United States took the gold and silver from the people and replaced it with debt or promissory notes so there is no money of value and a person can't pay a debt with a debt. I'd also like to mention that your company, like many others, especially banks, created a convertible and fraudulent debt. Companies have failed to pay off any of the public debt but rather unlawfully redirected the ill-gotten gains into a private corporate account which occurs in violation to the incorporated against laws established and a result of the US Bankruptcy Act of 1933, which confirms there is no money as a result of no real assets backing the " money. '' There are only bank notes which are a promise to " pay '' and a debt can't be paid with debt. Since the United States took the only form of payment, in gold and silver, from the people, all debts are to be discharged as agreed but the utilities companies ( and banks ) have not discharged any debt, but rather gave the illusion and violated the natural person by putting the consumer deeper in debt causing damages and loss of livelihood. I'd also like to point out that your firm indicates it will report " payments to bureaus '' but this, again, is false and misleading according to the Truth in Lending Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.. According to 15 U.S.C. 1605 of the Truth in Lending Act, the Finance Charge is defined as the sum of all charges, payable directly or indirectly by the person to whom the credit is extended, and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to the extension of credit. This is a completely different definition under the TILA than what your agreement provides and it is false as well as misleading, stating the finance charge is the cost of credit. Next, I would like to highlight a misleading statement in reports to credit reporting, as confirmed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FCRA was enacted to assure that credit reporting is fair, accurate, but also respects the consumers right to privacy per 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( a ) ( 4 ). Section 17 of the Loan Agreement state that the Loan Holder or its representatives may report certain transactions such as late payments, missed payments, or defaults on the loan to credit bureaus. If we look at the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the act does not define bureaus. The only bureau Is in reference to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 15 U.S.C. 1602 ( b ), while lawful reporting is a function of consumer reporting agencies, 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ).

Also, the FCRA states that transactions and experiences are to be excluded from a customers credit report, 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii ). Payments are transactions. To add to my point, the Gramm Leach Bliley Act states that a financial institution can only disclose nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties unless the financial institution provides a notice that such action will be taken while also providing the consumer a way to opt out as well as be given the procedure as to opt out.

( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option Now, since your firm alleges that I am a borrower and not the natural person, I have a few questions for the bank called Affirm. Were the funds to be paid to the alleged borrower? The check written, does it represent an asset of the bank? Is it a bank policy to first deposit money into an account before writing a check on that account? Where did the funds originate to fund the check? Did the bank originate the funds for the check or did the borrower originate the funds for the check? To the best of your knowledge, where did the funds originate from? Did your firm issue a check based on the value of something in exchange for the loan? What asset was used to issue the check? Can banks loan money and does the law provide what kind of money the banks can loan? What did the bank have to loan the alleged borrower in order for the bank to legally own the promissory note?

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation