Dear Sirs:

This letter is
lawful notification to you in response to your answer to my previous request for validation of this
supposed debt. You have failed to supply the documentation I have asked for;
Ref. UCC 2-609.
On 4/20/2012, I directed a letter to you demanding that you specifically provide lawful bona fide
proof of your alleged claim in this instant matter and to present this proof by lawfully designated
means. (seeattached).

Instead of providing lawful presentation and lawful proof of a bona fide claim in this matter, you
responded by sending an irrelevant and invalid response which I received on 5/9/2012.(see
attached)Pursuant to YOUR response, you failed to provide the necessary valid and lawful proof
in order to validate your claim as outlined in my original letter. This includes, but is not limited to
the following:
1)
A certified copy of the original signed contract between myself, the
living being, andJP MORGAN CHASE.
A computer generated info/data sheet does not qualify as a contract under the law. This is not
validation of anything other than someone You claimed in your correspondence that a contract
exists. Where is it? Be aware that if this should result in court action your production of said
contract will be ordered by the court.

2) Lawful presentation of the accounting specifically detailing the activity regarding the
aforementioned alleged contract presented via signed and sworn affidavit by an agent/employee
of your entity that has direct experience and knowledge of said alleged account and the
accounting; Computer generated statements do not qualify as a detailed accounting; ref.
UCC 9-210.
3)
Any other information and/or supporting documentation regarding JP MORGAN CHASE
lawfully proving that JP MORGAN CHASE has supporting documentation.
No other supporting information or documentation was included. 
Therefore, because JP MORGAN CHASE has refused and/or failed to provide a
lawful and proper response as required and requested in order to be
compliant with due process of law, JP MORGAN CHASE has acquiesced and agreed to the fact
that they do not have proof of a bona fide claim,
therefore, JP MORGAN CHASE claim has no lawful and valid standing.

If you disagree with anything in this letter, then rebut that with which you disagree, in writing, with
particularity, to me, within the 30 days given in my prior request for validation letter, and support your
disagreement with evidence, fact and law. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement with
and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful, and is
your irrevocable agreement attesting to this, fully binding upon you, in any court in America, without
your protest or objection or that of those who represent you.

Your silence is
your acquiescence. See: Connally v.
General Construction Co., 269 U.S.
385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is the first essential of due process of law.Also, see: U.S.
v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty
to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading.
All Rights
Reserved,
(my name)

June 8, 2010

CLAIMANT/LIBELANT:
Tien Pham McKinnon
PMB: 253
23016 Lake Forest Suite A,
Laguna Hills, Ca 92653
Non-Domestic, Without the U.S.

RESPONDENT/LIBELEE:
Vikram Pandit, and/or his successor, individually,
and in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer,
Citimortgage, Inc. hereinafter “BANK”, “LENDER”
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Registered Mail Return Receipt RC046799352US

ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE

NOTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CLAIM WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY
ab initio ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
[28 U.S.C. §1333, §1337, §2461 and §2463]
NOTICE OF TORT CLAIM, AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT AND
DEMAND FOR PROOF OF CLAIM WITH OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
AND ASSESSMENT FOR DAMAGES

Private Administrative Remedy Request for Proof of Claim In The Nature of Discovery
For Tien Pham McKinnon - Account #0770807411
Silence is Acquiescence, Agreement, and Dishonor
This is a self-executing contract in Admiralty
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal * Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent.
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO THREATEN, HARASS, HINDER OR
OBSTRUCT ANY LAWFUL OPERATIONS. IT IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF OBTAINING
LAWFUL REMEDY AS IS PROVIDED BY LAW.
The following document is an administrative procedure, within the admiralty. This document is
tendered for the purpose of remedy and relief of the fraudulent claim(s) that you have stated against the
above named referenced Secured Party Creditor and Claimant-Libelant, Tien Pham Mckinnon.
If VIKRAM PANDIT, CEO has lawful proof of claim against the above named Claimant, it must be
submitted according to the terms and conditions contained herein in order to cure your dishonor in
commerce.
Dear Mr. Pandit:
I have made numerous attempts to resolve this issue with Citimortgage, Inc. concerning the real
property located at 1623 Alberhill St, Perris, Ca 92571.
I would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible. As a result, I, Claimant and Libellant am
initiating this Private-Administrative Process Remedy in the nature of discovery, to determine if such
matters or controversy exist in this transaction and to determine whether you, Respondents or others
within your venue did or did not commit, including but not limited to constitutional impermissible
application of the statute(s) or law(s) in this matter.
In the State of California/STATE OF CALIFORNIA, the liability of a bank for wrongful dishonor is
classified as a tort action.
In addition to a tort action for wrongful dishonor, Claimant/Libellant will bring a tort action against the
Respondents for: including, but not limited to, fraud, dishonor in commerce, conspiracy to defraud,
denial of right to beneficial enjoyment, racketeering, collusion, etc . Should the one who assists
Claimant(s), and anyone who is authorized to assist Claimant(s) be an attorney, Respondent(s) bear(s)
the responsibility of compensating Claimant(s) for attorneys fees and litigation expenses. See e.g. 11
Am Jur 2d §950-951 BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
NOTICE: The Claimant(s) conditionally accept for value Respondent(s) silence, inaction, failure
and/or refusal to credit Tien Pham McKinnon’s account for $412,000.00 included any/all arrears
predicated upon proof(s) of claim of the following stipulations as enumerated below:
(1) That the alleged lender CITIMORTGAGE, INC., hereinafter LENDER, loaned alleged borrower
TIEN PHAM MCKINNON, hereinafter BORROWER, LENDER’s own funds to finance the real
property located at 1623 Alberhill St, Perris, Ca 92571, hereinafter PROPERTY, as reflected on the face
of BORROWER’s promise to repay, hereinafter NOTE; and
(2) That BORROWER received a loan prior to the date the NOTE was signed, as the face of the NOTE
unequivocally asserts by the language “…in return for a loan that I have received…”; and
(3) That LENDER did not receive BORROWER’s signed NOTE as an asset and participate in the
monetization of BORROWER’s signature and creation of a liability in the form of a demand deposit
credited to a transaction account which was used to finance the PROPERTY, thereby completing the
transaction between LENDER and BORROWER; and
(4) That BORROWER was not the actual source of the commercial energy used to create the funds to
finance the PROPERTY secured by the Deed of Trust, Instrument No.2006-0629802 dated August 17,
2006 and recorded on or about August 25, 2006 in the official records in the office of County Recorder
of Riverside County, California, hereinafter DEED OF TRUST; and
(5) That LENDER did not commit fraud by alleging to be the source of funds for the financing of the
PROPERTY, thereby making the terms of the corresponding NOTE and DEED OF TRUST null and
void; and
(6) That LENDER did not commit fraud in its participation in the securitization of the NOTE, thereby
vitiating the NOTE and DEED OF TRUST.
AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT
AS TO COUNT ONE: I demand that VIKRAM PANDIT, CEO AND CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
provide me with the genuine, original, wet ink signature of the complete promissory note for my
inspection to determine if they have lawful proof of their alleged claim. I believe that the note for the
property located at 1623 Alberhill St, Perris, Ca 92571 has been sold and credit was not given to my
account. As you should know the law requires lawfully documented proof of claim when it is
demanded. I believe there is no proof to the contrary. Attempting to enforce an unlawful claim is theft,
fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, collusion, abuse of power, dishonor in commerce, failure to uphold
oath of office. If an adequate response is not received to this request, Respondent(s) agree and consent
that they do not have the genuine, original, wet ink signature complete promissory note, by Tacit
Procuration.

AS TO COUNT TWO: I am demanding VIKRAM PANDIT, CEO and CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

provide me with a full “Statement of Accounting” pursuant to UCC 9-210 and to stipulate that they are
the Creditor, and holder-in-due-course of the Note. I believe that the note has been sold and credit was
not given to my account. As you should know the law requires lawfully documented proof of claim
when it is demanded. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary. Attempting to enforce an unlawful
claim is theft, fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, collusion, etc and further, if no answer is provided to this
Proof of Claim, Respondent(s) agree and consent that they are not the Creditor nor holder-in-due-
course, by Tacit Procuration.

You, my purported lending institution, successor in ownership, and/or loan servicer have committed
acts of fraud upon me, and the public in general, and are the single cause of this paradox and absent
YOU stating the claim as CREDITOR or “true” representative of the CREDITOR cannot claim a
debt or collection thereof.
MY ALLEGATIONS and/or CLAIMS:
1. I am the CREDITOR in this matter.
2. YOU are the DEBTOR in this matter.
3. YOU are not the CREDITOR, or an ASSIGNEE of the CREDITOR, in this instant matter.

4. I am NOT the DEBTOR in this matter.

5. YOU are not the Real Party in Interest in this instant matter.

6. YOU and/or any of YOU did NOT put their assets at risk in this instant matter.
7. YOU and/or any of YOU may have only “lent debt/credit” in this instant matter.
8. YOU and/or any of YOU co-mingle definitions to confuse and/or mislead the “Borrower” in
addressing the distinct products of a mortgage. Specifically the two separate documents are
“MORTGAGE” and “NOTE.” Some references refer to the MORTGAGE as Mortgage, Mortgage
Agreement, Agreement, Mortgage Contract, Deed of Trust, Security Deed and Contract herein Affiant
refers to the “MORTGAGE’ as Mortgage or Contract. The “NOTE” is referred to as Note, Mortgage
Note, Deed of Trust Note, and Promissory Note, herein the Affiant refers to the “NOTE” as Note or
Promissory Note.
9. YOU and/or any of YOU purposely destroyed the “GENUINE” ORIGINAL NOTE  to “securitize” a
new and Fraudulent NOTE.
10. YOU and/or any of YOU are calling the NOTE, PROMISSORY NOTE, and/or DEED OF TRUST
NOTE a NOTE when in reality the NOTE is a security by “true” definition (See 15 U.S.C. §78c 10).

11. YOU and/or any of YOU as such, are buying, selling and/or trading NOTEs as fraudulent securities.

12. YOU and/or any of YOU use “legalese” in the mortgage documents as a means of stripping the
“Borrower’s” right to defense, converting Real Property from its true owner to YOU and/or any of
YOU and such is a criminal act of “conversion through fraudulent means” and, therefore, the mortgage
documents are evidence of a criminal act(s) and cannot be used as such, used by the YOU in this
instant matter. (See: Black’s Law Dictionary 6thEd. “Understand”)
13. The United States has a primary mortgage Right and/or status on the real property in question and
such CANNOT be circumvented by YOU and/or any of YOU in fraudulent and unlawful mortgage
process and documents.
14. YOU and/or any of YOU have been paid in full for the “contract” in question.
15. YOU and/or any of YOU will fail to join “all indispensable parties” as such joinder would be prima
facie evidence of YOU and/or any of YOU fraudulent acts of securitizing the “NOTE.”

16. YOU and/or any of YOU are involved in the securitization of the “Promissory Note” and are
indispensable parties to this action and MUST be joined as one in any rebuttal, response, reply, answer,
and/or the like by YOU or any of YOU.
17. YOU and/or any of YOU are using a corporate entity and/or TRUST in furtherance of fraudulent
act(s).
17. YOU and/or any of YOU have no immunity for their fraudulent act(s).
18. YOU and/or any of YOU are joint and several responsible for ALL of my losses, cost fees, and/or
damages; including without limitations, emotional damages, punitive damages, inclusive of but not
limited to: alienation of affection from: spouse, boy and/or girl “friend”, friends, children, pets, co-
worker(s), client(s), customer(s), and any and all other parties effected directly and or indirectly and/or
collaterally even if caused by my inability to deal emotionally with the financial issues; as said issues
are and have been caused by YOU and/or any of YOU committing fraudulent act(s).
I allege through deceptive practice and without “full disclosure” the Mortgage agreement, Deed of
Trust, and or note have deceptive meaning clauses likecognovit note, waive the rights of presentment,
confession of judgment, waiver of presentment,” and/or other Granting Clauses that give power of sale
without the right to rebut to any multiple number of banks and/or mortgage companies and as such are
failure to disclose. These words of art “legalese” hereafter referred to as"cognovit," are fraudulently
being used to “block my right to protest in the courts or back door non-judicial judgment to assert,
presume, and/or prove that my right to rebut and/or litigate is waived. This was not fully disclosed and
as such is a violation of The Truth In Lending Act 15 U.S.C. §1601, Privacy Act Title 5 U.S.C. §552(b)
(4), and Title 12 U.S.C. § 2605 and therefore, makes ANY waiver of my ability to dispute a foreclosure
void. See: D. H. Overmyer Co. Inc., of Ohio Et al., v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174 (1972).,

OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
VIKRAM PANDIT, CEO / CITIMORTGAGE, INC. will have 21 calendar days to cure their dishonor
in commerce by complying with one of the following terms and conditions. Herein Fail Not.
1. Provide lawful proof of claim by presenting to me lawful document/s that show that you have the
lawful authority to enforce the note, are the holder in due course, right party in interest and the creditor
by responding point-by-point under full commercial liability, sworn under penalty of perjury as
requested herein to the above allegations and negative averments, according to the terms as indicated
herein, OR,
2. Pay the total amount of damages as indicated in the counterclaim herein, OR
3. Surrender all public hazard bonds, corporate bonds, blanket bonds, insurance policies, CAFR funds,
401-k(s), 801k(s), retirement funds, personal wealth and properties, or any other source of revenue as
needed to cure your dishonor in commerce and submit to the authorities for criminal prosecution, OR
4. Remit original note and deed of trust, fully executed original Deed of Full Reconveyance, return all
monies received from Claimant during the life of the loan, cease and desist from all actions in this
matter, and dismiss all claims against Tien Pham McKinnon, with prejudice.
4. Your failure to comply and cure your dishonor by answering all of the negative averments, point by
point, contained herein within 21 days will be default. Failure to provide lawfully documented evidence
that is certified lawful, true, and correct by notarized affidavit of VIKRAM PANDIT that is signed
under penalties of the law including perjury will be default. Partial or incomplete answers of any or all
counts, according to the terms in the opportunity to cure, will be default. Default will be complete
agreement with all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this contract. This is a contract in
admiralty. Default by any of the above terms, provisions, and conditions will be a self-executing
confession of judgment by all parties, named or unnamed. Anyone who interferes or involves
him/herself with this claim will be joined to this claim and will be jointly and severally liable for all
terms, provisions, conditions, and damages as indicated in this contract. The Claimants respectfully
request that you, Respondents, reply within the allotted time to the Claimant and the Attesting
Witness’s address below:
Ana Mena, Attesting Witness
1082 Fernleaf Avenue
Corona, CA 92881

NON-RESPONSE IS A SELF-EXECUTING POWER OF ATTORNEY TO BE TAKEN INTO

BANKRUPTCY LIQUIDATION WHEREBY ALL THE EQUITY IN THE NAME OF
LIBELEES/RESPONDENTS WILL BE DISPOSED OF TO SATISFY SAID JUDGMENT.

ASSESSMENT FOR DAMAGES

The following damages will be assessed against you if and when you fail to cure you dishonor in
commerce, within 21 calendar days, as is stated in the Opportunity to Cure.
A non-response and/or failure to provide Proofs of Claim, within the time allotted, i.e. twenty one (21)
days, shall constitute agreement, stipulation and confession by you, Respondents, Principals and
Agents, of the stipulated answers enumerated above, plus $1,000,000.00 for each count, each violation,
and other fees and costs to be determined solely by Claimant.. In the event, Respondent(s) is/are unable
or unwilling to meet this request the following damages will be assessed against you if and when you
fail to cure your dishonor in commerce within the stated time or until these requirements have been met
and executed pursuant to this NOTICE OF TORT CLAIM AND AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIFIC
NEGATIVE AVERMENT AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF CLAIM WITH OPPORTUNITY TO
CURE AND ASSESSMENT FOR DAMAGES:
1.Fraud - $1,000,000.00 (One Million) US Dollars for this action.
2.Denial of Right to Happiness / Beneficial Enjoyment – Causing Financial Harm -
$1,000,000.00 (One Million) US Dollars for this action.
3.Dishonor in Commerce - $1,000,000.00 (One Million) US Dollars for this action.
4.Conspiracy to Defraud - $1,000,000.00 (One Million) US Dollars for this action.
5.Collusion - $1,000,000.00 (One Million) US Dollars for this action.
7. Abuse of Power - $1,000,000.00 (One Million) US Dollars for this action.
"Default is a failure to discharge a duty, to one's own disadvantage; anything wrongful--some omission
to do that which ought to have been done by one of the parties." 90 N.Y.S. 589, 590. 
"The term is most often used to describe the occurrence of an event which cuts short the rights or
remedies of one of the parties to an agreement or a legal dispute." Barrons's Law Dictionary, third
edition. 

The definition of FRAUD given in 37 AM JUR 2nd, 144, 146 is: 144: "Unquestionably, the
concealment of material facts that one, under the circumstance, is bound to disclose may constitute
fraud. Indeed, one of the fundamental tenets of the Anglo-Saxon law of fraud is that fraud may be
committed by a suppression of the truth, (suppressio veri) as well as by the suggestion of
falsehood. , (suggestio falsi)."
146: "The principle in the law of fraud as it relates to nondisclosure, that a charge of fraud is
maintainable where a party knows material facts, is under the duty, under the circumstances, to speak
and disclose his information, but remains silent.

Failure to State a Claim

If you fail to exhibit a superior claim, a material defect in the perfection of Claimant’s security interest,
or evidence contradicting the allegations and facts stated herein, then you agree to the issuance of Final
Determination of Judgment and Nihil Dicit, and that you have waived any and all rights to state a claim
in the matter.Failure to state a claim is irrevocable, having had the opportunity and failed to
plead. Serious criminal liability applies to any party that would subsequently purport to a claim.

All rights reserved, as well as, all rights to amend/supplement this Notice and Demand
are reserved by Claimant.
Wherefore, Claimant herein claims Monetary Damages as real and appropriate as so.
Prepared and Executed by ORDER of TIEN PHAM MCKINNON, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED UCC 1-
308.

______________________________________
Tien Pham McKinnon, Authorized Representative
Claimant/Libelant

JURAT ATTACHED

Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment Page 8

Your
Name                                                                                                                                  Augu
st 18, 2013
Address
City, State, Zip
SSN:  xxx-xx-xxxx   |   DOB:  xx/xx/xxxx
 
Name of Credit Bureau
Address
City, State, zip
 
 
        Please be advised that this is my 2nd / THIRD WRITTEN REQUEST and FINAL WARNING that I fully
intend to pursue litigation in accordance with the FCRA to enforce my rights and seek relief and recover
all monetary damages that I may be entitled to under Section 616 and Section 617 regarding your
continued willful and negligent noncompliance.
 
          Despite my previous written requests for you to provide me with the name of the person in your company
who verified that these accounts are accurate and belong on my file, what documentation did they use to verify
that these accounts are accurate and belong on my file you ignored my rights and instead told me that you are
labeling my dispute as “Frivolous”.  Your actions clearly demonstrate your willful violation of the FCRA and I
believe the Courts will agree when I present them with copies of my letters and your responses to them.
 
          Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, 2009, defines “Verify” as, 1) "To prove to be true; to confirm or
establish the truth or truthfulness of; to authenticate." 2) “to confirm or substantiate by oath or affidavit; to swear
to the truth of." and “Verification” as, “Confirmation of correctness, truth or authenticity, by affidavit, oath,
or deposition.  Affidavit of truth of a matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in
averments or statements of a party.” 

 
          You say that your company has reinvestigated these accounts and verified them as being accurate but it
is obvious that you have verified nothing.  All you have done is parroted information given to you by other
sources and shifted the burden back to me to prove that the reported items on the accounts listed below are
not valid which is clearly in violation of § 1681(a)(4). 

 
          It is obvious that you don’t have any proof on file to verify that these accounts belong on my file. 
When we go to litigation you will be required to produce the documentsyou used to verify these items through
the discovery process and since you don’t have any documents in your files verifying that these items are
valid then that will be proof that you did not properly verify the accounts and they will have to be deleted and I’ll
be entitled to damages.
 
          Please be advised that under Section 611 (5)(A) of the FCRA – you are required to “…promptly
DELETE all information which cannot be verfied.”  The law is very clear as to the Civil liability and the
remedy available to me (Section 616 & 617) if you fail to comply with Federal Law. I am a litigious consumer
and fully intend on pursuing litigation in this matter to enforce my rights under the FCRA.   
 
I demand that you send me copies of the documents you used to verify the following accounts listed
below or you delete them immediately.  Please provide me with a copy of an updated and corrected
credit report showing that these items have been deleted.
 
  Name of Account:                  Account Number:                Provide Physical Proof of Verification
1. Healtcare Funding   #12000004 xxxx     Failed to send Proof of verification
2. CapOne            # 51780572 xxxx        Failed to send Proof of verification
3. Gecrb/old Navy # 601859623678 xxxx   Failed to send Proof of verification
4. Chase Bank  # 4559525000000***             Failed to send Proof of verification
          Thanking you in advance for your anticipated quick co-operation on this matter.
Thank you,Your Signature Here
Your Name
Attached: Copy of my Social Security Card & Drivers License is attached
Sent: USPS Certified Mail
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Letter to Credit Bureaus if Collection Agency Fails to Validate Your Debt - Sample Letter 15 -
Date
Your Name
Your Address
City, State Zip
Credit Bureau
Bureau Address
City, State Zip
RE: Account XXXXX-XXXX-XXXXX
Dear Sir/Madame:
I am writing to dispute the account referenced above. I have disputed this account information as inaccurate with you, and you
have come back to me and stated you were able to verify this debt. How is this possible? Under the laws of the FDCPA, I have
contacted the collection agency myself and have been unable to get them to verify that this is indeed my debt.
I enclose copies of my requests to the collection agency, asking them to validate my debts, and the receipts showing that I sent
these letter certified signature request. This debt is not mine and I was given no evidence of my obligation to pay this debt to
this collection agency.
The FCRA requires you to verify the validity of the item within 30 days. If the validity can not be verified, you are obligated by
law to remove the item. There is a clear case of unverified debt here, and I urge you to remove this item before I am forced to
take legal action.
In the event that you can not verify the item pursuant to the FCRA, and you continue to list the disputed item on my credit
report I will find it necessary to sue you for actual damages and declaratory relief under the FCRA. According to this
regulation, I may sue you in any qualified state or federal court, including small claims court in my area.
While I prefer not to litigate, I will use the courts as needed to enforce my rights under the FCRA.
I look forward to an uneventful resolution of this matter.
I look forward to a speedy resolution of this matter.
Sincerely,
Your Signature
enclosures
– See more at: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forms/sampleletter15.shtml#sthash.GjsOw3Yf.dpuf
–

Date
 Object 1

To: (Name of the Collections Agency)

Address: (Address of the Collection Agency)
Account # 123456787

From: (Your Name)

Address: (Your Address)

Delivery Confirmation #: 0000 0000 0000 0000

Dear Collection Agency,

Pursuant to the FCRA & the FDCPA I now exercise my lawful right to question the validity of this debt your
agency claims has come due.

Fair Credit Reporting Act § 609 Disclosures to consumers: (c) (2) (E):

A consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from a consumer's
file, unless the information is outdated under section 605 or cannot be verified.

Fair Credit Reporting Act § 611(a) 1 (A) Procedure in case of disputed accuracy:

(a) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information (1) Reinvestigation Required

(A) In general. Subject to subsection (f), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information
contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the
consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free
of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is
inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in
accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the
agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act § Section 809. Validation of debts:

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection
(a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address
of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof,
until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address
of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original
creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 609 (a)(1)(A), your company is required by federal law
to verify - through the physical verification of the original signed certified consumer contract - of any and all
accounts you request to be posted and or reported on a credit report.

I demand to see a copy of the Verifiable, Validated Proof (an original Consumer Contract with a wet-ink
Signature on it, copies of copies are not Validation and by Law are not considered proof), that you have on
file for the account listed above.

Under the FCRA, unverified, invalid accounts must be removed.

If you are unable to provide the me with a copy of the verifiable/validated proof that you have on file within
30 calendar days from receipt of this notice, for the account listed above then you must at once remove the
account from (Your Name) credit reports. I demand the account be verified or removed immediately!

The law is very clear as to the Civil liability and the remedy available to me for the "negligent
noncompliance" (Section 617) if you fail to comply with this Federal Law.

Sincerely,

(Your Name)