Complaint Review: Wacovia aka Wells Fargo and RJM ACQ LLC

In 2005, the party opened a checking account in the jurisdiction of Florida whereupon a debit card was issued and used for funds available.  The account was opened and closed in a branch of Wacovia, West Florida, for which all paper work exists today.  The account was used for less than a month, during which, the check-holder used a debit for the amount of $500.00 in Wacovia ATM.  The contents of the account did not have sufficient funds, but the amount was allowed.  After the party left the State of Florida, the
account remained opened but no record could be delivered for payment.

In 2006, a relative was called from Wacovia, and the relative spoke of the amount withdrawn and not paid.  Upon hearing of the fact, Wacovia's Branch received two immediate payments, $105.00 and $400.00, sent to the bank accounting at the indebted bank.  Evidence held to prove payment: two USPS customer receipts recorded in the name of Wacovia, the addresses and zip copes for the Florida jurisdiction, each in numbers of the receipts with the posting of "$105.00," "$400.00" for full payment; a "check with numbers of account" also was included.  Copies of the Debit Card, a unfilled deposit check,
two deposits in excess of $2,300.00,  showing the last four numerical digits of the account (XXXXXXXXXX
1112), time-stamped, dated 2005.   A US Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt is numbered, dated, and stamped postmark for the address given to Wacovia at the Bank's Florida jurisdiction.

This is holding evidence that proves no debt exists, and the payment is received for the debt.  Wacovia did not credit the account, or, if it did, the "debt" stayed on it's book.  When Wacovia became the legacy of Wells Fargo, the commercial paper, good or bad, is gifted as "collectable debt", both as a legacy and a means of shareholder wealth.  The undisputed fact is Wacovia received full payment, did not request more payment, and had commercial paper to keep, which was not of its ownership. 

On Dec. 1, 2007, Wacovia held a faux indebtedness and this is passed on to several collection sources, including Experium, et al.  A balance paid is now due balance in the amount of $505.00, and this is converted in 2007 to "debt purchase" with the concomittant relation to credit default purchase.  The funds are pocketed into Wacovia's struggling holdings, then passed to Wells-Fargo. 

RJM ACK LLC creates a "debt purchase" with phoney and non-existent debt for the paid amount, and it can be considered that a chain of "debt purchase" for the $505.00 (paid for years), is part of a maximumization of faux debt and lost paper in the transfer between creditors, debtors, and Wells Fargo.

RJM ACK LLC exacts a "buy figure" for a quid pro quo "debt-holder" status, but it lists in a credit bureau report the same numbered account for the debit of $505.00.  When the last four digits of either of the deposit ATM receits gives a complete picture of "wrongful collection", it enhances the frauds of Wacovia, who spent the money, sold the debt, kept the debt for shareholders, passed on the "debt" as a matter of conversion.

RJM ACK LLC is a participant as a actor of deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud.  Wacovia turns to Wells Fargo's books, leaving this concept of "maldebt" to capture unearned, paid funds.  From the date "opened", (12/l/07), RJM ACK LLC uses their credited "debt purchase" to defame, defraud, and consummately lie in at least one case of re-arranged collection, escaping through a hole in the merger of two banks.  The credit report remains from RJM/Wacovia/Wells Fargo as "seriously past due, assigned to attorney, collection agency, or credit grantor's interest in debt." 

These are the facts of the case.  In the broad spectrum case of a diseased banking system, there is a rank ordor about the arrangement between this bank, the legacy as tainted, and the issue extends to certain fraud in this case, as well as damage to credit. 

Since the facts are time-related and involve consumer "debt purchase", the fact of winning in the face of the documentation is certain in a judicial issue simply applicable to this case and these facts.  However,
it remains to be seen whether or not RJM ACK is part of a wide conspiracy to "purchase" commercial paper that has been paid, as good and sufficient bounty without collection. 

It is also, in the broadest degree, a measure of talent, where financial deceit can be profitable.  It may well be punitive.