Consumer complaint received 2025-07-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: Blitt and Gaines, P.C.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
Summary : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX things occurred : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fraud claim XXXX was reopened around XXXXXXXX XXXX  due to upload issues from someone impersonating me. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of Blitt & Gaines told the court I initiated a " false claim of fraud '' on XX/XX/XXXX. 
The problem : That same claim ( XXXX ) is still active. I never opened or reopened it. On XX/XX/XXXX, a XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX rep named XXXX confirmed it was reopened due to someone else failing to upload documentsnot me. 
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Blitt & Gaines, and XXXX have impersonated me, triggering fraud application claims and misattributing them to me in court filings and credit reporting. Over {$83000.00} in fraudulent applications claims and charge reversals have been falsely tied to my identity. 
I have recordings of multiple XXXX  representatives, including XXXX and XXXX, admitting the fraud. XXXX has also admitted their involvement in the CFPB responsethough they try to deny its importance. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX of XXXX, submitted a formal response to the IXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which admitted several key facts : ( XXXX ) that XXXX XXXX XXXX placed my account with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, ( XXXX ) that XXXX forwarded the account to Blitt & Gaines on XX/XX/XXXX, ( XXXX ) and that XXXX handled at least four of my CFPB complaints. 
Most importantly, XXXX letter attempts to disclaim responsibility by stating that the Law Firm escalated the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX fraud claims yet all available evidence shows those claims were instead initiated under Claim ID XXXX, through internal processes not triggered by me. 
However, XXXX claim that I initiated a fraud claim on XX/XX/XXXX is provably false. The letter I sent was a validation request, not a fraud claim, and was delivered on XX/XX/XXXX, via XXXX tracking # XXXX. This proves I did not initiate a fraud claim on XXXX XXXX date used to justify re-opening the XXXX claim. Instead, it appears that XXXX or Blitt & Gaines used my XX/XX/XXXX letter as a pretext to manufacture a fraud escalation, later falsely attributed to me. This further supports that the fraud was vendor-driven and manipulated using internal systems without my consent. In doing so, XXXX XXXX effectively threw XXXX XXXX under the busexposing her as the one who initiated the escalation, all while shifting blame onto me through a knowingly false accusation. 
This contradiction proves that either XXXX is lying about its lack of control or is concealing its role in initiating vendor-driven fraud claims and balance reversions which resulted in over {$83000.00} in unlawful chargebacks and consumer reporting violations. 
--

- Rule 280.5 Violation ( Illinois Supreme Court Rule ) : Under Rule 280.5, if a defendant files an identity theft affidavit, the plaintiff must rebut it within 90 daysor the case must be dismissed. Blitt & Gaines never filed a rebuttal affidavit. Instead, they had the court strike mine based on a technicality ( naming attorneys involved in the fraud ).

Thats not due processits suppression. 
Attorney XXXX XXXX, who helped write Rule 280.5, has repeatedly misrepresented its application and scope. In addition to falsely narrowing the definition of identity theft to exclude fraud that occurred after the account was closed, he and his firm failed to disclose that XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX duplicated the account on XX/XX/XXXX, under a new reference numberfalsely carrying over the unverified disputed balance without consent. 
This duplication created a false continuity of debt tied to my namedespite prior fraud findingsand laid the groundwork for XXXX and Blitt & Gaines to revive litigation based on fraudulent balance reversions and fabricated claim evaluations. This was never disclosed to the court or regulators until I uncovered it through my own investigation. 
-- - Criminal Fraud Allegations : XXXX, XXXX, and B & G have submitted false documents in court. 
XXXX submitted Exhibit C, a falsified fraud evaluation tied to Claim ID XXXX, under my name, with redacted and manipulated tracking to justify the Motion to Strike XXXX. 
Attorney XXXX XXXXXXXX at B & G reopened the fraud claim on XX/XX/XXXX, falsely attributing it to me. This act constitutes bank fraud, identity theft, and abuse of court process. 
This act constitutes bank fraud, identity theft, and abuse of court process. 
-- - Internal Compliance Fraud : Evidence indicates that XXXX XXXX, Chief Compliance Officer of Blitt & Gaines, was the original actor who opened or authorized the fraudulent claim tied to Claim ID XXXX around XX/XX/XXXX, without the defendants knowledge or consent. This claim triggered over {$83000.00} in unauthorized chargebacks, later used as the foundation for the lawsuit and Exhibit C. 
In open court of Motion to Strike XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiffs lead counsel, XXXX XXXX, attempted to distance himself from this action by shifting blame to XXXX, also throwing her under the bus in an attempt to say I committed a, false claim of fraud, under XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, revealing serious internal contradictions. This implicates not just one rogue attorneybut a systemic abuse of fraud application claim escalation by the firms compliance leadership. 
If the Chief Compliance Officer of a debt collection law firm is misusing identity theft protocols for litigation leverage, this becomes a matter of federal concernviolating FDCPA, FCRA, and Rule 280.5 protections. 
GiveXXXX XXXX XXXXle as Chief Compliance Officer and XXXX as Managing Partner, their actions reflect not just litigation misconductbut a systemic breakdown of ethical oversight at the leadership level of Blitt & Gaines. 
-- Vexatious Litigant Retaliation : XXXX  and the firm are now calling me vexatious to retaliate for exposing the fraud. 
Calling an identity theft victim vexatious for defending themselves is not only absurd, but potentially defamatory and retaliatory. The real abuse is B & Gs attempt to silence me through motions to strike all pleadings, while never rebutting fraud application claims placed in my name.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation