This chronology draws on my account, retained text exports, call information, correspondence and recorded conversations. The descriptions distinguish documented events from what third parties claimed.
In the retained financing email correspondence, Lanny Brown requested more detailed deposit descriptions in statements being reviewed. This predates the October call-and-text peak. See the email evidence.
Richard Brzezinski asked by email for unredacted May, June and July business bank statements. I say I supplied redacted copies, not the requested unredacted originals.
I completed a PMFUS-associated online funding process and provided financial information, including redacted business bank statements. As I recall, I did not select an optional marketing-consent checkbox. The exact historical version of the form and any other sharing authorizations require separate confirmation.
Owner's accountCalls and texts referred to business funding, sometimes mentioning an existing application, bank statements or a file already in circulation. I reported over 100 calls in the first several days. The exact call count has not been completely audited.
Text exports / call logsMessages included references to having an application and statements, a file sent through brokers, and bank statements allegedly being circulated. Such statements show what was said, not whether the sender possessed an authentic document.
Message evidenceAn email titled “Giving Notice” to two published PMFUS addresses generated rejection notices. The rejection establishes a delivery problem; it does not, by itself, explain why the emails were blocked or prove intentional suppression.
Delivery failure recordI received confirmation that the personal number I use had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry since July 25, 2006. Business-related solicitations can raise different legal questions; registration alone does not establish a violation by these callers.
Confirmation emailA caller identifying himself as an underwriter said a separate intermediary supplied the file and claimed to have bank statements. This provides a lead for tracing potential distribution, not independent verification of the upstream sender.
Attributed caller statementI described the calls, repeated unwanted solicitations, claims of access to redacted documents, and abusive interactions in correspondence. I continued to ask that the contact stop and that the data-sharing pathway be addressed.
Owner correspondenceIn a conversation I preserved, a caller said he had a redacted bank statement and attributed its source to PMFUS. I have not independently verified how he obtained the document or whether another party also handled it.
Attributed caller statementAcross the reviewed financing-related text exports, 496 total messages were counted: 310 incoming and 186 outgoing. Incoming messages originated from 168 distinct numbers; 28 incoming messages from 19 numbers expressly claimed to have or review bank statements.
Compiled countBBB and PMFUS public pages were reviewed for context. They are cited as contemporaneous snapshots and may change. Public complaints by other people are not treated as proof of my experience.
Linked public sourcesSome date ranges are deliberately approximate because a full forensic audit of all devices, call records and original application screenshots has not been completed. A message can be authenticated as received without independently verifying the sender’s statements.