This is continuing attempt to Validate a Debt Under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Fair

Debt Reporting Act, I the Director/executor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder now exercise my lawful right to question the validity of the debt your agency claim has come due. From: Lamson Nguyen the Director/executor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder for (legal name: LAMSON NGUYEN) 8202 7th Street Buena Park, California [90621-9999]

To: CITIBANK Xxxxx street City, state 6486 To: Whom It May Concern and that of Management Staff This letter is being sent to you in response to a report viewed by Lamson Nguyen the Director/executor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder for LAMSON NGUYEN, (on or about January 30,2009, and the information obtained states that your company is reporting this debt). Be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to NATIONAL BANK ACT, THE Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Uniformed Commercial Code (UCC) as well as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b) that your claim is being called into question and validation as well as lawful verification is demanded. See definition provided below:
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Section 809 Validation of debts 15 USC 1692g 15 USC 1692g (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. Debt Validation, or "debt verification", refers to a consumer's right to challenge a debt and/or receive written verification of a debt from a debt collector. The right to dispute the debt and receive validation are part of the consumer's rights under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and are set out in 809 [15 U.S.C. 1692g] of that act. However according to case law the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act does not define what

constitutes proper debt validation, and different courts have reached different conclusions as to what is required from a debt collector. In the case of Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopts a relatively low standard: "Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." The Court further stated that a request for validation of the debt is primarily intended to eliminate such problems as collectors contacting the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which have already been paid. In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the "reasonable standard" articulated in Chaudhry.

This is a lawful request in accords with the aforementioned and the following: SEC. 27. And be it further enacted, That it shall be unlawful for any officer acting under the provisions of this act to countersign or deliver to any association, or to any other company or person, any circulating notes contemplated by this act, except as hereinbefore provided, and in accordance with the true intent and meaning of this act. And any officer who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding double the amount so countersigned and delivered, and imprisonment not less than one year and not exceeding fifteen years, at the discretion of the court in which he shall be tried. Associations may hold, &c., certain real estate. SEC. 28. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any such association to purchase, hold, and convey real estate as follows: a) First. Such as shall be necessary for its immediate accommodation in the transaction of its business. Real estate. b) Second. Such as shall be mortgaged to it in good faith by way of security for debts previously contracted. c) Third. Such as shall be conveyed to it in satisfaction of debts previously contracted in the course of its dealings. Fourth. Such as it shall purchase at sales under judgments, decrees, or mortgages held by such association, or shall purchase to secure debts due to said association.
d)

Such associations shall not purchase or hold real estate in any other case or for any other purpose than as specified in this section. Nor shall it hold possession of any real estate under mortgage, or hold the title and possession of any real estate purchased to secure any debts due to it for a longer period than five years.
U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS..PART 5. DISHONOR 3-501. PRESENTMENT.

(a) "Presentment" means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (i) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (ii) to accept a draft made to the drawee. (b) The following rules are subject to Article 4, agreement of the parties, and clearinghouse rules and the like: (2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument, (ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made. By refusing to supply you will be violating the law and my rights under UCC. This letter is my formal written request for you to investigate the following unverified and invalidated account listed above. 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 consumer contract 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. Your failure to positively verify and validates then account continues to hurt and deprive the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder, of lawful access to the credit held of participation. Under the FCRA, unverified, invalid accounts must be removed. If you are unable to provide the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder with a copy of the verifiable/validated proof that you have on file within 30 calendar days from receive of this notice, for each of the accounts listed above then you must at once remove these accounts from LAMSON NGUYEN credit reports. Please provide the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder with a copy of an updated and corrected credit report(s) showing these items removed. I demand the foregoing account be verified or removed immediately.

Please be advised that you are required under the FCRA to have a copy of the original creditor documentation on file to verify that this information belongs to the account of LAM SON NGUYEN and in completely accurate. In the results of your first investigation you stated in writing that you verified the account and that these items are being reported correctly who in your company verified these accounts? How did they verify them? Why didnt you send the

Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder copies of the Verification, validation like Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder asked you to? As the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder I am sure that you are well aware, that law states that, Consumer Reporting Agencies, and those utilizing Consumer Reporting Agencies bear grave responsibilities to ensure the accuracy of the accounts they report on and that responsibility must coexist of something more than merely purporting information received from other sources. That third party creditors are not holders in due course and not acknowledged under Law. The Courts have ordered that a Reinvestigations that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit grantor cannot fulfill the obligations imposed by Section 3681(a)(4).

You have NOT provided the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder with a copy of ANY original documentation (not copy of copies) as required under Section 609 (a)(1)(A) or Section 611 (a)(1)(A) (a consumer contract with the wet ink signature on it) and under Section 611 (5)(A) of the FCRA-you are required to promptly (at once) DELETE all information which cannot be verified and/or validated.

The Law is very clear as to the Civil liability and the remedy available to any Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder for negligent noncompliance (Section 617) if you fail to comply with this federal Law. Not that the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder in a litigious consumer but that he fully intend on pursuing litigation in this matter to enforce any rights under the FCRA. As the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder, I demand the following accounts be verified or deleted immediately.

In conjunction and in accordance with the FCRA in order to enforce the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder rights and seek relief as well as recover all monetary damages that the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder may be entitled to under Section 616 and Section 617 regarding your continued willful and negligent noncompliance this document is being supplied to you.

Despite all prior written requests, the unverified/un-validated items listed above still remain on the Legal-Persons credit report in violation of Federal Law. You are required

under the FCRA to have a copy of the original creditors documentation on file to verify that this information in that of the Legal-Person and Nature and is correct. In the past you stated in writing that you verified that these items are being reported correctly. You have NOT provided the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder with
a copy of any original documentation (a consumer contract with wet ink signature on it) as required under Section 609 (a)(1)(A) & Section 611 (a)(1)(A). Furthermore you have failed to provide the method of verification as required under Section 611 (a)(7). Please be advised that under Section 611 (5)(A) of the FCRA-you are required to Promptly DELETE all information which cannot be verified.

I demand that you send Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder copies of the documents you used to verify the following accounts listed above or that you delete them immediately. Please provide Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder with a copy of an updated and corrected report showing that these items have been deleted.

NOTICE OF PENDING LITIGATION SEEKING RELIEF AND MONETARY DAMAGES UNDER FCRA SECTION 617.

Please accept this final written OFFER OF SETTLEMENT BEFORE LITIGATION, either you submit the Money Order to your bank for processing as it is as attempt at payment and set off, and is an attempt to amicably resolve your continued violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act regarding your refusal to delete all UNVERIFIED account information from this consumer file.

Your failure to provide me with verifiable proof which was required to post the accounts listed above proves that it does not exist and therefore is Unverified. As
Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder, I intend to pursue litigation in accordance with the FCRA to seek relief and recover all monetary damages that I the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder may be entitled to under Section 616 and Section 617 if the UNVERIFIED items listed above are not deleted within 30 days and/or Violation provided. (Note that any delay tactics, stalling, unrelated, and or correlated response will not stay the 30 day requirement). A copy of this letters as well as copies of the written letters went to you previously has become part of the formal complaint to the Federal Trade Commission and shall be used as evidence in pending litigation provided you fail to comply with this offer of settlement.

You have not provided a copy of Any original documentation (a consumer contract with wet ink signature on it) as required under Section 609(a)(1)(A) & Section 611 (a)(1)(A). Furthermore, You must provide the method of verification Validation as required under section (a)(7). Please be advised that under Section 611(5)(A) of the FCRA you are required to -Promptly DELETE all information which cannot be documented by valid verification.

In order to avoid legal action the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder again demands that you send copies of the documents you are using to verify accounts listed above or that you delete them immediately.

I contacted the FTC on filing a complaint and received the following information. We cannot act as your lawyer or intervene in a dispute between a consumer and a credit bureau or between a consumer and a creditor or furnisher of information. The private enforcement provisions of the FCRA permit the consumer to bring a civil lawsuit for willful noncompliance with the Act.

If the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder chooses to use you, the FCRA allows actual damages and/or punitive damages up to $1000.00 per occurrence for the credit willful noncompliance with the Act (Section 616) as well as for aggregated noncompliance and the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder will be able to recover actual damages sustained by you (Section 617) and that attorney fees will be will also be assessed.
The Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder fee schedule is as follow: $2000.00 for each item under $1000.00 and $15,000 for every item under $10,000.00. There will be a $45,000.00 assessment for every instance, and/or noncompliance and non-response (a non-response is any response that is incomplete, evasive, convoluted, and/or intended to distract) and/or incident and/or occurrence. If the issue involves an amount over $50,000.00 than an assessment of $200,000.00 for each issue and/or instance will be applied, this is the price of doing business with Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder.

We would also like to request, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your offices to Mr. Lamson Nguyen home or to his place of employment. If your office attempt telephone communications (including, but not limited to via E-Mail), with Mr. Lamson Nguyen, including but not limited to computer generated calls and operator assisted calls or correspondence sent to or by any third parties, it will be considered harassment and we will

have no choice but to add such information to filed suite at rate of $150,000.00 per incident. All future communications with Mr. Lamson Nguyen MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted at top portion of this letter by USPS or other delivery services.
Your offices have 15 calendar days to respond to this validation request, if a response is not received within 15 days from the date of your receipt, all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from the credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to the addressee immediately.

It is further requested, and you are now given notice that old contracts adhesion and or otherwise are hereby terminated with your company. That no communication via telephonic, e-mail correspondence, written correspondence, and or electronic correspondence shall be had between your company and a client, you are hereby commanded an ordered to cease and desist. You or to communicate via written correspondence only to the following address under the following name:

(Walter Jenkins pick the name of a friend who is willing to enter the contract) Post office box (you pick one) (City and state and zip code in parentheses)

It would be advisable that you assure that your records are in order before we are forced to demand discovery in legal action. This is an attempt to correct your records, any information obtained shall be used for that purpose. Although exhaustive the information contained in this document is necessary so as to show the
Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder intentions of not being treated as of no account. I the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder can assure you that although you may or may not receive similar documents, this is my situation and not to be compared to another. I do wish to thank you for your time. This document and all communication from the client and our offices or peaceful communication, non-combative, non- aggressive, and without dishonor. It would be advisable that you assure that your records are in order if theres a likelihood of that need to take legal action. This is good faith attempt to correct your records; any information obtained shall be used solely for that purpose. This is not in any way a disputed matter, as we have accepted your claim under the condition of validated proof of claim.

The aforementioned is true and correct and submitted by the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder.

Signed: _____________________________ Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder UCC1-308, 103, 435, Dated: 2/27/2012

Lamson Nguyen, Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder any and all documents in this matter signed by the Director/Executor/Grantor/Beneficiary/Grantor/Sole Shareholder are done no under Reservation of rights UCC1-308 and without recourse. ***The following supporting laws are for you benefit and in conjunction with the aforegoing/aforementioned are to serve as legal notice.***

A national bank cannot lend its credit or become the guarantor of the obligation of another unless it owns or has an interest in the obligation guaranteed especially where it receives no benefits therefrom. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Cameron v. Good Roads Gravel Co., Tex.Civ.App.1921, 236 S.W. 153, dismissed w.o.j. A national bank has no power to guarantee the performance of a contract made for the sole benefit of another. First Nat. Bank v. Crespi & Co., Tex.Civ.App.1920, 217 S.W. 705, dismissed w.o.j. National banks have no power to negotiate loans for others. Pollock v. Lumbermen's Nat. Bank of Portland, Or.1917, 168 P. 616, 86 Or. 324. A national bank cannot act as broker in lending its depositors' money to third persons. Byron v. First Nat. Bank of Roseburg, Or.1915, 146 P. 516, 75 Or. 296. A national bank is not authorized to act as a broker in loaning the money of others. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418. See, also, Keyser v. Hitz, Dist.Col.1883, 2 Mackey, 513. Officers of national bank in handling its funds are acting in a fiduciary capacity, and cannot make loans and furnish money contrary to law or in such improvident manner as to imperil its funds. First Nat. Bank v. Humphreys, Okla.1917, 168 P. 410, 66 Okla. 186. Representations made by bank president to proposed surety as to borrower's assets, in connection with proposed loan by bank, held binding on bank. Young v. Goetting, C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1926, 16 F.2d 248. Bank is liable for its vice president's participation in scheme to defraud depositor by facilitating prompt withdrawal of his money. National City Bank v. Carter, C.C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1926, 14 F.2d 940.

A national bank receiving the proceeds of a customer's note and mortgage with authority to pay out the same upon a first mortgage lien upon real estate is acting intra vires and liable for breach of its duty. Brandenburg v. First Nat. Bank of Casselton, N.D.1921, 183 N.W. 643, 48 N.D. 176. It has been held that the right to discount and negotiate notes, etc., goes no further than to authorize the taking of them in return for a loan of money made on the strength of the promises contained in them, and does not contemplate a purchase in the market. Lazear v. National Union Bank, Md.1879, 52 Md. 78, 36 Am.Rep. 355. See, also, Rochester First Nat. Bank v. Pierson, 1877, 24 Minn. 140, 31 Am.Rep. 341. National bank is not authorized under national banking laws to lend deposited money on depositor's behalf. Carr v. Weiser State Bank of Weiser, Idaho 1937, 66 P.2d 1116, 57 Idaho 599. Under this section, a national bank had no authority to enter into a contract for loaning money of a depositor kept in a deposit account through its cashier authorized by the depositor to draw thereon to make loans. Holmes v. Uvalde Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App.1920, 222 S.W. 640, error refused. A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418. A "deposit for a specified purpose" is one in the making of which a trust fund is constituted with respect to which a special duty as to its application is assumed by the bank. Cooper v. National Bank of Savannah, Ga.App.1917, 94 S.E. 611, 21 Ga.App. 356, certiorari granted 38 S.Ct. 423, 246 U.S. 670, 62 L.Ed. 931, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 58, 251 U.S. 108, 64 L.Ed. 171. Fund, deposited in bank for special purpose subject to depositor's check, remains property of depositor. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Atlantic Corporation, D.C.Mass.1925, 5 F.2d 529, error dismissed 16 F.2d 27. 'In the case of a special deposit, the bank assumes merely the charge or custody of property, without authority to use it, and the depositor is entitled to receive back the identical money or thing deposited. In such case, the right of property remains in the depositor, and if the deposit is of money, the bank may not mingle it with its own funds. The relation created is that of bailor and bailee, and not that of debtor and creditor.' 3 R.C.L. 522. Tuckerman v. Mearns, App.D.C.1919, 262 F. 607, 49 App.D.C. 153. National banks are liable for the loss of property held by them merely for the accommodation of their customers, without any consideration for the keeping of it except the profit derived from the banking business of such customers. Security Nat. Bank v. Home Nat. Bank, Kan.1920, 187 P. 697, 106 Kan. 303. CC: All parties involve in trying to collect the debt