2004 Credit Suit

OUCH - it's official: identity theft

I kept wondering why Kallcents sounded so familiar, it's a sister company associated with Faxaway. So I called them, the charge is NOT related to Faxaway (which bills as Faxaway not Kallcents) and apparently somebody tried to get a $100 authorization for a prepaid calling account.

The order was declined because the address did not match my billing address. And THAT is probably why Cap One called, and not because of the charges.

HOWEVER, the Kallcents order was placed with one of my dormant addresses - that's the scary part.

So, I've been trying to rationalize what's going on, but I can only figure out what's NOT going on:

It's not a random card # theft
It's not theft by a vendor or anywhere I've used that card because they would have used the RIGHT address.
It's not someone who reads my web sites. Not only do I not post full account numbers for open accounts, but this address isn't posted anywhere.
It's not someone in my household because my dog doesn't place any orders.
It's highly unlikely that someone "broke in" and stole the info but left everything else. The dog's been watching the place too.

Deputy Allen just returned my call to the Sheriff:

He immediately asked whether I've ordered on the internet before, and since I've ordered literally hundreds of times, he concluded that this is how my card # was stolen.

I think it's really odd that someone who I ordered from would not use the CORRECT billing address, which they obviously have because otherwise the order would have been declined.

Additionally, most orders are through Ebay and I use PayPal. While there are a lot of bad things about PayPal, the real GOOD part is that the sellers do NOT get your creditcard # - only PayPal has it. That eliminates most, but not all online purchases.

He really didn't want to investigate this, telling me that unless I have a suspect, there's nothing he can do.

I asked him whether it wasn't up to them to do an investigation!

This is so simple. I assume that just about all companies who offer credit card processing log the IPs (as I do for every posting) and if this really was just some conartist who got my info on the net, I'm not worried.

HOWEVER, if this was someone locally, I need to know who that was.

Most companies also require that 3 digit number on the back of the card, and I want to know if s/he had that.

So far, the only people I can think of who have both the address AND my credit card number are Trans Union, Equifax and their lawyers. But they don't have the expiration date.

Also noteworthy is the fact that nobody at Capital One advised that I should do ANYTHING whatsoever other than to wait for the new card to arrive and not to use the old number anymore.

Fraudulent charges on my Cap One account?

Got the call that I frequently get from Cap One about suspicious activity.

Looks like this time there are some charges that aren't mine. Nothing big, $30 from Vertex and $100 from Callcents and a $54.50 charge that could be a recurring charge if there was a name change at my web host.

Interestingly, none of these companies provide a # to call.

Even more interesting, Cap One apparently monitors for telephone related charges.

Isn't it AMAZING how much effort they put into fraud loss prevention, but they can't provide accurate credit reporting?

What a difference the damages make. If more people sued Cap One for their inaccurate and incomplete credit reporting, they'd implement some procedures to ensure compliant reporting real quick!

Nelnet acquired 50% of collection firm

Going through old e-mail, I just found this announcement. How odd.

---------------------------------------------

January 30, 2004 — LINCOLN, NE - Today, Nelnet, Inc. (NYSE: NNI) announced it has acquired fifty percent of Premiere Credit of North America, LLC. Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Premiere Credit is a collection firm specializing in past due debts and accounts receivables for a number of companies nationwide, including those related to higher education and medical care.

Premiere Credit joins Nelnet's existing lines of business in education finance and was recently recognized with a Growth 100 Award by the Johnson Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business.

"Premiere's successful growth strategy and experience in higher education debt management complements Nelnet's focus on keeping student loan default and delinquency rates low," commented Steve Butterfield, Nelnet Vice Chairman and Co-CEO. "Nelnet looks to gain efficiencies in the debt management support we provide to our customers by integrating Premiere's services with our existing education finance operations."

Premiere will maintain its Indianapolis headquarters and co-founders David Hoeft and Todd Wolfe will continue to lead the company, which includes approximately 45 employees.

"From a Premiere perspective, we are very pleased to have developed this relationship with Nelnet," said David Hoeft. "We see this as a very positive blend of expertise, resources, and business objectives, affording us a more direct insight into the needs of our higher education customers."

Additional information regarding Premiere Credit and the company's recent recognitions is available at www.premierecredit.com.

Nelnet is one of the leading educational finance companies in the United States and is focused on providing quality student loan products and services to students and schools nationwide. With over $11 billion in total assets, Nelnet originates in excess of $2 billion for itself and its service partners annually, services more than $18 billion in student loans, and provides servicing software for an additional $27 billion in student loans. Nelnet ranks among the nation's leaders in terms of total student loan assets.

Nelnet offers a broad range of student loan and financial services and technology-based products, including student loan origination and lending, guarantee servicing, and a suite of software solutions. Our products are designed to simplify the student loan process by automating financial aid delivery, loan processing, and funds disbursement. Our services help to facilitate and streamline education finance for all involved in the industry, including student and parent borrowers, lenders, financial aid officers, guaranty agencies, governmental agencies, servicers, and the capital markets. Additional information is available at www.nelnet.net.

Information contained in this press release, other than historical information, may be considered forward-looking in nature and is subject to various risks, uncertainties, and assumptions. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those anticipated, estimated, or expected. Among the key factors that may have a direct bearing on Nelnet's operating results, performance, or financial condition are changes in terms of student loans and the educational credit marketplace, changes in the demand for educational financing or in financing preferences of educational institutions, students and their families, or changes in the general interest rate environment and in the securitization markets for education loans.

Source: Company Press Release

MIS Exhibit 20 + 21: My 11/4/02 procedures and permissible purpose request

This is REALLY interesting. For literally YEARS I have been asking Experian and CreditData SW for the permissible purposes of all inquiries, specificially of the soft inquiries.

The CRAs and their clients have been subjected to numerous permissible purpose suits due to the complete disregard by creditors and collectors for consumers' privacy rights. Since those illegal credit pulls come with $1,000 statutory damages, consumers ARE getting their checks even without attorneys.

I inspired literally hundreds of permissible purpose suits since I posted my $1,000 check in 12/01:

* Wells Fargo: SETTLED for $1,000 + deletion of UNAUTHORIZED inquiry

1/21/04: Crystal v. FNANB (Circuit City)
settled for $2,000 and deletion of the hard inquiries.

What's the point?

Because CreditData SW (MIS) & Experian don't disclose the permissible purposes such as promos, account reviews, etc., I didn't realize that the seven 2001 Experian Wells Fargo inquiries were NOT promos. I settled Wells Fargo's Equifax inquiry in 12/01, and I signed a settlement agreement settling ALL claims I had.

I'm sure those inquiries were A/Rs, I don't think there's been another WF inquiry since.

I definitely would not have settled with Wells Fargo for only $1,000 if Experian provided complete consumer disclosures.

The MIS Exhibit 21 (the last MIS exhibit) is the 5/1/03 (2003!!!!) printout from the Experian web site. This printout, dated AFTER MIS was served, is supposed to be their response to my procedures request?

What a PATHETIC attempt to disguise their failure to comply with the FCRA!

The scans:

MIS Exhibit 21: My 11/4/02 fax to Experian:

MIS Exhibit 21: The 5/1/03 printout of from the Experian web site

FTC investigating American Agencies - file your complaint

Steve had posted at http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff67729.htm that Craig Kauffman at 415-848-5111 with the FTC in San Francisco is investigating.

I called Craig Kauffman and submitted my complaint.

Mr. Kauffman emphasized that so many people call American Agencies to request verification/validation of the debt - but the LAW requires WRITTEN DISPUTES!

That's of course what I've been telling readers for years and the instructions for proper disputes are at http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/3318/3318.html in the American Agencies topic at the CreditCourt forum.

BEFORE you file your complaint with Mr. Kauffman, have your documentation ready - your WRITTEN dispute, and he needs the dates and a brief description of your dispute.

He is looking for credit reporting AFTER the verification/validation request.

It's really important that you dispute FACTUALLY with the CRAs and if American Agencies reports the dispute instead of deleting, you need to order your FICO report to find out if it's still affecting your credit as it often does.

I gave him the URL with the part of my law suit relevant to American Agencies:

http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/803/3125.html

I'm sure glad that the FTC is actively investigating!

My fax to McAfee's attorneys, notice of press release

I'm STILL waiting for any kind of investigation by the FRB Richmond and their Senior VP and General Counsel James McAfee, have heard NOTHING since I submitted my 3/2/04 filing and exhibits.

James McAfee's actions are the definition of evil. He actively supports Capital One and refuses to enforce the law. And his attorneys Maureen Welsh and Thomas Maraz with Gallagher & Kennedy are just as guilty of destroying many lives of hardworking good people.

Maureen Welsh and Thomas Maraz chose to increase their personal wealth by defending pure EVIL.

If it wasn't for the evil attorneys, consumers would obviously do a lot better in the courts.

Saddam Hussein suppressed dissent with chemical weapons and an army of brutal henchmen. Of course many of the killers and torturers had an excuse: they had no choice. Their lives and the lives of their families were threatened.

In America, the corporate lawyers took the job. Nobody threatened them. They volunteer - for the money.

If the lawyers had a conscience and refused to take these cases, evil wouldn't have chance.

If there is anything like hell, that's where they'll end up. But that doesn't help people like me NOW, we pay our bills on time and get declined and pay higher interest and insurance because Capital One doesn't report the credit limits and subsequently our credit scores are lowered.

So I'll send out a press release about Mr. McAfee and his legal team. The Bank One press release has been accessed 16,660 times now and the media picked it up 618 times.

If there's anyone left in America who doesn't worship money and cares enough to do something about the exploitation of the disadvantaged, maybe this is the way to find them.

Here is my renewed complaint and notice of press release to McAfee's legal team:

Christine Baker
(deleted)
Tel: (206) 202-4653
Fax: (571) 222-1000
Email: christine@bayhouse.com

Maureen A. Welsh
Thomas A. Maraz
Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.
2575 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85016–9225

Via fax to 602-530-8500 -- 2 pages

March 28, 2004

Re: My FRB-R and James McAfee complaint about Capital One, CIV-03-525-PCT-RCB
Notice of press release

Dear Ms. Welsh and Mr. Maraz:

I hoped to finally receive a substantive response to my complaint with the FRB-R and Mr. McAfee. However, I have received absolutely NOTHING.

Please advise whether any of Mr. McAfee’s contact information changed, as I am preparing a press release about his vile conduct and his continued active support of the exploitation of America’s disadvantaged by refusing to take the actions necessary to get Capital One to comply with the FCRA.

And just in case Mr. McAfee is still confused, here is my complaint again:

Re: Capital One refusal to report the credit limits in violation of the FCRA

Capital One refuses to report the credit LIMITS to the CRAs, apparently for all credit card accounts and in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Because Fair Isaac's credit scoring software utilizes the "High Credit" instead of the "Credit LIMIT" for Capital One accounts, the Balance/Limit Ratio calculated by Fair Isaac's software is obviously often MUCH higher than it should be.

Example:

A consumer with only one revolving account with a $5,000 credit limit and a $250 balance has a 5% B/L ratio.

If this account is a Capital One account, reported with a "High Credit" of $250, the B/L ratio is 100%. The credit scores can easily be lowered over 50 points due to Capital One's refusal to report the credit LIMIT.

Enormous damages are inflicted on many millions of Americans. Aside from credit declines and higher interest rates, many consumers can no longer afford insurance or are declined for insurance due to their low credit scores.

Ultimately, many consumers are forced into bankruptcy as a direct result of higher interest and insurance rates due to the low credit scores.

In many cases, those scores are low NOT because of late payments, but because of Capital One's policy not to report the credit LIMITS to the credit bureaus in violation of the FCRA.

FCRA § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]:

"(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

(2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who

(A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and

(B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate."

Because the FCRA does not allow consumers to sue for Section a) violations, and only the "regulators" may enforce these regulations, I am asking you to enforce the requirement for accurate and complete credit reporting.

Exhibit AN is my 2/27/04 credit report with the Balance/Limit Ratio calculations for credit scores and illustrates the destructive impact of missing credit LIMITS on FICO scores.

James McAfee’s affidavit implies that my 11/12/02 complaint exceeded his mental capabilities.

If Mr. McAfee is still unable to comprehend any words, concepts or calculations, I will gladly provide explanations.

I have successfully explained the importance of the balance/limit ratio and the reporting of the correct credit limits to readers who barely spoke English and/or with very little education.

I am looking forward to a substantive reply.

Very truly yours,

Christine Baker
Christine@bayhouse.com

c: posted at CreditCourt.com and CreditSuit.org

Bank One news release: 9,514 times accessed and 387 media pickups

That's really impressive for $41!

I've been talking about press releases for a year, but just been so busy and it does take some reading and learning how to do this.

You can actually submit those releases at no cost at http://prweb.com/, but as you increase your voluntary contributions, you get added features such as stats, the ability to attach files and inclusion at eMediaWire.com for additional distribution:

http://emediawire.com/releases/2004/3/emw113432.htm

Press Release: Randy v. Bank One

Consumer sues Bank One/First USA for Deliberate Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

PRweb.com has a real nice program and it is very affordable. I paid $41 and as of right now it has been viewed 4,324 times and it was picked up 181 times by media outlets.

PR Web: "This number estimates the number of times your press release was picked up by a media outlet. This does not tell you how many times your story appears in the media. It simply represents an enhanced interest in your story by a media outlet."

Well good. They're looking, and while the media has been refusing to cover credit scoring (too complicated), maybe this is simple enough to get some coverage.

I also added the scans of the reporting to the release, am hoping that will help readers understand the issue.

It's not just about Randy, it's about the fact that Bank One INSISTS that their reporting of discharged balances is ACCURATE.

Obviously, the purpose of a Ch. 7 is to ELIMINATE the debt, and therefore any reported balance is false.

From the news release:

"Is Bank One retaliating against consumers who discharged their debts? Or are they part of the organized effort by the credit bureaus, Fair Isaac and Capital One Bank to artificially lower the credit scores of a large percentage of Americans through incomplete and incorrect credit reporting?"

THAT is the billion dollar question.

"8 24 MAR - CAPITAL ONE MONTHLY MEMBER FEE 4.00"

I've had my Capital One Kmart account with a $7,000 limit for almost 2 years.

Now they started charging a MONTHLY $4 fee.

WHY are they doing that? People who don't use the card will forget to make a payment.

Turn $4 into $39, + of course finance charges.

I want to close that account so bad. But then what? I'll get an even lower FICO score: Higher balance/limit ratio, if I get an account to replace it I have a negative NEW account, more inquiries, lower average age of accounts, etc.

I can't win. It's the lose - lose situation

Thank you, America!

The Law Offices of H. Michael Torrey - debt elimination

He e-mail spams and promises debt elimination w/o bk in 90 days. He charges $1,200 for "online support" and offers a $200 referral fee.

I'm sure it's another scam, he sure comes off as a moron in his SPAM, would like to hear from readers who tried that.

He is located in Belmont Shore, CA.

Please also see http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs/attyPages/mikelaw.html and http://www.geocities.com/ice_mikey_mike/mikelaw.html

Very scary!!!

3/16/04 Experian/Jones Day letter - I have NO idea what's going on

Courtney Vaudreuil with Jones Day, the Experian and CIC legal team, replied to my 2/28/04 letter, Exhibit AN

Her reply is scanned below and she confirms that "... you are not able to dispute items over the internet, ..."

Why IS that? Why can't I dispute on the net and on the phone like everybody else? Why are all the CRAs retaliating?

I have no idea what she is saying in the second paragragh, whether my questions are about Experian or the ConsumerInfo.com report. I really don't give a rat's ass that "Consumerinfo.com is a separate corporate entity from Experian." I had questions about the 2/27/04 CIC report, my Exhibit AN-3.

Why can't I get any answers? Why is she acting like she doesn't know which report I'm talking about?

She HAS the exhibits, they were mailed WITH my letter!

I had sent questions about the CIC privacy policy directly to CIC, and she wrote on 1/13/04 that I need to send questions to her (see the scan below). So I did, and now THAT!

Then she gives me a lecture on discovery and assures me "I am willing to help you resolve any alleged inaccuracies on either your Experian credit file or Consumerinfo.com report. However, as we are currently in litigation, my treatment of this matter must follow the appropriate rules and procedures set forth under Federal and local laws."

She's telling me to (deleted) off. Just great. Of course they're ALL telling me to (deleted) off. They're so skilled.

And she's asking for DOCUMENTS to prove that Trans Union claims that CIC is altering their data.

Of course all I have is the telephone recording from Lisa at TU and the transcript, Exhibit P-3. Haven't posted the transcript yet, but here's the audio file. Sorry it's such a large file, 1.5 mb, maybe somebody can make that a little smaller?

I wonder if they expect me to die or something.

They know exactly how screwed up their credit reports are, they know that I can prove it, why aren't they AT LEAST trying to look like they're concerned with their FCRA non compliance?

This sure explains why most Americans are living in a daze, drugged, drunk and watching TV. It's tough to want to deal with this reality. It seems like the only functioning brains are working for evil corporation, trying to make sure nobody wants to think.

The 3/16/04 letter:

The 1/13/04 letter:

Docket update

I was beginning to wonder whether my request for extension of time made it to the court.

Sure hope that extensions aren't only for defendants!

3/3/04 146 Notice of ERRATA by dft Federal Reserve Bk R, dft James
McAfee re Motion for Summary Disposition and re
Supplemental Memorandum [144-1] re Defendants' Motion for
Summary Disposition that these documents incorrectly stated
that Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
was due 1/2/04 when it was actually due 1/20/04 (sat)
[Entry date 03/04/04]

3/3/04 147 RESPONSE (titled "Reply") by pla to Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint as to dft Federal Reserve Bk R, dft
James McAfee by dft Federal Reserve Bk R, dft James McAfee
[98-1] and to Motion for Summary Disposition re Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed 12/15/03 by
dft Federal Reserve Bk R, dft James McAfee [124-1] (sat)
[Entry date 03/04/04]

3/9/04 148 MOTION (Request) for Extension of Time until 4/14/04 to
Respond to the Merchants Information Solutions (Creditdata
Southwest) Motion for Summary Judgment by pla [148-1] (sat)
[Entry date 03/11/04]

3/9/04 149 Memorandum and RESPONSE by pla to Motion to dismiss case
and memorandum of points and authorities by dfts Equifax
Credit Information Services, Tom Chapman [103-1] (sat)
[Entry date 03/11/04]

3/17/04 150 REPLY by dft Equifax Credit, dft Tom Chapman to response
to motion to dismiss case and memorandum of points and
authorities by dfts Equifax Credit Information Services,
Tom Chapman [103-1] (ld) [Entry date 03/18/04]

Riverview Auto Sales subscribes to the NCLC

Another postal service misdelivery. Some car dealers make an effort to comply when repo'ing and even subscribe to the Debt Collection and Repossession NCLC Reports.

A federal grand jury indicted five debt collectors on 37 counts of fraud

5 indicted in student loan fraud

Federal authorities say Robert Hazlett, 43, president of Valley Acceptance Corp., conspired with four employees to submit false applications for student loans in 1999 and 2000.

The loans generated $1 million in commissions for the employees, who allegedly reported the loans were in good standing so that the bogus applicants could qualify for even more loans.

..."

Criminals gained access to 1,400 Equifax credit reports

Criminals can get anyone's credit files through arrangements with any of the many thousands of people with access to credit files through legitimate companies. It happens all the time.

Please read my FTC filing for the simple solution to prevent this, the assignment of a user changeable PIN.

Credit breach too easy, consumer group says

"VANCOUVER -- A security breach that allowed criminals to gain access to 1,400 confidential credit files at Equifax Canada was a crime waiting to happen, the president of Consumer Federation Canada says.

"This could have been prevented," said Dan Barnabic, whose non-profit consumer advocacy group is lobbying the government to tighten regulations covering credit-reporting agencies.

Mr. Barnabic said that to access the credit reports at a credit-reporting agency such as Equifax, all a criminal needs to do is set up a front operation.

"You open up a business. Register it. Get your licence and get Bell Canada to put a phone in, in your company's name. Then you have all the accreditation you need. You register as a credit-granting business, like a mortgage company, and for a small fee you can start getting files.

"You can get credit information on just about anybody you want. You just need a name and address for someone to request their credit report.

"And with their credit report you get everything -- social insurance number, how much they've paid, how much they owe. You see exactly what someone has . . . It's so easy to obtain, it's amazing."

Equifax told 1,400 consumers earlier this month that their credit reports "were accessed by criminals posing as legitimate credit grantors."

The company said alerts have since been placed on the affected files, so that potential creditors will confirm a consumer's identity before agreeing to a transaction.

Mr. Barnabic said credit grantors are required by law to get written permission from a consumer before they access credit records maintained by companies like Equifax, or TransUnion Canada, the other national credit reporting agency.

But he said credit-reporting agencies trust credit grantors to do what they are required, and usually don't do any further checks themselves.

"We don't know how this crime at Equifax was done," Mr. Barnabic said, "but my guess is, and I'm just speculating, that someone set up [phony] companies, became members [with Equifax] and just started requesting the credit files.

"If they got a dozen people, maybe more, that posed as credit grantors.. . . Now you are armed to get anyone's report, anywhere in Canada. Then you can pull credit reports on anybody . . . that's the scam. That's probably what they did.

"To get 1,400 files, it cost the criminals about $8,000 or $9,000" in access fees.

"It's amazing how easy it would have been. And it may happen again tomorrow in Toronto or Montreal. It's so easy that it's frightening."

..."

The CRAs don't want PINs because they would lose out on all that business.

Evil greedy executives like CEO Thomas Chapman put their profits ahead of common sense.

I sure hope those 1,400 people all file mega law suits. The fraud alert is not only NOT helping, but it actually hurts them because they are likely to get declined and won't get any pre-approvals.

Court of Appeals docket Johnson v. Experian Info Sol, et al

The court of appeals docket:

General Docket
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 03-1235 Filed: 2/27/03
Nsuit: 3320 P.I.: Assualt, Libel & Slander
Johnson v. Experian Info Sol, et al
Appeal from: Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lower court information:

District: 0422-3 : CA-02-523
Presiding Judge: Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge
Court Reporter: Gilbert F. Halasz, Official Court Reporter
Court Reporter: Maria Hewitt, coord
Date Filed: 7/25/02
Date order/judgment: 1/22/03
Date NOA filed: 2/20/03
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fee status: Paid

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Prior cases:
None
Current cases:
Lead Member Start End
Consolidated:
02- 2326 02- 2327 4/18/03
Related:
03- 1235 03- 1029 2/27/03
02- 2326 03- 1235 2/27/03

Docket as of March 5, 2004 0:25 am Page 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-1235 Johnson v. Experian Info Sol, et al

LINDA JOHNSON Leonard Anthony Bennett
Plaintiff - Appellee FAX 757-930-3662
757-930-3660
Suite 201
[COR NTC RET]
LEONARD A. BENNETT, PC
12515 Warwick Boulevard
Newport News, VA 23608

Richard John Rubin
FAX 505-983-2050
505-983-4418
[COR NTC RET]
1300 Canyon Road
Santa Fe, NM 87501

v.

MBNA AMERICA BANK, NA Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr.
Defendant - Appellant FAX 804-698-2061
804-775-4319
[COR NTC RET]
William Harrison Baxter, II
FAX 804-698-2260
804-775-4323
[COR NTC RET]
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
1 James Center
901 East Cary Street
Richmond, VA 23219-4030

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INCORPORATED
Defendant

EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION
SERVICES, INCORPORATED
Defendant

TRANS UNION LLC
Defendant

-------------------------

Docket as of March 5, 2004 0:25 am Page 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-1235 Johnson v. Experian Info Sol, et al

2/27/03 Civil case docketed. (mst)

2/27/03 Docketing notice issued. [03-1235] (mst)

3/5/03 Amended notice of appeal filed in the District Court on
2/26/03. [03-1235] (mst)

3/6/03 Docketing statement filed by Appellant MBNA America Bank
[3748779-1]. T/S needed [Y/N]: y; T/S already on file?: y.
[03-1235] (mst)

3/6/03 Counsel of record form filed by Earle Duncan Getchell for
Appellant MBNA America Bank. (mst)

3/6/03 Counsel of record form filed by William Harrison Baxter for
Appellant MBNA America Bank. (mst)

3/7/03 Briefing order filed. [03-1235] Appellant(s) brief/joint
appendix due 4/16/03 for MBNA America Bank. (mst)

3/13/03 Positive disclosure statement filed by Appellant MBNA
America Bank. [03-1235] (mst)

3/17/03 Certification of ROA complete and retained in the District
Court. [03-1235] (mst)

3/18/03 Disciplinary proceedings notice issued to Appellee Linda
Johnson for cor & discl dflt. [03-1235] Document due by
4/2/03. (mst)

3/28/03 Counsel of record form filed by Leonard Anthony Bennett for
Appellee Linda Johnson. (mst)

3/28/03 Negative disclosure statement filed by Appellee Linda
Johnson [03-1235] (mst)

4/16/03 Brief and joint appendix filed by Appellant MBNA America
Bank. Copies of brief: 9; # brf pages: 66.
Sufficient[Y/N]?: y. SEALED vol.[Y/N]?: n. Copies of apx: 7
(vol. 1), 6 (vol. 2); # apx pages: 1019. 2-sided
copying[Y/N]?: y. Method of filing w/ court: cd. Date of
Service on parties: 4/16/03. Type of service on parties:
pm. Appellee brief due 5/19/03 for Linda Johnson. [03-1235]
(mst)

5/9/03 ORDER FILED [3785127] to extend time to file appellee(s)
brief until 5/30/03 [3785127-1]. Appellee(s) brief now due
5/30/03 for Linda Johnson. [03-1235] (mst)

5/28/03 Counsel of record form filed by Richard John Rubin for
Appellee Linda Johnson. (mst)

Docket as of March 5, 2004 0:25 am Page 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-1235 Johnson v. Experian Info Sol, et al

5/29/03 ORDER FILED [3796509] to extend time to file appellee(s)
brief until 6/16/03 [3796509-1]. Appellee(s) brief now due
6/16/03 for Linda Johnson. [03-1235] (dhb)

5/30/03 ORDER FILED [3796669] to extend time to file appellee(s)
brief until 6/30/03 [3796669-1]. Appellee(s) brief now due
6/30/03 for Linda Johnson. [03-1235] (dhb)

6/13/03 ORDER FILED [3805783] to extend time to file appellee(s)
brief until 7/14/03 [3805783-1]. Appellee(s) brief now due
7/14/03 for Linda Johnson. [03-1235] ~ [3805783] (mst)

7/9/03 Motion filed by Appellee Linda Johnson to extend time to
file appellee(s) brief until 7/25/03 [3819915-1].
[03-1235] ~ [3819915] (mst)

7/9/03 ORDER FILED [3819916] granting motion to extend time to
file e's br [3819915-1] Appellee(s) brief now due 7/25/03
for Linda Johnson. [03-1235] ~ [3819916] (mst)

7/25/03 Brief filed by Appellee Linda Johnson. Copies of brief: 8;
# brf pages: 84. Sufficient[Y/N]?: n. Need R36(c) motion
for inclusion of unpub opn from other circuit.
SEALED?[Y/N]: n. Method of filing w/ court: pm. Date of
Service on parties: 7/25/03. Type of service on parties:
pm. [03-1235] ~ [3829667] (mst)

7/29/03 Notice non-compliant brief filed by Appellee Linda Johnson.
Rule: 36(c) - format. [03-1235] ~ [3829669] Sufficient
brief due on 8/8/03 for Linda Johnson. (mst)

8/5/03 Motion filed by Appellee Linda Johnson to allow attachment
to brief as a supplement. Attachment tendered (Y/N): y
[3833507-1]. [03-1235] ~ [3833507] (mst)

8/5/03 ORDER FILED [3833868] granting motion to allow attachment
to brief [3833507-1] [03-1235] ~ [3833868] (mst)

8/5/03 Brief made sufficient by Appellee Linda Johnson. Number of
brf pages: 82. [03-1235] ~ [3833874] (mst)

8/11/03 Reply brief filed by Appellant MBNA America Bank. Copies
of brief: 8; # brf pages: 39. Sufficient[Y/N]?: y.
SEALED[Y/N]?: n. Method of filing w/ court: pm Date of
Service on parties: 8/11/03 Type of service on parties: pm
[03-1235] ~ [3837489] (mst)

Docket as of March 5, 2004 0:25 am Page 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-1235 Johnson v. Experian Info Sol, et al

9/19/03 Case tentatively calendared for oral argument
12/2/03-12/5/03 Place: Richmond, Virginia NOTIFY OF CONFLICT
BY: September 29, 2003. [99-2643, 03-1207, 99-7713, 99-4687,
01-4586, 01-4605, 01-4607, 03-4348, 03-4367, 02-1149,
02-1266, 02-1980, 02-2042, 02-2199, 02-2200, 03-1351,
03-1354, 02-2251, 02-2317, 02-2360, 02-2361, 02-2364,
02-2366, 02-2367, 02-2369, 02-2392, 02-2396, 02-2432,
02-2474, 02-4091, 02-4525, 02-4526, 02-4676, 02-4693,
02-4708, 02-4734, 02-4753, 02-4762, 02-4831, 02-4859,
02-4860, 02-4877, 02-4901, 02-4917, 02-4921, 02-4956,
02-4984, 02-7104, 03-14, 03-206, 03-1005, 03-1006, 03-1030,
03-1039, 03-1056, 03-1065, 03-1068, 03-1408, 03-1075,
03-1120, 03-1166, 03-1185, 03-1193, 93-1194, 03-1194,
03-1196, 03-1310, 03-1223, 03-1232, 03-1235, 03-1248,
03-1250, 03-1259, 03-1279, 03-1280, 03-1308, 03-1315,
03-1326, 03-1329, 03-1339, 03-1343, 03-1362, 03-1367,
03-1388, 03-1401, 03-1448, 03-1449, 03-1457, 03-1543,
03-1460, 03-1461, 03-1462, 03-1463, 03-1464, 03-1465,
03-1469, 03-1566, 03-1473, 03-1474, 03-1475, 03-1497,
03-1510, 03-1531, 03-1696, 03-1550, 03-1562, 03-1564,
03-1612, 03-1624, 03-1638, 03-1674, 03-4017, 03-4043,
03-4137, 03-4174, 03-4204, 03-4209, 03-4280, 03-4363,
03-4439, 03-6146, 03-6739] ~ [3856583] (psc)

10/14/03 Case calendared for oral argument. [03-1235] ~ [3869676]
(jc)

11/25/03 Supplemental authorities (FRAP 28(j)) filed by Appellee
Linda Johnson [3892877-1] [03-1235] (mst)

12/2/03 Supplemental authorities (FRAP 28(j)) filed by Appellant
MBNA America Bank [3895775-1] [03-1235] (mst)

12/4/03 Letter referencing record citations filed by Appellant MBNA
America Bank. [3896965-1] ~ [3896965] [03-1235] (mst)

12/4/03 Oral argument heard. Panel: Honorable William W. Wilkins,
Honorable William B. Traxler, Honorable Richard D. Bennett.
Courtroom Deputy: TDC. [03-1235] (jle)

12/22/03 Supplemental authorities (FRAP 28(j)) filed by Appellant
MBNA America Bank [3906193-1] [03-1235] (dhb)

12/31/03 Supplemental authorities (FRAP 28(j)) filed by Appellee
Linda Johnson [3909664-1] [03-1235] (aweb)

12/31/03 Supplemental authorities (FRAP 28(j)) filed by Appellant
MBNA America Bank [3910722-1] [03-1235] (dhb)

2/11/04 Published, authored opinion filed. Copies to all parties.
[03-1235] (mst)

2/11/04 Judgment order filed. Decision: AFFIRMED. EOD Date:
2/11/04. [03-1235] ~ [3931737] (mst)

Docket as of March 5, 2004 0:25 am Page 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-1235 Johnson v. Experian Info Sol, et al

2/18/04 Brief released to Lantagne for copies. Briefs released:
A's, E's and Reply. [03-1235] (ad)

2/20/04 A's Brief, E's Brief and Reply Brief returned by Lantange.
[03-1235] (ce)

2/25/04 Bill of costs filed by Appellee, Linda Johnson. [3940390-1]
[03-1235] (mst)

2/26/04 Reply requested from Appellee Linda Johnson to bill of
costs claim for appendix [3940390-1]. Reply due 3/3/04 for
Linda Johnson. [3940896-1] [03-1235] ~ [3940896] (mst)

3/3/04 Reply filed by Appellee Linda Johnson to reply [3940896-1]
[3943852-1] [03-1235] ~ [3943852] (mst)

3/4/04 ORDER filed awarding costs in the amount of $364.75.
[03-1235] ~ [3944205] (mst)

3/4/04 Mandate issued. [03-1235] ~ [3944208] (mst)

Docket as of March 5, 2004 0:25 am

The docket for Johnson, et al v. Experian Information, et al

Since Thomas v. TU has so many interesting filings, I'm also going to order some of the documents from this landmark MBNA jury verdict and the affirmed appeal.

The district court docket:

U.S. District Court

Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 02-CV-523

Johnson, et al v. Experian Information, et al

Filed: 07/25/02
Assigned to: Judge Richard L. Williams
Jury demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 320
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt # in member case : is 3:02-cv-00531
Dkt # in member case : is 3:02-cv-00527
Cause: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LINDA J. SLATER Leonard Anthony Bennett
plaintiff [term 01/10/03]
[term 01/10/03] [COR LD NTC]
Leonard A. Bennett, P.C.
12515 Warwick Boulevard
Suite 201
Newport News, VA 23606
(757) 930-3660

LINDA JOHNSON Leonard Anthony Bennett
plaintiff (See above)
[COR LD NTC]

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, Mark Lawrence Glassman
INC. [term 01/05/04]
defendant (202) 879-3455
[term 01/05/04] [COR LD NTC]
Virginia Conklin Theis
[term 01/05/04]
(202) 879-5445
[COR]
Jones Day
51 Louisiana Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 879-3939

MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A. Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr.
defendant [COR]
William Harrison Baxter, II
(804) 775-4323


[COR LD NTC]
McGuireWoods LLP
1 James Ctr
901 E Cary St
Richmond, VA 23219-4030
(804) 775-1000

EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION Melvin Alfred Todd
SERVICES, INC. [term 11/14/02]
consolidated defendant (202) 508-5862
[term 11/14/02] [COR LD NTC]
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
607 14th St NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005-2018
(202) 508-5800

John Anthony Love
[term 11/14/02]
(404) 815-6224
[COR LD NTC]
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
1100 Peachtree St
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
**NA**
(404) 815-6500

Adam Jason August
[term 11/14/02]
Below Address Terminated on 11/15/02
[COR LD NTC]
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
11130 Sunrise Valley Dr
Suite 300
Reston, VA 20191
(703) 648-8500

TRANS UNION, LLC Stanley Paul Wellman
consolidated defendant [term 01/10/03]
[term 01/10/03] [COR LD NTC]
Mark Gregory Carlton
[term 01/10/03]
[COR]
Harman Claytor Corrigan &
Wellman
4951 Lake Brook Dr
Suite 100
Glen Allen, VA 23059
(804) 747-5200

Mark E. Kogan


[term 01/10/03]
[COR NTC]
Satzberg, Trichon, Kogan &
Wertheimer PC
1818 Market St
30th Fl
Philadelphia, PA 19103
***N/A***
(215) 575-7600

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOCKET PROCEEDINGS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE # DOCKET ENTRY

7/25/02 1 COMPLAINT - Filing Fee $150.00, Receipt #64490; jury demand
(rpiz) [Entry date 07/26/02]

7/25/02 -- Jury Trial Flag (rpiz) [Entry date 07/26/02]

7/26/02 -- SUMMONS(ES) issued for Experian Information and MBNA
America Bank; planitiff's attorney telephoned for pick-up
(rpiz)

8/19/02 2 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Experian Information 8/1/02
Answer due on 8/21/02 for Experian Information (rpiz)

8/20/02 3 ANSWER to Complaint by Experian Information (Attorneys Mark
Lawrence Glassman, Virginia Conklin Theis) (rpiz)
[Entry date 08/21/02]

8/20/02 4 Financial Interest Disclosure Statement (Local Rule 7.1) by
Experian Information (rpiz) [Entry date 08/21/02]

8/28/02 5 Certificate of Compliance of the Secretary of the
Commonwealth as to MBNA America Bank; Answer due 9/17/02 for
MBNA America Bank (rpiz) [Entry date 08/29/02]
[Edit date 09/16/02]

9/17/02 6 ANSWER to Complaint by MBNA America Bank (Attorney William
Harrison Baxter II, Earle Duncan Getchell Jr.), (mful)
[Entry date 09/18/02]

9/24/02 7 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Pretrial Conference for 9:40
10/10/02 ; ( signed by Judge Richard L. Williams )
Copies Mailed: yes (jpea)

10/10/02 -- Deadline updated; RESET Pretrial Conference for 9:40
10/10/02 before Judge Richard L. Williams (jpea)

10/10/02 8 PRETRIAL ORDER filed Jury Trial date 9:30 1/21/03 ( signed
by Judge Richard L. Williams ) Copies Mailed: yes (jpea)
[Entry date 10/11/02]

10/10/02 -- Pre-Trial Conference held (jpea) [Entry date 10/11/02]

10/11/02 9 ORDER that civil cases 3:02cv523, 3:02cv527, and 3:02cv531
shall be consolidated for all purposes including the trial
on 1/21/03; clerk is directed to consolidate these three
cases under 3:02cv523 and the parties are directed to file
all future pleadings under 3:02cv523 only ( signed by Judge
Richard L. Williams ) Copies Mailed: yes [EOD Date:
10/11/02] (mful)

10/11/02 10 ORDER that the parties and counsel are directed to contact
the chambers of Judge Lowe within 5 days of receipt of this
order to schedule a settlement conference; see order for
additional details ( signed by Judge Richard L. Williams )
Copies Mailed: yes and to Judge Lowe [EOD Date: 10/11/02]

(mful)

10/11/02 -- Consolidated Member Case. Lead Case Number: 3:02 cv523
(mful)

10/11/02 -- Consolidated Lead Case (mful)

11/13/02 11 AGREED MOTION by Equifax Credit, Linda J. Slater to
Dismiss (khan)

11/14/02 -- So Ordered: granting [11-1] motion by Equifax Credit, Linda
J. Slater to Dismiss;this dismissal will not effect Pltf's
claims against the other co-defendant ( signed by Judge
Richard L. Williams ) Copies Mailed: yes (cgar)

11/25/02 12 MOTION by Equifax Credit for Adam August to Withdraw as
Attorney (cgar) [Entry date 11/26/02]

12/10/02 -- So Ordered: granting [12-1] motion by Equifax Credit for
Adam August to Withdraw as Attorney ( signed by Judge
Richard L. Williams ) Copies Mailed: yes (scoo)

12/19/02 13 JOINT MOTION by Linda J. Slater, MBNA America Bank by MBNA
America Bank, Linda J. Slater to Dismiss Counts 1 and 3
(scoo) [Entry date 12/23/02]

12/24/02 14 MOTION by MBNA America Bank for Summary Judgment on Count
II of Pltf's Complaint (cmcc) [Entry date 12/26/02]

12/24/02 15 MEMORANDUM by MBNA America Bank in support of [14-1] motion
by MBNA America Bank for Summary Judgment on Count II of
Pltf's Complaint (Exhibits in brown expandable) (cmcc)
[Entry date 12/26/02] [Edit date 12/26/02]

12/30/02 16 ORDER granting [13-1] joint motion by MBNA America Bank,
Linda J. Slater to Dismiss Counts 1 and 3, Count 1 and
Count III are dismissed without prejudice, this case shall
proceed on Count II ( signed by Judge Richard L. Williams )
Copies Mailed: yes [EOD Date: 12/30/02] (scoo)

1/7/03 -- Motion hearing as to Linda J. Slater, Experian Information,
MBNA America Bank, Equifax Credit, Trans Union, LLC [14-1]
motion by MBNA America Bank for Summary Judgment on Count
II of Pltf's Complaint set at 3:30 1/16/03 before Judge
Richard L. Williams (jpea)

1/9/03 -- Plaintiff's Memo. In Response to MBNA America Bank's Motion
for Summary Judgment rec'd and placed on left pending Order
before Court. (Exhibits placed in brown expandable) (thom)
[Edit date 01/09/03]


1/10/03 17 ORDER that Pltf's response time to Deft's Motion for
Summary Judgment on Count II of Pltf's Complaint is hereby
enlarged, Pltf's Memorandum in Opposition to MBNA America
Bank NA's Motion for Summary Judgement on Count II of
Pltf's Complaint is deemed timely filed ( signed by Judge
Richard L. Williams ) Copies Mailed: yes [EOD Date:
1/10/03] (cmcc)

1/10/03 18 RESPONSE by Linda J. Slater to [14-1] motion by MBNA
America Bank for Summary Judgment on Count II of Pltf's
Complaint by MBNA America Bank (cmcc)

1/10/03 19 ORDER that Pltf's name, Linda J. Slater, be changed to
Linda Johnson within the style and pleadings of this case.
(signed by Judge Richard L. Williams ) Copies Mailed: yes
[EOD Date: 1/10/03] (cmcc)

1/10/03 20 ORDER, Stipulation of Dismissal by Pltf. and Deft. that
this cause be dismissed as to Deft. Trans Union, LLC (
signed by Judge Richard L. Williams ) Copies Mailed: yes
[EOD Date: 1/10/03] (cmcc)

1/14/03 21 Witness list by MBNA America Bank (cmcc)
[Entry date 01/15/03] [Edit date 01/15/03]

1/14/03 22 Exhibit list by MBNA America Bank (cmcc)
[Entry date 01/15/03] [Edit date 01/15/03]

1/14/03 -- Exhibits received by MBNA America Bank (1 black binder in 2
sets) (cmcc) [Entry date 01/15/03]

1/14/03 23 Exhibit list by Linda Johnson (cmcc) [Entry date 01/15/03]

1/14/03 24 Witness list by Linda Johnson (cmcc) [Entry date 01/15/03]

1/14/03 -- Exhibits received by Linda Johnson (1 black binder in 2
sets) (cmcc) [Entry date 01/15/03]

1/15/03 25 MEMORANDUM by MBNA America Bank in support of [14-1]
motion by MBNA America Bank for Summary Judgment on Count
II of Pltf's Complaint (cmcc)

1/15/03 25 REPLY by MBNA America Bank to response to [14-1] motion by
MBNA America Bank for Summary Judgment on Count II of
Pltf's Complaint (cmcc)

1/15/03 26 Amended Witness list by Linda Johnson (cmcc)

1/15/03 -- Deadline updated; RESET Jury Trial for 9:30 1/21/03
before Judge Richard L. Williams (jpea)

1/15/03 27 Proposed Jury instructions by MBNA America Bank, and
diskette (cmcc)


1/16/03 28 Rule 26(a)(3) OBJECTION by defendant MBNA America Bank to
[26-1] witness list list by Linda Johnson (cmcc)

1/16/03 29 OBJECTION by defendant MBNA America Bank to [0-0] exhibits
received by Linda Johnson (cmcc)

1/16/03 30 Document(s) filed by plaintiff Linda Johnson, Pltf's
Proposed Deposition Summaries, in lieu of the actual
depositions excerpts of Edward Hughes, Trisha Furr, Tonya
Grimes and Julie Eldreth, in brown expandable (cmcc)
[Edit date 01/16/03]

1/16/03 31 Proposed Jury instructions by Linda Johnson, and diskette.
(cmcc) [Edit date 01/16/03]

1/16/03 32 Minute entry: IN OPEN COURT: Williams, J., Gilbert Halasz,
OCR. Parties by counsel. Matter came on for hearing on
Deft's motion for summary judgment. Arguments had. For the
reasons stated from the bench, Deft's motion granted in
part and denied in part. Order to enter.(30 mins.) (jpea)

1/17/03 33 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [14-1] motion by
MBNA America Bank for Summary Judgment on Count II of
Pltf's Complaint, it is ORDERED that Deft's motion is
granted as to Pltf's claim under 15 USC Section 1681s-2(a)
and denied as to Pltf's claim under 15 USC Section
1681s-2(b) ( signed by Judge Richard L. Williams ) Copies
Mailed: yes [EOD Date: 1/17/03] (cmcc)

1/17/03 34 OBJECTION by defendant MBNA America Bank to [30-1] by
Linda Johnson, Proposed Trial Exhibits, Exhibit 13. (cmcc)

1/17/03 35 Proposed Supplemental Jury instructions by MBNA America
Bank (cmcc)

1/17/03 36 MOTION by MBNA America Bank in limine (cmcc)

1/17/03 37 MOTION by MBNA America Bank in limine (cmcc)

1/21/03 38 NOTICE of filing deposition transcripts of Linda Johnson,
Sandra Scanlon, Tonya Grimes, Edward Hughes, Julie Eldreth
and Trisha Furr by MBNA America Bank (transcripts in
brown expandable) (scoo)

1/21/03 39 OBJECTION by plaintiff Linda Johnson to [35-1]
instructions jury by MBNA America Bank (cmcc)

1/21/03 40 Response by Linda Johnson to Deft's Written Objections to
Pltf's Proposed Jury Instructions. (cmcc)

1/21/03 41 MOTION by MBNA America Bank to Strike Pltf's Errata Sheet
(scoo)


1/21/03 42 MEMORANDUM by MBNA America Bank in support of [41-1]
motion by MBNA America Bank to Strike Pltf's Errata Sheet
(scoo)

1/21/03 43 MOTION by MBNA America Bank for Voir Dire Questions (scoo)

1/21/03 44 OBJECTION by defendant MBNA America Bank to ptf's
deposition summaries [30-1] by Linda Johnson (scoo)

1/21/03 45 Second List of Supplemental Proposed Jury instructions by
MBNA America Bank (diske in white envelope on left side of
case file) (scoo)

1/21/03 46 OBJECTION by defendant MBNA America Bank to [31-1]
instructions jury (scoo)

1/21/03 47 Minute entry: JURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS: Williams, J., Gilbert
Halasz, OCR. Pltf w/Atty Leonard A. Bennett; and, Deft
by/Atty E. Duncan Getchell, Jr. Jury. Matter came on for
Jury Trial proceedings. Jury sworn and examined on voir
dire. Jury empaneled; sworn to try issues. Witnesses
excluded on motion of Deft. Motions before trial heard and
resolved by the Court. Opening statements had. Pltf adduced
evidence. Rested. Motion after Pltf rested heard and denied
by the Court. Deft adduced evidence. Rested. Motion after
Deft rested heard and denied by the Court. Evidence
concluded. Proposed jury charge discussed with counsel in
the absence of the Jury. Arguments had. Jury charged by the
Court. Objections and/or exceptions to the charge noted by
Pltf and Deft. Jury retired to deliberate at 3:35 p.m.
Inquiries of the Jury received and answered by the Court.
Jury returned verdict in favor of Pltf at 5:20 p.m. in the
sum of $90,300.00. Jury Polled at Deft's request. Jury
discharged. Clerk to enter judgment on the Jury Verdict.
All exhibits returned to counsel.(4 hrs., 30 mins.) (jpea)
[Entry date 01/22/03]

1/21/03 -- Jury Trial held (jpea) [Entry date 01/22/03]

1/21/03 48 JURY VERDICT FORM in favor of Pltf Linda Johnson in the
sume of $90,300.00. (jpea) [Entry date 01/22/03]

1/21/03 49 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE in favor of Pltf Linda Johnson
against Deft MBNA America Bank in the sum of $90,300.00. (
signed by the Deputy Clerk per Judge Richard L. Williams )
Copies Mailed: yes [EOD DATE: 1/22/03] (jpea)
[Entry date 01/22/03]

1/22/03 -- Case closed (cmcc)

1/27/03 50 TRANSCRIPT for trial dates of 01/21/03; placed in brown
expandable. (cmcc) [Entry date 01/28/03]


1/31/03 51 Bill of costs in the amount of $1,998.73 by Attorney
Leonard A. Bennett for Linda Johnson (cmcc)
[Entry date 02/05/03] [Edit date 02/05/03]

1/31/03 52 MEMORANDUM of Law by Linda Johnson in support of [51-1] by
Linda Johnson; Supplemental Declaration of Leonard A.
Bennett received and attached 2/6/03. (cmcc)
[Entry date 02/05/03] [Edit date 02/07/03]

2/4/03 53 Renewed MOTION by MBNA America Bank for Judgment as a
Matter of Law (cmcc) [Entry date 02/05/03]

2/4/03 54 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities by MBNA America Bank
in support of [53-1] motion by MBNA America Bank for
Judgment as a Matter of Law (cmcc) [Entry date 02/05/03]

2/14/03 55 MOTION by MBNA America Bank to Defer Plaintiff's Motion
for Award of Costs, Expenses, and Reasonable Attorney's
Fees (cmcc) [Entry date 02/19/03]

2/14/03 56 MEMORANDUM by MBNA America Bank in support of [55-1]
motion by MBNA America Bank (cmcc) [Entry date 02/19/03]

2/14/03 57 OBJECTION by defendant MBNA America Bank to [51-1] Bill of
Costs by Linda Johnson (cmcc) [Entry date 02/19/03]

2/19/03 58 RESPONSE by Linda Johnson to [53-1] motion by MBNA America
Bank for Judgment as a Matter of Law by MBNA America Bank
(Exhibits in brown expandable.) (cmcc)
[Edit date 02/19/03]

2/20/03 59 Consent ORDER, it is hereby ORDERED that any award of
costs, expenses, or attorney's fees in this case shall be
deferred until after such time as MBNA's post-trial motion
and any further appeals that may be filed in this matter
are concluded; this Court retains jurisdiction to decide
these issues at that time ( signed by Judge Richard L.
Williams ) Copies Mailed: yes [EOD Date: 2/20/03] (cmcc)

2/20/03 60 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF [49-1] judgment order by MBNA America
Bank . FILING FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # 67202 Copies sent
to Linda J. Slater, Experian Information, MBNA America Bank,
Equifax Credit, Trans Union, LLC, Linda Johnson; TPO package
given out (cmcc) [Edit date 02/21/03]

2/21/03 -- Motion hearing as to Experian Information, MBNA America
Bank, Linda Johnson [55-1] motion by MBNA America Bank set
at 2:00 2/24/03, [53-1] motion by MBNA America Bank for
Judgment as a Matter of Law set at 2:00 2/24/03 before
Judge Richard L. Williams (jpea)

2/21/03 61 REPLY Brief by MBNA America Bank to response to [53-1]
motion by MBNA America Bank for Judgment as a Matter of Law
(cmcc) [Entry date 02/24/03]


2/24/03 62 Minute entry: IN OPEN COURT: Williams, J., Gilbert Halasz,
OCR. Parties by counsel. Matter came on for hearing on
Deft's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Arguments had. For the reasons stated from the bench, Court
denied Deft's motion. Should an appeal be noted, a
supersedeas bond shall be posted in the amount of
$150,000.00. Order to enter.(30 mins.) (jpea)

2/25/03 63 ORDER denying [53-1] motion by MBNA America Bank for
Judgment as a Matter of Law, for reasons stated from the
Bench at a hearing on February 24, 2003 ( signed by Judge
Richard L. Williams ) Copies Mailed: yes [EOD Date:
2/25/03] (cmcc)

2/26/03 64 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL OF [49-1] judgment order by MBNA
America Bank . Copies sent to Linda J. Slater, Experian
Information, MBNA America Bank, Equifax Credit, Trans Union,
LLC, Linda Johnson; TPO package mailed (cmcc)
[Entry date 02/27/03] [Edit date 02/27/03]

2/27/03 -- USCA Case Number Re: [60-1] appeal by defendant CASE
MANAGER: Merlene Smith-Taylor USCA NUMBER: 03-1235 (cmcc)
[Entry date 02/28/03]

2/28/03 65 TRANSCRIPT for dates of 02/24/03, post-trial motions,
before the Honorable Richard L. Williams, United States
District Judge (cmcc) [Entry date 03/03/03]

3/6/03 -- USCA Case Number Re: [64-1] amended appeal by defendant
CASE MANAGER: Merlene Smith-Taylor USCA NUMBER: 03-1235
(cmcc) [Entry date 03/10/03]

3/7/03 -- LETTER received from 4CCA requesting transmittal of
transcript in this matter (cmcc) [Entry date 03/10/03]

3/17/03 66 Certification of Completion sent to USCA re: [64-1] Appeal
by MBNA America Bank and [60-1] Appeal by MBNA America Bank
(walk)

3/18/03 -- Letter sent to all counsel that cost will be taxed on March
27, 2003. (jpea)

3/18/03 -- USCA Case Number Re: CASE MANAGER: Merlene Smith-Taylor
USCA NUMBER: 03-1235 (Transmittal of Certif.) (cmcc)
[Entry date 03/25/03]

3/21/03 -- Pursuant to Consent Order of 2/20/03, costs will not be
taxed at this time. (lmcd)

1/5/04 67 ORDER that the Complaint filed herein is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as to Experian Information Solutions ( signed by
Judge Richard L. Williams ) Copies Mailed: yes [EOD Date:
1/5/04] (cmcc) [Edit date 01/05/04]


2/11/04 68 Copy of Opinion of USCA re: [60-1] appeal by MBNA America
Bank, [64-1] amended appeal by MBNA America Bank Decided
February 11, 2004 AFFIRMED the District Court decision;
attached copy of judgment will not take effect until
issuance of the mandate. (cmcc) [Entry date 02/12/04]

2/11/04 69 JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) with copy of opinion of
USCA AFFIRMED the judgment of the District Court re: [60-1]
appeal, [64-1] amended appeal (cmcc) [Entry date 02/12/04]

2/26/04 70 Stipulated ORDER that Plaintiff shall file and serve her
supplemental petition for attorneys' fees and costs within
28 days from issuance of the mandate from the United States
Court of Appeals ( signed by Judge Richard L. Williams )
Copies Mailed: yes [EOD Date: 2/26/04] (cmcc)

3/8/04 71 USCA Order as to plaintiff Linda J. Slater, the Court
awards $364.75 in costs. (cgar)

3/8/04 72 JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) with copy of opinion of
USCA affirms the judgment of the District Court the
judgment of the District Court re: [64-1] appeal (cgar)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Flags:
CLOSED
LEAD
3:02
cv523

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF DOCKET: 3:02cv523

Evil: John M. McIntyre, Reed Smith LLP

Mr. McIntyre is one of the attorneys representing Bank One/First USA in Randy's case.

John M. McIntyre

E: jmcintyre@reedsmith.com
T: 412-288-3822
F: 412-288-3063

Read his bio and you can guess why he chose to fight for evil.

Mr. McIntyre's first listed experience:

"Was lead trial attorney representing an indigent plaintiff in a civil rights matter before a jury in federal court. The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client that included an award of punitive damages and the damage award was upheld on appeal. Briscoe v. Sell, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 99-367."

He went on to defend multinational corporations including creditors, collectors and CRAs.

Excerpt:

"Co-tried a three week breach of contract action in state court, representing a large manufacturing company. The plaintiff in the case sought more than $3 million in damages for what it alleged was a wrongful termination of a contract for logistics services. The court issued a defense verdict on the plaintiff’s claim and awarded our client $83,832 on its counterclaim. Gruelle v. Leybold Vacuum USA, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division No. GD 02-8223.

Was the lead author of a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on behalf of our client, GMAC Residential Funding Corp., as well as seven other defendants-appellees in the case. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims that alleged that the defendants issued secondary mortgage loans with improper and excessive closing costs. Miller v. Pacific Shore Funding, 2004 Westlaw 144138.

Obtained a defense verdict in an arbitration action premised on allegations of commercial defamation. Stone et al. v. Experian Business Information Solutions, Inc., Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, November Term 1998, No. 1901.

Currently serving as the senior associate on more than 20 class actions for one of the largest nationwide purchasers of second mortgage loans in a series of alleged class actions asserting “predatory lending” claims.

Obtained summary judgment in several Fair Credit Reporting Act cases in Nevada, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania for a leading credit reporting agency.

Successfully compelled arbitration of a putative class action alleging statutory violations against a purchaser of second mortgages. Walther v. Sovereign Bank, Circuit Court of Baltimore County, Case No. 03-C-02-014006."

Why the change from civil rights to defending corporate greed?

My guess - it's the money. Obviously he's a very skilled attorney and a very bright guy.

He made the conscious choice to defend evil.

I hope that "something" will happen to him to make him realize that the money he makes is irrelevant and that all that counts is how many people he hurt, how much pain he inflicted on the poorest and most defensless human beings, how many people died because he dedicated his life to evil.

He's a young guy, he has a choice and he can change.

Thomas v. TU documents

I started scanning and posting the Trans Union Motion for a Protective Order and the Thomas Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

I can't figure out WHY a corporation has a right to privacy. Does it get embarrassed?

How can a company in possession of all credit data for 200+ million people operate without having to provide financial statements to show that it has the resources to maintain the data in a secure environment and to compensate consumers for damages?

Many MILLIONS of people are having the same and even worse problems with Trans Union than Judy Thomas.

TU CEO Gambill sounded in his speech to Congress like Trans Union would go out of business if they had to provide free annual reports to consumers. Think about that! Trans Union doesn't have the resources to compensate consumers for their screw ups.

I'm sure that Trans Union would go bankrupt real fast if just 1% of consumers with legitimate claims took legal action.

The morons at XM radio

I posted a few days ago about their new policy to run the credit and compel binding arbitration and I had concluded that they must be having some problems - as promptly confirmed by a reader's comment.

Today I got this reply:

Dear Christine,

Thank you for contacting XM Satellite Radio, we apologize for the delay in our response.

Please email legal@xmradio.com in regards to our policies. They are better suited to respond to your concerns.

Should you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us toll free at 1-800-967-2346.

We appreciate your business and hope you'll continue to be a loyal and happy XM listener for many years to come.

Best Regards,
Audra Ekwulugo
Listener Care

-------------------------------

So, why didn't Audra forward my mail to the legal department?

Obviously, to wear me out, to make me go away. Don't they realize that by aggravating me they'll only get MORE bad publicity?

c: emailed to legal@xmradio.com

The one year anniversary

On 3/19/03 I filed my complaint in Phoenix.

Now I wonder why the anti war demonstrations are tomorrow, I definitely remember coming back from Phoenix that evening and then my Dad called and told me that the bombing had started. When I was writing my complaint I was just trying to get it done before the war started, and it certainly was distracting.

A year later, nothing got better. Not in Iraq, not in the US, and certainly not in the credit world.

The CRAs all decided to disclose even LESS information, soft inquiries completely disappeared from most consumer disclosures. The PEOPLE running the CRAs are evil greedy bastards. Of course the same is true for just about any major corporation, politician, well, most people.

It's been a rough year, quite enlightening, but in a very negative way.

I don't think I was particularly naive about the flaws in the "justice" system and the extent of corruption everywhere, but nothing's like experiencing the lies and deceit first hand.

Few organizations or people are sincere about CHANGING credit reporting and ending the exploitation of the poor and disadvantaged. I subscribe to the ACORN newsletter, and they simply refuse to take on the CRAs. ACORN is part of the system.

ACORN helps the slaves polish their chains instead of fighting slavery.

Their activities are not useful without first changing credit reporting and scoring. What is the point of a predatory lending settlement resulting in a few hundred dollar settlement while the CREDIT REPORTING of these accounts results in THOUSANDS of dollars in damages due to higher insurance and interest rates?

It's like spending tons of money on medical care for illnesses due to contaminated water and NOT providing clean water. People will always be sick. Without eliminating the cause of the problem, nothing will change.

It is ACORN's objective to pacify the disadvantaged and exploited, to keep them from going berserk, to make it look like everything's ok and all we have to do is stage a little protest and all is fine.

It ain't so. And the ACORN executives know that. They thrive in the current conditions, the disadvantaged and poor even send them donations! It's absurd.

While I didn't think much of the FTC and other regulators prior to my filing, it sure amazes me that there is NOTHING consumers can do to get them to enforce the FCRA.

Many "consumer advocate" attorneys are also part of this system. I've seen more people screwed by their own attorneys than I've seen helped. The poorer or sicker the consumer, the more likely it is that they'll see less than 10% of the settlement. The "working relationships" between corporate and consumer attorneys ensure the payment of legal fees to the attorneys and next to nothing for the consumers.

There are a few people who truly care, but not many.

I learned so much this last year, but what's the point?

c: Lisa Donner acorncampaign@acorn.org
Camellia Phillips acornnews@acorn.org

Notice of press release Civil Action No. 03-1729 Foster v. Bank One

Christine Baker
http://www.creditsuit.org/
http://forum.creditcourt.com/cgi-bin/discus/
http://www.bayhouse.com/
christine@bayhouse.com
Fax: 571-222-1000

Perry A. Napolitano
John M. McIntyre
Jayme Butcher
Reed Smith LLP
Tel: (412) 288-3131
Fax: (412) 288-3063

Re: Notice of press release Civil Action No. 03-1729 Foster v. Bank One

March 18, 2004

Dear Bank One Legal Team:

March 18, 2004

Dear Bank One Legal Team:

Prior to sending out my press release about the Bank One (First USA) credit reporting practices, I am providing you with the opportunity to clarify a couple of issues:

1) The numerous Bank One credit inquiries without a permissible purpose.

Bank One seems to claim that it has a permissible purpose, but I have not been able to determine what that would be from your filings. It is my understanding that a consumer has to apply for credit or employment, there has to be a business relationship such as an open account or an outstanding debt to legally obtain a consumer credit report.

Since Mr. Foster did not apply for anything with Bank One and he has no open account and he does not owe Bank One, what exactly is the permissible purpose?

2) Is Bank One exempt from the FCRA requirement to report only complete and accurate credit data to the CRAs?

As dedicated readers of Mr. Foster's blog, you have probably read my comment at http://www.firstusa-credit-suit.us/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=68 and my Bankruptcy Affidavit at http://www.creditcourt.org/bk-affidavit.htm.

I have also documented some of the Bank One FCRA violations at http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14/14.html, including several scans and I consider all documentation to be authentic. Please let me know if you disagree.

Based on your filings and the documentation submitted to me by Mr. Foster as well as many other former Bank One or First USA customers, I concluded that Bank One knowingly and routinely submits false and extremely damaging credit data to the CRAs. If there is a provision in the FCRA exempting Bank One from compliance with the FCRA requirement for complete and accurate credit reporting, please advise.

My tentative deadline is Monday evening. Would you like me to include specific contact info for your firm and/or Bank One?

Your reply is of course not required, but I strive for maximum accuracy in my publications.

Very truly yours,

Christine Baker

c: posted at http://www.creditsuit.org/blog/archives/000440.html

-----------------------------------

Faxed and confirmed receipt with Peggy.

Capital One ERC Dept Manager info

Chris Lane wrote again:

"Please replace with contact Capital One's Customer Relations Department."

That's the entire mail! Here's my reply:

"Fat chance! It looks to me like you just don't want your customers to be able to get to someone with a name.

You got promoted from Office Manager to ERC Dept. Manager, Regulatory Operations since your last mail, congratulations!

I'll update with your info.

Can you explain to me why Capital One is exempt from the FCRA and not reporting the credit limits?

Christine Baker"

Here's the info on the e-mail. Does anyone know what ERC stands for?

Chris Lane
ERC Dept. Manager
Regulatory Operations
968-3176 (tie 410)
chris.lane@capitalone.com

Chase and CRAs sued for incorrectly listing consumer as dead

Businessman sues after firms mistakenly list him as deceased

"HOUSTON - A businessman whose Social Security number was confused with his deceased mother's says a bank's mistake has cost him more than $250,000."

David Jokinen says that J.P. Morgan Chase Bank told credit bureaus Equifax, Trans Union and Experian Information Solutions that he was deceased. Two of the financial data companies stopped assigning Jokinen a credit score because they had him listed as dead.

Jokinen, without a credit score, could not refinance the mortgage on his Sugar Land home or qualify for a 0.9 percent loan to buy a used luxury car.

..."

Why does Jokinen have a lawyer?

Because he is a wealthy business man.

It's highly unlikely the suit would have been filed if he was just a working stiff.

I also find it interesting that the CRAs apparently ARE able to stop the scoring of a report. When I asked the CRAs not to score my reports anymore, they didn't respond.

FINALLY! WV AG sues Cross Country Bank!

Attorney general sues Applied

"... McGraw is asking the court to order the companies to stop violating state law, to pay each customer who has been a victim of its practices from $200 to $3,700 each and to fine the companies and Abessinio $5,000 for each violation. ..."

Why does McGraw want to fine Cross Country Bank and Applied Card Systems $5,000 for each violation, but the victims get only $200 to $3,700 each?

I think they should pay for the cost of the investigation, and if the AG has to make a profit, add 10% or whatever they need to make.

CCB customers have been been subjected to harrassment and illegal collection practices for many years.

"McGraw sued Cross Country Bank, its subsidiary Applied Card Systems and Rocco A. Abessinio, who owns both companies."

Don't know why the AG can sue a CEO but I can't.

"Googel said the attorney general’s office has received at least 200 consumer complaints against Applied Card and Cross Country since November 1997."

Only 200? How many THOUSANDS of complaints has the FTC received about the CRAs?

"McGraw’s suit is actually a response to a lawsuit Cross Country had filed against his office earlier this month. Cross Country sought to block McGraw’s use of private lawyers and information from a former employee’s affidavit in his office’s investigation of the company."

CCB sued the AG?

What are things coming to? CCB has been on my list of banks NOT to do business with for many years.

Rocco should go to the Grey Bar Hotel.

Can I go from house to house and take $50 here and few hundred there, year after year?

I don't think so.

Why can corporations steal our money and ruin our lives and the CEOs don't go to prison?

"Cross Country Bank "promotes its credit cards as a way for credit-impaired consumers to establish their credit rating,’’ according to the lawsuit. "Many consumers find, however, that their credit rating is worse after obtaining a CCB credit card."

The same is true for Capital One. At least CCB reports the credit limits.

Evil thugs like James McAfee at the Federal Reserve Bank know it and couldn't care less.

MIS Exhibit 12: 6-14-02 ACDV Capital One

Capital One VERIFIED and I really don't know what all the codes mean. But the "Metro Date" conincides with the "Present Status" and the "Status Date" on the report. And that SHOULD be no later than the discharged date in 96.

Questions for MIS:

The report states that the account will be reported until 5/2003. How is that date determined?

The Last Payment date on the ACDV is 8/95. That means that the account was delinquent in 9/95. How did CreditData SW calculate the date of deletion?

And "somewhere" has to be the date of the first permanent delinquency on the ACDV, am I just too tired and not seeing it?

Why is the status date 4/01?

The scan:

XM Radio now requires credit check

Insanity at it's finest. There is NO way that you can run up any kind of a bill!

The monthly fee is $12 or so, and the damages due to their credit inquiries could be hundreds or thousands of dollars.

And of course they have a binding arbitration clause. Why do they need that? Why would anyone sue them?

I suppose they overcharge their customers and fail to process cancellations just like the cell phone criminals.

I'm considering cancelling before I have those problems.

c: listenercare@xmradio.com

HUMOR: Capital One wants me to remove contact info

Chris Lane, Office Manager in the Executive Offices of Capital One, sent me an e-mail today, requesting that I delete the name of Tanya Morris in the Executive Offices and her contact number at CreditForum.org.

Capital One is asking ME to delete????!!!!

That was good for a badly needed laugh!

My reply: "I'll be happy to update with new contact info. What would you like me to post?"

Why the world hates America

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant most Americans are, so I thought maybe this graphic presentation adds a little awareness of what's really going on.

These pictures have been shown in documentaries throughout the world. Europeans are especially aware of the destruction and suffering in Kosovo. And while I can understand that many Americans simply don't care about people in other countries, I can't understand why they won't even care about their own soldiers and their families.

Do you know that America doesn't even provide medical care for all its own troops?

For years, the veterans with Gulf War Syndrom were refused treatment and they were categorized as lazy deadbeats. Recently Congress investigated the lack of medical care for soldiers returning injured from Iraq.

From the Dennis Kucinich page on depleted uranium:

"...

A recent study shows that U.S. Gulf War veterans' children have a much higher likelihood of having three specific types of birth defects: two types of heart valve abnormality occurring to children of male veterans, and genital-urinary defects to children born of female veterans. A study of British veterans of the Gulf War, Bosnia, and Kosovo reveals that they have 10 to 14 times the usual level of chromosomal abnormalities.

A Canadian medical research facility recently found that the urine of Afghani people living near the area where the United States carried out military operations contained radioactive isotopes 100 to 400 times as high as Gulf War veterans from the United Kingdom who were tested in 1999. The Canadian team recorded an average of 315.5 nanograms of these isotopes in people in Jalalabad, Tora Bora, and Mazar-e-Sharif. A 12-year-old boy near Kabul tested at 2,031 nanograms. The maximum exposure considered safe by the United States is 9 nanograms/year. With growing evidence of an increase in birth defects and stillborns, the situation should be addressed as an issue of the highest priority.

..."

Who cares?

10% of Households subjected to incorrect credit reporting after bankruptcy

One in 73 US households declared bankruptcy in '03

"WASHINGTON, March 12 (Reuters) - One out of every 73 U.S. households filed for bankruptcy last year, a record high, despite historically low interest rates, the American Bankruptcy Institute said on Friday.

The institute said Utah faced the highest per-household bankruptcy rate -- one out of every 47 -- followed closely by Tennessee, Georgia and Nevada. Alaska had the lowest rate last year, just one filing for every 189 households.

"Despite enjoying the sustained benefit of low interest rates, growing numbers of U.S. consumers are facing difficulty in meeting their monthly obligations," ABI Executive Director Samuel Gerdano said.

..."

Just about ALL filers are subjected to INCORRECT credit reporting. Few creditors bother to comply with the FCRA requirement to UPDATE their reporting after the discharge.

Unscrupulous creditors such as First USA/Bank One refuse to correct their reporting even when consumers dispute.

My estimate of 10% is probably low, as I averaged over 7 years, but often accounts are re-aged, resulting in discharged accounts staying on the credit reports even longer.

A typical example is the First USA reaged account The bankruptcy was filed in 1998, but First USA changed the Date of Last Activity for Equifax to 3/2003. Bank One (First USA) also deliberately reports delinquent balances for discharged accounts.

Not only will the derogatory account be reported until 2010, 12 years after the discharge, but it severely lowers the FICO credit scores because the account is rated as a NEW defaulted account.

Additionally, many people get divorced during/after bankruptcy and they are likely to remarry someone who has (not yet) filed for bankruptcy. Because rates are usually based on the lowest credit scores, one divorced/remarried couple often turns into 2 households negatively affected by the "after bankruptcy" incorrect credit reporting.

The FTC on reasonable procedures - Section 607(b)

Since I was looking at the FTC published opinion letters, and the lack of reasonable procedures are a significant part of my claims against the CRAs, I'll summarize the FRC publications:

Lovern (04-24-98)

"...

Section 607(b) of the FCRA requires credit bureaus "to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates." In our view, it is not a reasonable procedure to label an account that has been discharged in bankruptcy as "charged off as bad debt" if the account was open and not charged off when the consumer filed bankruptcy. Such a designation would be inaccurate or misleading, because it would indicate that the creditor had written off the account at the time of bankruptcy when it had not in fact done so.

..."

LeBlanc (06-09-98):

This letter is about whether a company assembling criminal records is a CRA - not applicable to my situation.

Harris (03-22-99)

"... Section 623(a)(2) of the FCRA addresses the duty to correct and update information by "furnishers," or persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ("CRA") such as credit bureaus. In particular, this section requires a person that "has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate" to "promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination" and provide any information needed to make it complete and accurate.(1) Thus, on its face, this provision requires a furnisher to provide corrected or updated information to the consumer reporting agency that it had reported to originally. A furnisher that reports current information to a different CRA has done nothing to "correct and update information" with CRA that possess the information that the furnisher has now determined is incomplete or erroneous. This duty extends to all student loan accounts reported to CRAs, regardless of whether they were accurate at one point, because the section requires the furnisher both to "update" accounts as well as to "correct" those that were erroneous when submitted to the CRA.

Section 607(b) of the FCRA requires CRAs to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information" in their consumer reports. It is our view that a CRA that refuses to accept updated and corrected information from a furnisher on student loan accounts, if it still maintains that information in its database, does not have in place "reasonable procedures" to comply with this section with respect to such accounts.

..."

This letter is very important because it clearly establishes that an account that was charged off PRIOR to a Ch. 7 discharge MUST be updated to reflect the subsequent discharge.

It also implies that a CRA REFUSED to accept updates, I'd sure like to know who that was.

McCorkell (06-03-99)

"Dear Mr. McCorkell:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") to an account that is reported to a consumer reporting agency ("CRA") by a creditor, when the account is discharged in bankruptcy and charged off by the creditor, either before or after the discharge. You note that a staff opinion letter (Lovern, 4/24/98) stated that a credit bureau would violate Section 607(b) of the FCRA if it reported a discharged item as a chargeoff when it was in fact not charged off. You state that (contrary to a comment attributed by Mr. Lovern to a Fair Isaac source in his letter to us) your risk scores assign the same number of points to a bankrupt tradeline regardless of whether that account is also reported as charged off.

Specifically, you ask if we concur in your view that "nothing in the FCRA (a) prohibits a creditor from 'charging off' an account, whether before or after the filing of a bankruptcy; (b) prohibits a creditor from reporting to a CRA that an account which has been discharged in bankruptcy has also been charged off so long as the credit grantor has in fact charged off the account; or (c) or prohibits a CRA from reporting an account which has been discharged in bankruptcy as also having been charged off if the creditor has so reported the account to the CRA and the CRA has no reason to believe otherwise." We agree that the FCRA prohibits none of those practices in the circumstances you describe.

The opinions set forth in this informal staff letter are not binding on the Commission." [emphases added]

Watkins (06-24-99)

This is about the obligations imposed by Section 623(a) on furnishers of information to CRAs and the responsibilities of CRAs under Section 607(b).

"Section 607(b) was not changed by the CCRRA. It remains in the same form as when the FCRA became law on October 26, 1970. Congress left Section 607(b) intact when it rewrote the FCRA in 1996, and on several other occasions when it amended the statute over the years. Despite some deficiencies in Section 623(a) from the consumer perspective, it does impose accuracy duties on furnishers where none existed prior to the effective date of the CCRRA. Nothing suggests that, in prescribing obligations for furnishers for the first time, Congress intended to change CRA duties under Section 607(b). Therefore, it is our view that the duties of CRAs under Section 607(b) were neither expanded nor reduced by the addition of Section 623 by the CCRRA.

The opinions set forth in this informal staff letter are not binding on the Commission."

It is important that none of these letters are binding and that they are from the 90s.

Thank Bush for selling consumers out to international conglamerates!

1/26/04: My reply to the FTC/FCC motion to dismiss + exhibits

The scum at FUSA/Bank One ....

It's UNBELIEVABLE what they're coming up with.

Check out Randy's posting and my comment.

From the FTC letter to Fair Isaac: "You state that (contrary to a comment attributed by Mr. Lovern to a Fair Isaac source in his letter to us) your risk scores assign the same number of points to a bankrupt tradeline regardless of whether that account is also reported as charged off."

The FTC Lovern letter

I want to know why McCorkell (Fair Isaac) wrote that letter.

That the FUSA/Bank One legal team would take this letter to try to justify their extremely damaging credit reporting is just outrageous.

I know they ROUTINELY report discharged accounts with the balances and without the discharge notation.

Just like Capital One doesn't report the credit limits, First USA/Bank One is DELIBERATELY reporting incorrect data with the INTENT to damage consumers.

They should be part of the RICO action.

Sue, people, sue!!!

MIS Exhibit 12: 5-29-02 ACDV Providian

That's an E-oscar Automated Consumer Dispute Verification, a little different layout.

Notice the "FCRA DOFD" - that's the Date of first delinquency, this most important date used to age derogs off the reports.

A few months ago, Experian STOPPED disclosing this date to consumers. Trans Union NEVER disclosed it, and I have been unable to determine how TU accounts are aged. Ms. Lewis, their attorney, gave me an INCORRECT data when I first asked about this during my 2001/02 small claims suit.

I disputed the Providian account because of this weird bk notation: "Discharged Through BK Ch 7, 11, or 12 07/31/1996 to 03/29/2002" and I *hoped* that having them look at all data would get this fixed. This was also after Thomas Quinn at Fair Isaac wrote that every piece of data has to be correct.

As I'm looking at the CDV, it looks like this stupid bk notation might have something to do with the Experian STATUS date.

Looking at these disputes and the results, it's becoming clear that a consumer cannot possibly properly dispute without access to the ACDVs as well as an explanation of the codes.

It sure is odd that the due date was 5/9/02 and Providian didn't respond till 5/28/02.

It looks like the "due date for the creditor to complete the investigation is much less than 30 days.

And what's the "97 07-09-96" notation? Who wrote that and what does it mean?
The ACDV scan:

MIS Exhibit 8: 10/30/01 CreditData reporting of American Agencies (Pac. Bell)

The account was re-aged to be "on record until 11/2004." However, the account went permanently delinquent in 12/96, after Pacific Bell had failed to credit my November payment to my account. I never brought the account current again.

Most likely, Pacific Bell (SBC) re-ages all collections to the date service is shut off.

They also turned the account into a joint account when it was NOT a joint account. The final bill has only MY name on it and nobody else was ever on this account. Scumbags at Pacific Bell!!!

The scan:

MIS Exhibit 8: 10/30/01 CreditData SW refusal of American Agencies (Pac. Bell)

That was a HUGE screwup by CreditData SW, one of those truly life altering events.

If they hadn't refused my "not legit - please remove" dispute, and they had deleted the account, I most likely would have never had to sue American Agencies, I might have never filed this suit.

CreditData SW decided to make my life miserable, to not even relay my dispute to American Agencies as the FCRA requires.

Just looking at this stuff makes me so mad I could scream.

The audacity to refuse the dispute that the FDCPA specifically requires.

Since collectors often ignore disputes, as American Agencies did, the "this account is disputed" or "this collection is not legit" dispute is a vital part of preserving the consumers' legal right to have only validated collections destroying their credit and ruining their lives.

Additionally, it is unclear to me why CreditData SW didn't realize that this is the same account they just deleted in response to my "Bureau of Commercial" dispute on 8/8/01.

The scan of the CreditData SW refusal to investigate the fraudulent Pacific Bell collection dispute:

My 10/05/01 dispute with Experian

The Union Bank account that was just corrected in September to "closed by consumer" had the notation:

"Status: paid. $0 past due as of 8-2001"

Huh? I must be missing the part on the ADVS that says that is was past due.

Obviously, this is a derogatory notation, although I don't know how Fair Isaac rates it.

For a manual review the MIS report indicates that the account was past due at some time and that I then paid the delinquent balance. Of course that's not true.

I actually never used this account, it was an overdraft line and I don't usually write bad checks.

Note that I addressed the dispute to Experian, but they forwarded it to MIS.

The dispute:

MIS Exhibit 6: 8/27/01 ADVS Union Bank

The Union Bank ADVS shows that the "Hist. Status # mo" was changed from 18 to 0. I have no idea what that means.

Also, the "SCC: undef. Amt." was deleted as with Cap. One.

I had disputed that it was closed by me, not the credit grantor, and it was corrected.

Union Bank is a problem account with Trans Union, as they report it as "unrated" and I'm afraid to dispute it because it might get deleted. I also would not dispute a "closed by credit grantor" again -- this was 2001 and I didn't know how important account history is for FICO scores.

The ADVS:

MIS Exhibit 5: 8/23/01 ADVS Capital One

It is very strange that "somehow" the Capital One reporting was corrected prior to my submission of my 8/8/01 dispute. I also don't have the 7/23/01 report (Exh. 4) they claim to have sent to me. It doesn't contain any investigation results either.

It's also strange that CreditData SW sent the dispute to Capital One, while my dispute was clearly no longer applicable: I had disputed the delinquent balance, reported WITH the bk notation.

Talk about NO procedures at all to ensure the accuracy of credit reports.

And why did they totally change my dispute? They claim that I disputed "present/previous status/MOP rating/payment pattern."

Apparently "Dispute #1: 007" is a "standard" dispute added to all disputes, and my actual dispute is in the remarks.
So, that's all strange. Have to ask about that.

The ACDV:

Why did MIS/Experian ask who an account belongs to?

It's pretty obvious. They didn't want consumers disputing accounts as not theirs.

What gives Experian/MIS the right to ask this question?

Forgot to post my objection to the TU motion for security of costs

Just noticed tonight that I hadn't posted it yet:

2/23/04: My objection to the TU motion for security of costs

Trans Union truly is a vile outfit!

FNANB settles 2 post bk discharge inquiries for $2,000 + deletion

I just remembered to update this documentary because I was looking at Randy's Bank One ordeal. The $2,000 settlement.

Bank One still claims to have had a permissible purpose to run Randy's credit, but I sure can't figure out from their filings what it is.

Why don't they tell us what it is?

E-mail received in the last two hours

Here are some excerpts:

"I am about to go crazy and would love any advice you have for me.

I had a 1500 dollar fone bill for (deleted) which they quickly gave to (deleted) to collect. During June – December I paid them in three installments the total bill. I asked for and received a memo from them in late December saying the accoun