April 30, 2004
Equifax e-mailed "order confirmation" - but I didn't order
This is really stressing me. I also got an e-mail from Ebay telling me that I changed my e-mail address - but I hadn't. I finally determined that it was another one of those fake mails where they try to get your info.
Capital One and the local law enforcement couldn't care less about who has my credit card and address info and who knows what else.
So what about Equifax? It looks authentic to me:
Return-path:
Envelope-to: christine@bayhouse.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:45:59 -0700
Received: from [216.46.96.117] (helo=smtp1.atl.equifax.com)
by 1n8-41.servernode.net with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
(Exim 4.24)
id 1BJd1L-0007hL-El
for christine@bayhouse.com; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:45:59 -0700
Received: from postoffice-1.equifax.com (postoffice-1.equifax.com [192.168.4.10])
by smtp1.atl.equifax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C8B3041
for
Received: from app45 (app0.atl.ec.equifax.com [172.21.0.23])
by postoffice-1.equifax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2EB641E10
for
Message-ID: <1898777.1083350755917.JavaMail.root@app45>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:45:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Member.Benefits@equifax.com
To: christine@bayhouse.com
Subject: Your Equifax order confirmation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
But I did NOT place another order:
Dear Valued Member,
Thank you for your recent order with Equifax. Below is a summary of your order:
Product Status Amount Charged
Equifax Credit Watch(TM) Credit Profile with Score Complete $0.00
*We will bill you for any pending orders only when they have been completed.
We will e-mail you when any pending orders have been completed.
To learn more about credit, visit the Credit Education section of our Web site. You will find valuable information on ways to improve your credit standing, how to protect yourself from identity theft, how certain life events can affect your credit rating and more.
Your order transaction number is BFRESN1436720. Please use it in any correspondence to us. Your User ID is bayhouse. You will use this User ID and the password you created at registration to login to MyEquifax and view your products. Be sure to keep this information in a safe place for future visits to MyEquifax.
At MyEquifax, you can:
** view your current products and order new products
** edit your profile, including User ID, password and e-mail address
** view special offers and access financial tools
** view the latest benefits and special offers of membership.
Click below to visit MyEquifax now- you will simply need your User ID and password to get started.
http://www.MyEquifax.equifax.com
Please call us at 1-866-4CWATCH (1-866-429-2824), 7 days a week between the hours of 8:00am - 3:00am Eastern Time Zone. You may e-mail us anytime at customer.care@equifax.com. Or you may write us at Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. PO Box 105496, Atlanta, GA 30348.
Thank you again for your order. We look forward to offering you additional products that will help you manage your financial well-being.
Your Equifax Customer Care Team
America's race to selfdestruct - not in MY name!
Since I rarely watch TV, I was stunned when I got a call from Europe yesterday about pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners piled on top of each other, genitals wired with electrodes, naked prisoners forced to mime sex acts, prisoners hooded and humiliated, and American soldiers proudly posing.
In this same call I got to hear about a documentary claiming that the Bushes personally and knowingly benefitted from the gruesome events in Auschwitz. The footage showed Jews having to work in winter in pyjamas until they fell over and died. Supposedly, some of the profits from the forced labor went to the Bush family. I knew that a lot of wealthy Americans supported Hitler and empowered him to do his horrendous deeds (as with Saddam Hussein) and that America could have acted to save many lives, but deliberately chose not to.
But I didn't believe the reports of torture and humiliation by American soldiers in Iraq until I read the interviews with military officials, acknowledging it's all true.
At the English Aljazeera site:
At the Arabic http://www.aljazeera.net/ today:
At Drudge: 
Of course only "a few" of the Americans in Iraq are sick enough to proudly pose. But there is no way that only the 5 or 6 who are currently charged knew about this.
And this is NOT the first time that pictures of torture have surfaced, last year the British had a similar scandal. Apparently, the American leadership was not outraged enough to make it clear to the troops that nothing short of impeccable conduct is acceptable in the American military.
"Yesterday Frederick said he would deny abuse, claiming he was not shown Geneva Convention rules on how to treat captives."
I also read somewhere that Fredericks was a prison guard in Virginia. Is that how prisoners are treated?
"VILE: Iraqi PoWs are forced to parade before their jeering captors"
The administration made a big freaking deal over alleged violations of the Geneva Convention when Aljazeera showed pictures and video of American POWs - fully dressed and NOT hooked up to wires.
"'Brig Gen Kimmitt said: "These pictures may reflect the actions of individuals. But, by God, it doesn't reflect my army.
"If we can't hold ourselves up as an example of how to treat people with dignity and respect, we can't ask that other nations do that to our soldiers."
Former Marine Lieutenant Colonel Bill Cowan warned: "We'll be paid back for this after these people are let out.'"
That's wishful thinking. He must have said that before these pictures were broadcast all over the world.
I'm really really sorry for the troops who have to remain in Iraq.
From http://thememoryhole.org/ (Warning: extremely graphic)
You might recall the 4 contractors' bodies were burned and hung from a bridge near Fallujah on 3/31/04.
Who Were the Men Killed in Fallujah?
"According to news reports, the Americans who were killed and mutilated in Fallujah were "private contractors." This is a euphemism for "mercenaries": ex-military soldiers of fortune who operate outside the rules of combat."
And: "Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new — and controversial — bullet.
The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it."
Nir Rosen, one of the few independant journalists in Bagdad: Everyday Chaos
"I sipped a strawberry smoothie while Rana, a cheerful young woman with a colorful headscarf, ate imported ice cream. She explained she didn't eat local ice cream, fearing the milk has been contaminated by the radioactive residue of allied ammunition. She noted that the scene before us reminded her of the days before the war, when she would go out at night with her sisters, unafraid of the dangers that now keep Iraqi women sequestered in their homes.
Rana was waxing nostalgic about the good old days. The days before Saddam's army broke and he ran. It's a refrain I have become accustomed to, and I was trying not to roll my eyes. Then two sharp shots cut through Rana's words. The were too close to ignore, too out of place in the bustling evening crowd. I saw two men walking hurriedly across the street, weaving through the traffic, arms raised and pistols in the air. "They killed a man!" someone shouted. ...."
Most Iraqis did not like Saddam. But they like the US even less. Can you blame them?
The Bush administration's leader of choice for a "liberated" Iraq is Ahmed Chalabia - corrupt bankster and convicted felon.
America made a huge mistake by supporting scumbag Ahmed Chalabi, loathed by most Iraqis. He has all the qualities admired by the Bush administration: convicted felon, ruthless and corrupt, another Saddam Hussein, but a little more polished.
"In 1992, he was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison with hard labour for bank fraud after the 1990 collapse of Petra Bank, which he had founded in 1977."
If the Iraqis throw him out, Capital One or Bank One might offer him an executive position.
I really hope that Americans have enough sense to not only vote out Bush, but to demand the immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Unfortunately, I'm not comfortable with Kerry either. He has no position and no plan, he says whatever people want to hear, and he hasn't determined yet what exactly that is.
Dennis Kucinich is still the only person with a realistic plan to get out of Iraq.
Four-star General endorses Kucinich plan for withdrawal from Iraq
"Retired U.S. Army Gen. William E. Odom, who is also a former head of the National Security Agency, has criticized President Bush's Iraq policy and demanded that U.S. forces return from Iraq as rapidly as possible for the sake of American security and economic power alike.
His remarks echo the perspective and exit-strategy of Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.
"In several interviews and published reports over the past few days, Gen Odom, a fluent Russian speaker who teaches at Georgetown and Yale, has urged the removal of U.S. forces "from that shattered country as rapidly as possible." Odom says bluntly, "we have failed," and "the issue is how high a price we're going to pay - less, by getting out sooner, or more, by getting out later." ...
Odom, who heads the pro-Republican Hudson Institute, also sees the sum total of what the U.S. occupation of Iraq has achieved is "the radicalization of Saudi Arabia and probably Egypt, too. And the longer we stay in Iraq, the more isolated America will become."
April 29, 2004
NJ insurers want to use credit scores to rate auto insurance
Insurers seek to set rates using credit score
"The practice, known as credit scoring, has been touted by the McGreevey administration as a way to lure auto insurers into New Jersey. Consumer advocates, however, say it discriminates against minorities and the poor. Some have called it "economic redlining."
They call it what it is.
More lies: "Seven Credit Do’s and Don’ts."
I just received an e-mail from "Identity Guard"
"Seven Credit Do’s and Don’ts.
Follow these rules of the road to keep your credit profile safe and sound."
Because that's an outrageous lie, I'll briefly point out what's wrong with their advice:
"Maintaining a clean credit rating can sometimes seem like driving down a winding road in the dead of night. One wrong move, and you’ll wind up in the financial ditch, dialing for roadside assistance.
But keeping your credit on the straight and narrow can be a lot easier once you understand the factors lenders and credit agencies use to judge your creditworthiness. By following these few, simple rules of the road, you’ll make sure you arrive at your financial future, safe and sound:"
-- Hell no, there's NOTHING easy, and following their advice is the road to wasting a lot of money AND having awful credit.
"Don’t ignore credit problems and hope they’ll go away.
They won’t go away. More likely, they’ll get worse. Just ask anyone who’s had to dig themselves out from under a pile of bad debt. Creditors don’t easily give up on collecting what they’re owed, and the aggressive tactics they use can affect your credit record for many years to come.
Better to address problems as early as possible, when you’ve still got all the credit tools at your disposal. If you’ve got outstanding debt, contact your creditors right away to let them know that you’re ready to make amends. By arranging for a monthly payment plan, you’ll avoid a lot of phone calls and prevent serious damage to your financial future."
-- 1) If creditors complied with the FCRA, all credit problems WOULD go away. Accounts wouldn't be reaged, and if correctly reported, most problems would be insignificant after a few years and DELETED after 7 years from the first permanent delinquency.
-- 2) It is absolutely FALSE that creditors will not damage your credit if you make payment arrangements. If they report to the CRAs, MOST creditors will continue to report you delinquent, and instead of charging off the account for nonpayment after a few months, they will CONTINUALLY charge you overlimit or late fees. I documented this many times.
I've seen $200 credit lines turn into $1,000+ charge-offs after consumers made $500+ in payments and never charged anything again. All the payments, made in good faith by succers who followed awful advice, resulted in over limit and late fees.
If you can't bring the account CURRENT and BELOW your limit immediately, let them charge it off.
-- 3) There are MANY ways to avoid the obnoxious calls. Some as simple as getting an unlisted or a free K7 #.
"Do use your credit responsibly.
Now that you’re on the road to fiscal recovery (or even if you’ve never left it), you shouldn’t be afraid to use credit wisely in the future. The fact is, the surest way to gain – or regain – a stellar credit rating is through long-term responsible credit management. And the time to begin that terrific credit history is right now."
-- This is downright stupid.
"Do pay your bills on time.
Believe it or not, nothing (excepting bankruptcy or tax liens) has a greater negative effect on your credit than the failure to pay monthly bills on time. In fact, credit agencies count payment punctuality as making up as much as 35% of the average credit score. And the more recent the late payment, the greater the penalty to your score.
If you wind up in a dispute about an item you’ve purchased or a charge made to your account, be sure to continue paying the monthly minimum on that account while you pursue the dispute. It will do you little good to eventually gain satisfaction from the creditor, if your credit becomes ruined in the meantime."
-- It is of course false that bankruptcy has a greater negative effect than not paying your bills. Just about all consumers with delinquent accounts immediately have higher FICO scores as soon at they filed for bankruptcy and got the discharged accounts reported CORRECTLY.
You can easily have 700+ credit scores only 2 years after a bankruptcy filing, while people who try to make payments on delinquent accounts are stuck in the 500's literally forever.
"Don’t apply for too much credit in too short a time.
Potential credit providers will view you with suspicion if you’ve tried to open too many lines of credit in the recent past. Even if you haven’t spent or borrowed a dime on your new accounts, the applications alone will count against your credit score.
If you’re shopping around at multiple sources for a good rate on a new loan or credit card, be sure not to inadvertently “apply” for the account, when you’re really only seeking information. To prevent that from happening, keep your Social Security Number to yourself (a good idea for protecting against identity theft, as well), since without it, an account can’t be opened in your name."
-- False again. It is not the prospective lenders, but the FICO scores who punish consumers for shopping for good rates and terms, as well as applying for jobs, cell phones, moving and applying for utilities, etc.
"On the other hand…
Don’t try to improve your credit by closing accounts.
You don’t need all those credit cards…and they’re probably just using up your valuable credit. So by just dropping a few of them, you’ll improve your credit score…right?
Wrong. That’s a big-time mistake made by lots of credit consumers. Lenders look at the dollar difference between your total available credit and the amount you owe against it. By closing accounts, you reduce your available credit and so worsen your borrowing ratio."
-- This is true. Finally, a correct statement.
"Do avoid maxing out your credit cards.
This probably goes without saying, but if you’re near the credit limit on one or more of your credit cards or revolving charge accounts, do your best to pay that amount down as soon as possible. Potential lenders will assume that such large balances mean you’re having trouble handling your current credit, and so will be reluctant to trust you with more of it."
-- False. It is not the "large" balances that are considered by most lenders. A lousy $250 balance on your Capital One account will destroy your scores if that's your only credit card and you never charged more than $250. It doesn't matter that your limit is 100,000, since Capital One doesn't report it.
Please read about the very important B/L ratio for the facts about this score factor.
"Don’t be a stranger to your credit information.
Just like any other aspect of your financial life, successfully managing your credit takes some effort on your part. But thanks to the many tools now available to consumers, that task is far easier than it once was.
You can view your credit report online, if you wish – and get an instant snapshot of your current credit picture. By subscribing to a service that monitors your credit files on a daily basis, you can spot and correct any potentially damaging entries before they take a toll on your long-term credit."
-- This is partially true, although it does not matter how much money you spend on monitoring when you follow their crappy advice.
And, their reports are INCOMPLETE, don't waste your money.
"And now, you can even look into your credit future, with online, interactive simulation tools that let you see how making certain financial choices, like applying for a mortgage or paying off a balance, can alter your credit score."
-- This is more crap - proven to be about as accurate as roulette.
"While avoiding credit missteps can sometimes sound complicated, the basics are as easy as 1-2-3: Watch your credit. Use it responsibly."
False. There is absolutely NOTHING easy.
Credit scoring is MUCH more complicated than the federal tax code, and to make things worse, the code is SECRET. I've been lied to by Fair Isaac, sued for answers, and got most of my knowledge by researching the actual client reports and analyzing the results of changes on the reports.
Thousands of hours, and as much as I've learned, there is so much more I don't know. I do know however that the FICO scoring software is buggy as hell and Fair Isaac needs to be sued out of existence and their fortune should be used to compensate the many millions of consumers who have suffered damages due to the artificially low scores.
E-mailed to "Identity Guard"
Attn: Legal Department
Please send out a correction with at least a few *true* facts about credit.
FYI: http://www.creditsuit.org/blog/archives/000499.html#more
I realize that your objective is debt collection and the sales of your crappy reports, but that doesn't entitle you to mislead consumers.
Sincerely,
Christine Baker
http://www.creditsuit.org
ACLU *secret* suit against FBI over Patriot Act
ACLU Reveals Secret Suit Over FBI Powers
"The ACLU said it initially filed the civil lawsuit under seal on April 6 because it could have been prosecuted for violating a gag order contained within the Patriot Act. It said it chose to make the case public after the government agreed on Wednesday it would not seek a penalty against the ACLU.
But many details of the case, filed in Manhattan federal court, must remain secret.
...
"The National Security Letter provision allows the FBI to demand the sensitive records of innocent people in complete secrecy, without ever appearing before a federal judge," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney.
"Before the Patriot Act, the FBI could use this invasive authority only against suspected terrorists and spies," Jaffer said. "Now it can issue National Security Letters to obtain information about anyone at all. This should be disturbing to all of us."
The suit argues that the National Security Letter provision violates the constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards.
The FBI no longer has to show a judge there is a compelling need for the records and it does not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.
...."
I've been noticing banks printing their "cooperation" right on their pre-approvals. Apparently all the Vegas hotels are cooperating, the airlines, it looks like privacy is a luxury of the past in America.
Working on the Compass Bank press release
Stephen J. Anthony, Sacks Tierney P.A.
How does Stephen J. Anthony sleep at night?
I hope his friends and relatives find this site and see how he makes his living as a henchman for a vile outfit like Compass Bank. He has a choice, nobody is holding a gun to his head, and he knows that Compass Bank is WRONG all the way. Evil people ...
The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Press Kit
Compass Bankshares: How to Reach Us
Compass Bancshares press releases - The usual, record profits, stolen from people like me through despicable charges such as for telling them that they made a $500 error in my favor.
Just like with the credit bureaus, they screw up, we give them money for their screwups! The CEOs and shareholders pocket our money and we even work for free to fix their screwups. Why do most people cheerfully put up with that crap?
Compass Bank just got an award for a few hundred thousand in an appeal over stock options and confidentiality agreements with a former employee:
April 28, 2004
Equifax e-mailed "order confirmation" - no report
Last week I posted that my Equifax report order was not processed due to "technical" problems. I had then called and was promised the report within a few days. Today I got the e-mail advising of a $0 charge. I wasted the time to log in - there's no report.
"Your Equifax order confirmation:
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:02:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Member.Benefits@equifax.com
To: christine@bayhouse.com
Subject: Your Equifax order confirmation
Dear Valued Member,
Thank you for your recent order with Equifax. Below is a summary of your order:
Product Status Amount Charged
Score Power® Complete $0.00
*We will bill you for any pending orders only when they have been completed.
We will e-mail you when any pending orders have been completed.
To learn more about credit, visit the Credit Education section of our Web site. You will find valuable information on ways to improve your credit standing, how to protect yourself from identity theft, how certain life events can affect your credit rating and more.
Your order transaction number is WEBSPP200203120000316. Please use it in any correspondence to us. Your User ID is bayhouse. You will use this User ID and the password you created at registration to login to MyEquifax and view your products. Be sure to keep this information in a safe place for future visits to MyEquifax.
At MyEquifax, you can:
** view your current products and order new products
** edit your profile, including User ID, password and e-mail address
** view special offers and access financial tools
** view the latest benefits and special offers of membership.
Click below to visit MyEquifax now- you will simply need your User ID and password to get started.
http://www.MyEquifax.equifax.com
Please call us at 1-866-4CWATCH (1-866-429-2824), 7 days a week between the hours of 8:00am - 3:00am Eastern Time Zone. You may e-mail us anytime at customer.care@equifax.com. Or you may write us at Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. PO Box 105496, Atlanta, GA 30348.
Thank you again for your order. We look forward to offering you additional products that will help you manage your financial well-being.
Your Equifax Customer Care Team"
My 4/14/04 response to the MIS (CD SW) Motion for Summary Judgment
It's UNBELIEVABLE how bad MIS (CreditData SW) screwed up.
I just posted the filings (Word files.)
The most interesting filing is my response to their 69 paragraph so-called Statement of Facts. What MORONS!
I still have to scan/post all their exhibits as well as mine - when I get to it.
April 27, 2004
Homeless to be implanted with RFID tracking chips?
I did a google when I heard that on the radio, and the first postings I found about it were dated 4/1. I was relieved that it appeared to be a bad joke, but then I found WIRING OUR HOMELESS - Logan's Run 2004 They claim they confirmed the story.
"Mandatory sub-dermal tracking systems to be implanted in New York, San Francisco, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Washington DC's Homeless Populations."
According to the commentary, the government decided to make it a "voluntary" implant in response to protests. I know many homeless people, they'll go for the chip when hell freezes over! Or until it's required to get a meal or a bed in a shelter.
Many homeless are "misfits" and can't and don't want to be part of this society of thieving and deception, very much like me.
My dog has a chip, and that's ok - he's a DOG. It's also not a tracking chip, the chip's frequency can only be picked up within a couple of feet.
From the commentary:
"Where does it end, America? Eventually each and every one of us will fall under some category that must be monitored for our own or society's protection whether due to circumstance of life, such as unemployment, illness, old age or bad choices. Is this freedom? Is this what we fight for?"
It still think it HAS to be a joke, this can't be real.
April 26, 2004
Posted the filings from Thomas v. TU
I posted everything I got so for, have to order the rest of the docs now.
April 22, 2004
The Bankers have the Supreme Court in their pocket
Supreme Court Upholds Credit Card Fee Regulation
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court upheld on Wednesday a federal regulation that allows credit card issuers to disclose as other charges the fees for customers who exceed their credit limits.
The justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that credit card companies must instead disclose the so-called "over-the-credit-limit" fees as part of the finance charges.
The ruling was a victory for the federal government, which said the appeals court ruling would expose credit card lenders to significant liability and would confuse consumers. It said there are about 1.3 billion U.S. credit card accounts.
The case stemmed from a class-action lawsuit brought by Sharon Pfennig.
She claimed a unit of Prospect Heights, Illinois-based Household International Inc. violated the Truth in Lending Act by letting her exceed her credit limit and then imposing fees. Household is a unit of Britain's HSBC Holdings Plc."
Evil (the Federal Reserve and the banks) won again.
They are making sure that banks can continue to exploit consumers and post record profits from FEES.
Why can't card holders simply request that charges exceeding the limit be declined so that they won't be hit with the overlimit fees?
Equifax Reports Record Q1 Revenue; Earnings Top Estimates
How could you NOT have record profits when you lie and sell defective products like the scum at Equifax?
"Revenue for Personal Solutions, formerly the Consumer Direct business group, soared 69 percent to $25 million, serving over 6.5 million customers. The operating margin improved to 27 percent versus 11 percent in 2003;"
NO other industry gets rewarded for the sale of defective products with EXTRA profits.
If you don't like a certain product, you simply don't buy it. But the more Equifax ruins consumers' credit reports, the more people pay Equifax for reports and monitoring services.
Only in America .... and Canada, and Europe, and soon everywhere.
4/22/04 Equifax press release:
April 22, 2004 — ATLANTA, GA - Equifax Inc. (NYSE: EFX) today reported record revenue of $314 million in the first quarter of 2004, an increase of 4 percent over the first quarter of 2003. Net income from continuing operations was $51 million, up 13 percent. Earnings per share from continuing operations jumped 15 percent to 38 cents, exceeding analysts' average estimate. "Equifax is off to an outstanding start in 2004," said Thomas F. Chapman, Equifax chairman and CEO. "We continue to execute our growth strategy and deliver exceptional results. Personal Solutions, formerly Consumer Direct, delivered record-setting revenue and profits. Within our North American business, we are growing and increasing our share with our largest customers while recording major new wins. Small business credit information produced record revenue as well, as we further integrate analytics into our offerings. And our businesses in Europe and Latin America had one of their strongest quarters ever for growth and profitability."
Highlights for the quarter
Revenue grew 4 percent. Revenue, excluding mortgage-related and eMarketing revenue, grew 12 percent;
North America revenue was $255 million, unchanged from 2003. North America revenue, excluding mortgage-related and eMarketing revenue, grew 9 percent;
Revenue for consumer and commercial information services in North America grew 6 percent to $174 million with volume rising 21 percent;
Revenue in Canada grew 14 percent to $23 million;
SBC Communications Inc. entered into a multi-million-dollar, multi-year contract to use Interconnect, Equifax North America's new online application processing and decisioning solution;
Also in North America, Equifax generated $2 million in revenue from its small business credit information service, providing a unique data and technology platform for small business lending;
Marketing Services in North America reported revenue of $56 million, a decline of 27 percent. The operating margin improved to 24 percent from 23 percent in 2003;
Revenue for Personal Solutions, formerly the Consumer Direct business group, soared 69 percent to $25 million, serving over 6.5 million customers. The operating margin improved to 27 percent versus 11 percent in 2003;
In Europe, revenue rose 23 percent to $38 million, with the operating margin improving to 13 percent;
In Latin America, revenue jumped 33 percent to $21 million on a 17 percent operating margin, down from 18 percent in 2003.
Teleconference
Equifax's quarterly teleconference to discuss results will be held today at 9 a.m. (EDT). The live audio Webcast of the speakers' presentations will be available at www.equifax.com. Please note that Microsoft Media Player is required to access the Webcast. This can be downloaded from www.microsoft.com/windows/mediaplayer.
Equifax has presented in this press release and will discuss during the teleconference certain non-GAAP financial measures as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission. As required by SEC rules, a reconciliation of such non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable GAAP measures is provided in the "Common Questions and Answers (Unaudited)" portion of this press release. This information can also be found under the heading "Non-GAAP Financial Measures" in the Investor Center on the company's website at www.equifax.com.
About Equifax
Equifax Inc. is a global leader in turning information into intelligence. For businesses, Equifax provides faster and easier ways to find, approve and market to the appropriate customers. For consumers, Equifax offers easier, instantaneous ways to buy products or services and better insight into and management of their personal credit. Equifax. Information that Empowers.
Statements in this press release that relate to Equifax's future plans, objectives, expectations, performance, events and the like may constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Future events, risks and uncertainties, individually or in the aggregate, could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements. Those factors include, but are not limited to, changes in worldwide and U.S. economic conditions that materially impact consumer spending and consumer debt, changes in demand for the Company's products and services, risks associated with the integration of acquisitions and other investments, changes in laws governing our business, and certain other factors discussed under the caption "Risk Factors" in the Management's Discussion and Analysis section of the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Equifax assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which they were made.
Source: Company Press Release
Equifax refused my report order
I just went to order a report that I prepaid for about a year ago, and I got the "system temporarily unavailable" error.
Called them up, was on hold, finally spoke with Bonnie 30528. She put me on hold to check into it, and she promised that they would repair whatever needs to be fixed in 3-5 days and that I would get an e-mail notification when my report is ready.
The screenshot:
American Express sends Cease & Desist for a JOKE!
"On my rec.humor.funny web site, I maintain the newsgroup archives, including this 13 year old joke entitled American Expressway.
Today I got one of those bullying "cease and desist" letters from American Express's law firm, ordering me to take down the joke for trademark infringement. .... "
It's hard to believe that this is true, but here's the 4/13/04 C & D and it looks real.
Copy of this entry e-mailed to the alleged author of this moronic C & D:
Anne E. Naffziger
LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD.
Two Prudential Plaza
Chicago, IL 60601
312-616-5600
Fax: 312-616-5700
e-mail: anaffziger@leydig.com
"Please let me know if you didn't actually send this alleged C & D, wouldn't want your reputation tarnished if this idiotic C & D was a joke."
April 21, 2004
Compass Bank and Equifax joined TU in their motion for security of costs
I'm going to activate the compassbanksux.com domain next (almost done with the server move) and send out a news release about the vile Compass Bank conduct.
Compass Bank charged me $6 because I told them that they made a $500 error in my favor. I should have kept the $500!
My last news release was read over 34,000 times!
The "genius" who thought of the move to join the TU motion for security of costs ought to get a "promotion."
Apparently they haven't figured out yet that they can ONLY lose, regardless of whatever happens in court.
They must think they're the only bank in the country, completely oblivious to the fact that they can only charge their $35 overdraft fees to the people who choose to be their customers. DUH!
And I don't know what's with Equifax - are they getting worried because we might just get into discovery? Do they expect me to dismiss them because I can't raise the cash for a bond?
Do they really think that only wealthy people get an attempt at justice in the American legal system?
We shall see.
I'm really excited about this, I don't know of anyone who has been subjected to so much harassment in court. Equifax trying to force me out, refusing to accept the waiver, lying, hiding ...
It tells me that I have an excellect case and they are very afraid.
That's encouraging!
April 20, 2004
Frontier refused to extend the due date for bills not received
This is about as ridiculous as it gets. My phone bills are dated the 5th of every month and they are due on the 20th, giving the average person in my neighborhood about 3 days to mail the check on time to get there by the due date. I didn't get those phone bills this month, so I thought I'd give them a call and let them know.
I thought that they would cheerfully offer to send duplicates and extend the due date by a few weeks. Fat chance - it's the PHONE company!
First I spoke with Holly, ext 3085. She told me that I had to initiate an investigation with the post-office.
I had supervisor Margie, ext. 3062, confirm that I am to request an investigation because my mail was probably just "sitting somewhere." I explained to her that it's THEIR obligation to have the post-office investigate, since THEY paid for the postage. She disagreed.
Margie also advised that because I received the telephone service, it is my obligation to pay my bill by the 20th (today) and my service is subject to be disconnected.
She did NOT extend my due date!!!!
It is unfortunate that they are a monopoly. I have no choice but to give them $1,500/year for my 2 lines and DSL. Even if I could get service through another phone company, I'd just get screwed by another phone company. They all suck.
What can do you do?
Sue, sue, sue!
That's my poem for the day, and of course you need a valid legal claim before you can sue.
Does anyone know of some sites that illustrate how to steal phone service?
I'm getting to the point where I feel like getting back at them. I'm tired of their attitude, and it sure would be satisfying to at least be able to reimburse myself for my trouble. But calls are so cheap, it's not even worth the effort. Although I know some people with all the time in the world and no phone.
I feel like getting a long wirecutter and spending a day cutting phone lines. I'm so fed up! Of course I'd feel sorry for the people who wouldn't have phone service, somebody could die because they can't call 911.
Isn't there SOMETHING I can do without hurting others?
Under the FCBA, I have federal billing rights and I am not billed until I RECEIVED the bill. Are phone companies exempt?
Why is it MY fault that the post-office screwed up????
c: Citizens@czn.com (Citizens Communications owns Frontiernet, and that's the e-mail for their corporate office.)
Lost some more bayhouse e-mail and moved
If you sent any e-mail to bayhouse.com over the weekend and I haven't replied yet, please resend. The e-mail problems motivated me to finally move most other sites, and it looks like everything is working now. It's all so simple if you know how.
Hopefully I can get back to "real" work tomorrow.
April 17, 2004
The PrivacyGuard/ConsumerInfo.com Privacy Policy
In January I requested specifics from ConsumerInfo.com, eventually got a letter from their attorney advising that I need to direct any questions at her, but she didn't send any answers.
It's nice to see that I'm not the only one concerned:
Take the case of a company called PrivacyGuard.com and a reader we’ll call Mr. Catchings.
"... The second privacy policy document (which I later learned also served as the privacy policy for other free-credit-report sites such as ConsumerInfo.com and Freecreditreport.com) had several provisions that bothered Mr. Catchings enough that he decided not to order the credit report after all. One thing that particularly concerned him was a statement revealing that his information could be disclosed to companies that “perform services on our behalf, such as the credit reporting agencies from which we obtain your credit report(s), credit card processors, e-mail communications management firms, or call center providers.
...”
Well worth reading, but one thing is missing: it doesn't matter where you order your credit report - they all sell you data. Oh, and of course ConsumerInfo.com and Freecreditreport.com are the same company and Experian owns them and GUS owns Experian.
The CRAs of course try to add as much data as possible to the credit reports for the benefit of collectors, and Fair Isaac also collects and shares the data they collect at myFICO.com and they are affiliated with all kinds of funky outfits like collector London Bridge.
They share with affiliates, WHO is an affiliate?
Anyone who signs an affiliate agreement with them? Anyone who is willing to write a check for your data?
Trans Union has been battling the FTC for years over their sales of consumer data obtained from the credit reports.
I believe that Experian set up CIC, CreditExpert and all these other sites to collect data that's NOT obtained from credit reports and the FTC can't keep them from selling this data. That's my theory.
April 15, 2004
PG PROFITS at LEAST $30?
Well, to be on the safe side, I sent the IRS $400 today at http://officialpayments.com/. There was a link on how to save up to $30 off the 2.5% credit card fee, and it took me to an ad for Privacy Guard (Trilegiant), who is selling the ConsumerInfo.com incomplete tri-merged reports and snake oil scores.
90 days for $1, then it's $90 if you don't cancel.
I just can't figure out how they make money.
UNLIMITED access for ALL THREE CRAs for a full year, and there has to be a profit for ConsumerInfo.com -- what am I missing?
($60 - CIC fee - PG profit) / 3 CRAs = $10?
Why are the CRAs selling ONE report to us suckers for as much as $15? (Experian)
Here's the screenshot of the ad:
NCO Group downgraded due to Capital One concerns
NCO Group downgraded to "market outperform"
"... However, one of the major clients of the company, Capital One Financial, has reportedly reduced the fees paid for contingency collections. Capital One is reported to have lowered the fee on primary paper from 33% to 29% of collections, representing a 12% reduction, the analysts mention. Capital One Financial represented over 10% of NCO Group’s 2003 revenues, the analysts add.
..."
April 12, 2004
Court orders hearing regarding Capital One
I served Capital One late and I served a different Capital One entity than I named.
Well, I have NO idea what to argue there. I just want to know which Capital One entity is responsible for the credit reporting of each account, and which Capital One entity is responsible for refusing credits for merchant fraud disputes.
And since Capital One is now protecting the privacy of the criminal how placed charges on MY account and impersonated me, I need to know who to sue for that too.
I don't mind refiling, although I'll lose the Capital One FCBA violations for SOL. I just want to get on with this and refile against everybody who I served late.
April 09, 2004
Did Lexingtan Law and ClearCredit (credit repair) bribe the FTC?
The FTC never responded to my 1/26/04 filing, including my comments about their failure to shut down credit repair fraud like Lexington Law and ClearCredit.
Gill and Murkey were sued by the FTC:
"The district court granted the FTC's motion for summary judgment, permanently [*3] enjoined Defendants from participating in the credit repair business, and ordered them to pay $ 1,335,912.14 as equitable monetary relief (consumer redress, restitution and/or disgorgement)."
I wonder if they paid.
Here's the Appeals Court decision affirming:
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20319,*;265 F.3d 944;
2001-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P73,412;2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8048
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEITH H. GILL; RICHARD MURKEY, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 00-55122, 00-55123
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
265 F.3d 944;2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20319;2001-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P73,412;2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8048;2001 Daily Journal DAR 9911
July 10, 2001, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California
September 12, 2001, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 98-01436-LGB. Lourdes G. Baird, District Judge, Presiding.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: Keith H. Gill (argued), Woodland Hills, California, for the defendant-appellant in pro per.
Richard Murkey (argued), Woodland Hills, California, for the defendant-appellant in pro per.
Jon Miller Steiger (argued), John F. Daly, and Debra Valentine, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C., for the plaintiff-appellee.
JUDGES: Before: John T. Noonan, Barry G. Silverman, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Paez.
OPINIONBY: Richard A. Paez
OPINION:
PAEZ, Circuit Judge:
It has been said that bad credit is like a "Scarlet Letter." n1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 "A poor credit history is the 'Scarlet Letter' of 20th century America." 136 CONG. REC. H5325-02 (daily ed. July 23, 1990) (statement of Rep. Annunzio), 1990 WL 103877.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As Americans' reliance on credit has increased, so-called "credit repair clinics" have emerged, preying on individuals desperate to improve [*2] their credit records. These organizations typically promise they can have any negative information removed permanently from any credit report . . . for a fee. On September 30, 1996, Congress enacted the Credit Repair Organizations Act ("CRO Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679-1679j, to ensure that the clinics provide potential customers with the information needed to decide whether to employ the services of such an organization and "to protect the public from unfair or deceptive advertising and business practices by credit repair organizations." 15 U.S.C. § 1679(b).
The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission") filed the instant action for injunctive and other equitable relief on March 2, 1998, against Defendants Keith H. Gill and Richard Murkey for alleged violations of the CRO Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). Defendants have, since 1995, offered services to remove any type of negative information from consumers' credit reports. Defendants promised a "free consultation," then demanded advance payment for their services.
The district court granted the FTC's motion for summary judgment, permanently [*3] enjoined Defendants from participating in the credit repair business, and ordered them to pay $ 1,335,912.14 as equitable monetary relief (consumer redress, restitution and/or disgorgement). Defendant Murkey raises several arguments on appeal: (1) triable issues of fact exist regarding the alleged false representations and acceptance of payment before services were rendered; (2) the district court abused its discretion in (a) excluding Murkey's exhibits for lack of authentication, (b) denying Murkey's request for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing, and (c) denying Murkey's request for leave to file a supplemental declaration of his custodian of records; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in permanently enjoining Murkey from engaging in the credit repair business and in ordering him to pay $ 1,335,912.14 as equitable relief. Defendant Gill similarly maintains that triable issues of fact exist regarding his alleged violations of the CRO Act and the FTC Act. Gill further argues that Murkey was an independent contractor and that Gill should not be held liable for Murkey's actions.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. [*4]
RELEVANT STATUTES
A. Fair Credit Reporting Act
For over thirty years, Congress has sought to balance the need of creditors for accurate credit information with consumers' interests in accuracy and fair use of such data. In 1970, Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act with the express purpose of requiring "consumer reporting agencies [to] adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter." 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b). n2 Consumer reporting agencies ("CRAs") like Trans Union, Experian, and Equifax must exercise care in accurately and completely reporting credit information. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681c, 1681e. The FCRA limits the length of time that a CRA is permitted to report an adverse item of information. Generally, bankruptcies may be reported for ten years; all other negative information can remain on a report for up to seven years. 15 U.S.C. § 1681c [*5] (a). Older items are referred to as "obsolete."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 Unless otherwise indicated, the current version of the particular FCRA provisions is quoted.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The FCRA sets forth a procedure for disputing the completeness or accuracy of an item and obtaining a reinvestigation. When a consumer notifies a CRA of a disputed item, that agency has 30 days to "reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period[.]" 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). n3 Upon the creditor's certification that the questioned information is accurate, the CRA can reinsert the information in the consumer's file. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A). Although the FCRA does not mandate reinsertion, the CRA's duty to" follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates[]" effectively compels this [*6] result.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n3 Paragraph (5) sets forth the requirements for treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information. The paragraph also provides for reinsertion of a previously deleted item.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Throughout the 1990s, Congress attempted to address problems resulting from the continued growth of the credit reporting industry. In Senate Report 103-209, concerning the Consumer Reporting Reform Act of 1994, the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs noted that the industry "maintains 450 million credit files on individual consumers and processes almost 2 billion pieces of data per month." S. Rep. 103-209, at 2-3 (1993), 1993 WL 516162. As the industry grew, so did the inaccuracies. "From 1990 to 1993, the Federal Trade Commission . . . received more complaints regarding consumer reporting agencies than any other industry." Id. at 3. Meanwhile, CRAs had ventured into new areas, "creating and selling lists of consumers for general direct marketing solicitations not initiated by the consumer and, through [*7] a process known as 'prescreening, 'selling more refined lists of credit worthy borrowers for creditors who use the information to extend offers of credit to such borrowers." Id.
B. The Credit Repair Organizations Act
Enter the credit repair clinic. Congress had recognized the abuses by many of the newly emerging credit repair clinics well before it finally enacted the CRO Act in 1996. In 1988, Representative Frank Annunzio described these businesses as "kin to 'get rich quick' schemes. They promise fast results and new-found wealth in the form of available credit." 134 CONG. REC. H6707-06 (daily ed. August 9, 1988) (statement of Rep. Annunzio), 1988 WL 175220. The House Report on the Consumer Reporting Reform Act of 1994, the immediate predecessor to the Act passed in 1996, explained further:These credit repair businesses, through advertisements and oral representations, lead consumers to believe that adverse information in their consumer reports can be deleted or modified regardless of its accuracy . . . however, accurate, adverse information may be reported for 7 years, or in the case of bankruptcy, 10 years. Therefore, such representations by credit [*8] repair clinics are often misleading . . . .
Where credit repair clinics do succeed, however, they often do so through abuse of the reinvestigation procedures . . . consumer reporting agencies must generally delete information that cannot be verified within 30 days of receiving notice of the dispute. Credit repair clinics take advantage of this provision by inundating consumer reporting agencies with so many challenges to consumer reports that the reinvestigation system breaks down, and the adverse, but accurate, information is deleted.H.R. REP. NO. 103-486 (1994), 1994 WL 164513. Thus, the CRO Act's express purposes are twofold: "(1) to ensure that prospective buyers of the services of credit repair organizations are provided with the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the purchase of such services; and (2) to protect the public from unfair or deceptive advertising and business practices by credit repair organizations." 15 U.S.C. § 1679(b).
The CRO Act became effective on April 1, 1997. Of the prohibited practices listed in the CRO Act, three are involved in the instant appeal: Sections 1679b(a)(1), 1679b(a)(3), [*9] and 1679b(b). Section 1679b(a)(1) prohibits any person frommaking any statement, or counseling or advising any consumer to make any statement, which is untrue or misleading (or which, upon the exercise of reasonable care, should be known by the credit repair organization, officer, employee, agent, or other person to be untrue or misleading) with respect to any consumer's credit worthiness [sic], credit standing, or credit capacity to (A) any consumer reporting agency . . . .15 U.S.C. § 1679b(a)(1). Section 1679b(a)(3) prohibits any person from "making or using any untrue or misleading representation of the services of the credit repair organization[.]" Finally, Section 1679b(b) provides that "no credit repair organization may charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration for the performance of any service which the credit repair organization has agreed to perform for any consumer before such service is fully performed." 15 U.S.C. § 1679b(b) (emphasis added).
A violation of the CRO Act is to be treated as a violation of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1679h(b).
C. The Federal [*10] Trade Commission Act
Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1), has long prohibited "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce[.]" Section 5(a) empowers the FTC to prevent such acts or practices. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2). An act or practice is deceptive if "first, there is a representation, omis-sion, or practice that, second, is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and third, the representation, omission, or practice is material." FTC v. Pantron I Corp., 33 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting and adopting standard in Cliffdale Assocs., 103 F.T.C. 110, 164-65 (1984)).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant Keith H. Gill is licensed to practice law in California and works as a sole practitioner as the Law Offices of Keith Gill. In addition to a general legal practice, beginning in 1995, Gill has offered credit repair services to consumers, ostensibly through his law office, but in reality through defendant Richard Murkey. Defendants have used telephones, the U.S. Mail, and [*11] radio to advertise their credit repair services to consumers. Under the CRO Act, the Law Offices of Keith Gill qualifies as a "credit repair organization."
Most consumers signed contracts with Gill's law office, and both Gill and Murkey testified that they considered every consumer who signs a retainer agreement with the Gill law office to be Gill's client. Gill testified that his relationship with Murkey is governed by a written contract between the two.
From at least 1995 to 1999, Defendant Richard Murkey operated a credit repair business under the auspices and out of the offices of Defendant Gill's law offices in Woodland Hills, California. n4 Murkey never registered his credit repair business with the State of California or posted a bond, as required by California Civil Code § 1789.12(b)(5), ostensibly because he operated out of Gill's offices (attorneys are exempt from the registration requirement).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n4 Until 1990, Murkey practiced law. He resigned from the State Bar of California pending disbarment proceedings, including allegations that he had practiced law while under suspension and had committed multiple acts of misappropriation of client funds.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*12]
To reach potential credit repair clients, Defendants used radio broadcasts, newspaper ads, telephone conversations, and personal meetings throughout the United States. During 1997 and 1998, Murkey appeared regularly on a radio talk program broadcast throughout most of Southern California, discussing credit restoration. The format resembled a talk show, and when Murkey was not available, stations replayed the tapes, rather like a radio infomercial. He told consumers that any sort of negative information, including accurate and not obso-lete information, could legally be removed from a consumer's credit report, notably, through the use of Defendants' services. Murkey repeated the telephone and facsimile numbers and encouraged consumers to call for a free credit evaluation or further information. Examples of claims made during the broadcasts include:-"There literally is nothing a consumer can possibly have on a credit report that we cannot remove and we can remove it legally."
-"There [are] many legal ways under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act to fix credit, no matter what type of negative it is, including foreclosure and or bankruptcy, judgments, tax liens . . [*13] . even if those [items] are not paid off."
-"Because of the Federal laws and the consumers' rights under the Federal laws, we still have legal rights as consumers and we can, in fact, knowing the right proper techniques and strategies and procedures that we have perfected in our offices over the years, we can legally remove those negatives from someone's credit report."
-"It doesn't make a difference what type of negative [information] you have: We have files in our offices verifying that we can legally remove bankruptcies, foreclosures, what they call short pays in the real estate community, judgments, tax liens, surrenders, repossessions, defaulted student loans, charge-offs, settlements, collections and even late accounts for child support . . . . It does not make a difference if that item was legally put on there or not and to us it doesn't make a difference if you still owe money."
-"No matter what kind of negative you can possibly have, there are legal ways to take those items off your credit report and that can be done even without you paying off that account. Even tax liens or judgments can be removed from your report legally without you having to pay that [*14] charge. It doesn't get you off the liability, how-ever, but it does, in fact, legally remove it from your credit report."
-"Most likely, in our offices, we can clean your credit in six weeks to two months."Beginning in February 1999, Murkey's program was broad-cast over Cable Radio Network, which could be heard in, among other places, Rhode Island, Florida, Kentucky, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Nevada, and possibly Texas.
Murkey and those working for him made similar representations to consumers via telephone. For example, Murkey told an FTC employee: "We can legally remove those bankruptcies and any other accounts that you have and I have files in my offices to verify it." Murkey told another FTC employee: "Under the Federal laws, there are a lot of legal ways to take negative items off someone's credit report. And since it's under Federal law, we can help anyone in the United States."
Murkey added: "And we can take off bankruptcies from your credit report. We've got credit reports all over the place showing anything that you possibly can have." One consumer reported that "Murkey . . . said that any negative item could be removed from my credit report[.]" Murkey [*15] told another consumer that Murkey could "get every negative off the report, including late pays, bankruptcy, the divorce, all of it." n5 Yet another consumer was told he would receive an" improved credit report." When nothing happened, and he called Defendants' offices to complain, the consumer was told again that all the negatives on his reports would be removed "one-by-one."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n5 Murkey also told Frye that he had been an attorney, but said that he had quit because the money was better doing credit repair.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Murkey's face-to-face representations were no different. Consumers were told that for a nominal fee, based on the number and type of negative items, the negative information would be removed from their credit report in a matter of weeks or a few months. n6 Defendants deliberately did not ask, however, whether a negative item on a consumer's credit report was accurate or complete.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n6 Murkey promoted Defendants' credit repair business through public appearances, including presentations to mortgage brokers and a bar association. He told one group of mortgage brokers that" 99.9 percent of the time everything we take off stays off forever . . . we tell our clients this, and we put it in writing, if anything comes back on the credit report at all we'll take it off again for free." He added," on average of all of our clients, at least half the negatives will be gone in the first six-week period." When a member of the audience asked how realistic it was for a client whose Chapter 7 bankruptcy had been discharged just six months ago to expect to have the bankruptcy removed from the credit report, Murkey responded "it's very realistic." He reassured the audience: "We do this 100 percent legally so your clients can sleep at night and so can I."
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*16]
Murkey generally handled the initial consultation with prospective clients and made the payment arrangements. He explained the manner in which he could assist them in having negative information removed from a credit report, offered to show them results he had obtained for others, and explained the costs for his services. Although no services were per-formed during the initial "free" consultation, Defendants sought advanced payment of between 25 and 50% of the estimated costs of the services. Defendants generally gave consumers a written estimate based on a "fee schedule," with each negative item listed separately. At that point, Murkey would negotiate the "real" fee. After consumers made the down payment, Defendants billed them on a regular basis, regardless of whether the services had been completed.
In fact, Defendants' "legal" process for "removing" negative information from their clients' credit reports was premised on the obligation of credit reporting agencies ("CRAs") to respond to all consumer disputes within 30 days. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i. As set forth above, CRAs must remove any legitimately challenged item that they cannot verify within the 30 day [*17] period. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). If the CRA does verify the item, even after 30 days have passed, it can (and generally will) restore the item to the credit report.
Defendants' credit repair services consisted almost exclusively of inundating the credit reporting agencies with dispute letters, sent in the consumer's name, which falsely alleged that various items on the credit report were incorrect or that a particular account did not belong to the consumer. Consumers did not review or approve any of these letters and have stated that they did not authorize Defendants to provide false information to the CRAs. Defendants' letters did generate large volumes of correspondence from CRAs to the clients, however, which created the impression that Defendants were performing as promised. Many of the clients did not discover right away that Defendants' efforts failed to produce the promised results, however, in part because Defendants had instructed their clients to forward these communications directly to Defendants. When the clients learned that their credit report problems had not been resolved, they tried contacting Murkey, who rarely responded. Murkey nevertheless [*18] continued to bill the consumers.
Although he was not the one interacting with the clients, Gill had full access to "anything" in Murkey's office and reviewed correspondence with consumers that Murkey sent out. Gill also had the ability to communicate with credit reporting agencies and the right to review any matter related to the credit repair business. In written discovery responses, moreover, Gill stated that both defendants provided credit repair services to clients. After agreeing upon the fee, he responded, the client retained Defendant Gill to perform credit repair services. In response to the interrogatory requesting "the manner in which [Gill] supervises Defendant Murkey and all persons working with Defendant Murkey with respect to the performance of credit repair services[,]" Gill stated:Together, Gill and Murkey consult with each other as to any credit repair service issues that may arise. Under Gill's supervision, Murkey ordinarily handles the day-to-day credit repair issues. (emphasis added).Gill also listed just Murkey and himself as the persons "who answered or responded to letters from customers, law enforcement entities, or others [*19] complaining to Defendant Murkey or [Gill] about the credit repair services rendered by [Gill] or Defendant Murkey." Although they had no procedure "whereby Mr. Murkey gets a complaint and he has to tell [Gill] about one of your clients is complaining [sic]," Gill testified that they talked several times a week, so Gill was "pretty much aware."
The FTC filed this action against Gill and Murkey on March 2, 1998, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking a permanent injunction and consumer redress. The Commission asserted three claims: (1) violation of the CRO Act by charging clients for services that were not fully performed; (2) violation of the CRO Act by making untrue or misleading statements to induce consumers to purchase their services; and (3) violation of the FTC Act by making untrue or misleading statements to induce consumers to purchase services.
On April 21, 1998, the Defendants each stipulated to preliminary injunctions barring them from representing that "anyone can substantially improve most consumer's credit report or profile by permanently removing bankruptcies, tax liens, late payments, collection accounts, or other evidence [*20] of delinquencies from the consumer's credit report where that information is accurate and not obsolete." FTC v. Gill, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1034 (C. D. Cal. 1999). In addition, they were enjoined from violating the CRO Act by charging or receiving money for credit repair services before the services were fully performed, making statements to credit reporting agencies that they either knew or had reason to believe were untrue or misleading, or making or using any untrue or misleading representation of their services. Defendants were further enjoined from creating, operating, or exercising any control over any form of business entity that provides credit repair services without properly notifying the Commission in writing.
Even after stipulating to the preliminary injunctions, Defen dants continued to collect money from clients who had retained them before the complaint was filed. They also created a "non-profit" organization called "Credit Restoration Corporation of America" ("CRCA"), with Murkey as President and Gill as a director. Through CRCA, Defendants continued, at least into late 1999, to operate their credit repair business. Id. at 1047.
The [*21] FTC moved for summary judgment on August 30, 1999; the hearing was set for September 20, 1999. On September 2, 1999, Murkey filed an ex parte application to continue the hearing. The district court granted the application in part, rescheduling the hearing for October 4 and extending Defendants' response date until September 13. Defendant Murkey applied ex parte for an additional extension, which the district court denied.
Murkey filed his opposition with approximately 3,500 pages of unauthenticated exhibits on September 15, 1999, two days late. He filed a declaration on September 17, purporting to authenticate the exhibits. The declarant was Pauline Chris-tie, who had worked for Murkey as the office manager for 14 months. She stated:4. I am familiar with the manner in which Richard Murkey maintains his books and records.
5. I have examined the documents which have been attached as Exhibits in to [sic] the opposition filed by Richard Murkey to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
7. [sic] I can state of my own knowledge that the documents marked as Exhibits 1 through 8, 34 through 38 and 40 through 57 are true and correct copies of his business records, [*22] and that said documents were maintained in the normal course of business.
The Commission objected to Defendant Murkey's exhibits as lacking authentication and as hearsay. The district court agreed and further stated that Defendants failed to offer testimonyas to what these documents represent or how these documents could possibly show (1) that they achieved any removal of negative information, (2) that any information removed was accurate, (3) that any such information was not obsolete, (4) that any information, if actually deleted, was not later reinserted, or (5) that the permanent removal of that information was achieved in a lawful manner.See FTC v. Gill, 71 F. Supp. 2d at 1040.
After hearing argument on October 7, 1999, the district court granted the FTC's motion in its entirety on November 3, 1999. The court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from participating in any aspect of the credit repair business, making certain representations to consumers regarding Defendants' credit repair services, reporting false or misleading information to a credit reporting agency, and otherwise violating the CRO Act. Id. at 1049-50. [*23] The court ordered Defendants to return payments received for any credit repair services performed pursuant to contracts entered before March 4, 1998, notably, for any consumer who did not sign a new retainer agreement following entry of the preliminary injunction. The district court ordered Defendants jointly and severally to pay the sum of $ 1,335,912.14 to the FTC as equitable monetary relief, including without limitation consumer redress, restitution and/or disgorgement. Id. at 1050.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo an order granting summary judgment to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, any genuine issue of mate-rial fact exists and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Balint v. Carson City, Nevada, 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Once the FTC has made a prima facie case for summary judgment, the defendant cannot rely on general denials but must demonstrate with evidence that is "significantly probative" or more than "merely colorable" that a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986), [*24] cited in FTC v. Publishing Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1997).
We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 858 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Hagood v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 81 F.3d 1465, 1479 n. 24 (9th Cir. 1996) (hear-say rulings). The decision to grant or deny a continuance is in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be over-turned except upon a showing of clear abuse. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 1998).
DISCUSSION
A. Genuine Issues of Triable Fact [Murkey and Gill]
Defendants both maintain that disputes exist regarding their purported false representation and acceptance of payment before rendering services. As the district court found, no such disputes exist.
1. False Representations
As a preliminary matter, violation of the CRO Act's prohibition against making or using any untrue or misleading representation of the services of the credit repair organization is not only a violation of the CRO Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679b [*25] (a)(3), but also an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce in violation of section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 15 U.S.C. § 1679h(b)(1). n7 As the district court correctly observed, "liability attaches even if the representation made by the credit repair organization is not made 'for the purpose of inducing 'consumers to purchase a particular service or good." FTC v. Gill, 71 F. Supp. 2d at 1038. All the FTC must show to establish violations of both acts, then, is an untrue or misleading statement regarding the services of the CRO.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n7 That section provides:
For the purpose of the exercise by the Federal Trade Commission of the Commission's functions and powers under the Federal Trade Commission Act, any violation of any requirement or prohibition imposed under this subchapter with respect to credit repair organizations shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce in violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*26]
Murkey admits making the statements on his radio broadcast(s). He even concedes that "it may have been possible to interpret either defendants' radio broadcast or other representations to mean all negatives can always be removed from all consumers credit reports that was not ever the defendants intent." Although Murkey disputes the district court's conclusions, he offers no evidence to demonstrate that a genuine issue of triable fact exists for trial. He denies certain declarants' statements that they told Murkey that various adverse items on their credit reports were correct. He purports to rely on his own declaration, but the portions of the record to which he cites do not support his contention. n8 Moreover, the district court docket shows that his declaration was never filed in any event. n9 Murkey's unfiled declaration stating that he did not misrepresent Defendants' credit repair services when he stated they could remove all kinds of negatives from consumers' credit reports fails to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n8 Similarly, Murkey states that by saying his success rate was only 99.9, he gave "a clear signal that it does not happen 100 of the time." As a result, he argues, he did not represent that he could permanently remove negative information from credit reports. Id. at 13. We find this argument unpersuasive. [*27]
n9 Although the declaration included in his Excerpts of Record appears to be the one to which he refers, it bears no "filed "stamp, and the declaration is not in the official court file. The docket does, however, contain an entry to some eight volumes of exhibits Murkey lodged on September 15, 1999, but it does not appear that any of these documents were ever filed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As for Murkey's contention that his declaration establishes that genuine issues exist regarding the FTC declarants' statements that Murkey told them or made it very clear that he would be able to have adverse information deleted from their credit reports permanently, he fares no better. As noted above, his declaration is not part of the record in the case. Even if his self-serving denials sufficed to establish a legitimate dispute, the declaration refers to exhibits that are not part of the record and are not authenticated or explained in any event. In sum, Murkey fails to counter the FTC's substantial showing that he made statements and created an overall "net impression" that he could legally and permanently get negative information [*28] removed from consumers' credit reports, even if the information was accurate, complete, and not obsolete. These representations were false and constitute violations of both the CRO Act and the FTC Act.
2. Acceptance of Money
The CRO Act prohibits acceptance of any payment before fully performing all services (even assuming Murkey could and did do what he represented he would do). Once again, Murkey cites only his declaration to support his argument that triable issues exist as to whether he accepted payment before fully performing the credit repair services he agreed to provide. He does not dispute that the CRO Act prohibits a CRO from accepting payment for the performance of any service before the service is fully performed. He also does not deny that he did in fact accept a "down payment" after giving the consumer an initial free consultation. Indeed, he stated in his declaration that he "usually asks the consumer for a deposit of 25%" which he believes is "very reasonable." He contends that he "does provide services before the acceptance of any payment," which is beside the point. In sum, we agree with the district court's finding that Murkey violated the CRO Act by accepting [*29] payment before he had fully performed the services.
B. Procedural Issues [Murkey]
Defendant Murkey argues that the district court abused its discretion in excluding his exhibits as unauthenticated hearsay and in refusing to allow him to "supplement" the woefully deficient declaration of his "custodian of records." As the FTC suggests, n10 even a perfect declaration from Ms. Christie would not make the documents any more probative. After all, she could not provide the cogent explanation that her employer failed to offer in his declaration. At most, Defendant's evidence, even if admissible, offers snapshots of the credit status of various clients at particular points in time. The "evidence" fails to create a genuine triable issue of material fact regarding Defendants' misrepresentations or improper collection of payment for incomplete services.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n10 Once again, as Defendant's exhibits are not part of the court record, we have no way to assess one way or the other the FTC's statement that the thousands of pages appear to have been assembled without rhyme or reason. Murkey failed to explain what the documents are supposed to establish, even if they were admissible. The district court noted that Defendants relied on "deletion letters" that purportedly resulted from their negotiations with creditors as evidence that they used other legal methods to remove negative items from consumers' credit reports, not merely illegal methods. Even if the court could determine how the deletion letters came about, that is, as the district court stated," whether they are the result of negotiations with the creditors, whether they are the result of successful removals of negative items based on inaccuracy, whether they are the result of successful removals of negative items based on the fact that they were obsolete, or whether they are the result of defendants' illegal mailing campaigns[,]" they would not affect the ultimate conclusion. Notably, "because at least one of defendants' practices is illegal as a matter of law, their claim that they can remove negative credit information '100 legally' is false." FTC v. Gill, 71 F. Supp. 2d at 1042.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*30]
As for the continuance Defendants sought, Murkey argues only that it was "impossible" for him to respond to the FTC's motion even with the extension the district court granted. Murkey concludes, moreover, that no party would have been inconvenienced, that the court would not have been inconvenienced, and that the denial was prejudicial to him. No doubt it was a challenge to respond to the FTC's motion, and the intervening religious holiday counsel cited as a date on which he could not work could weigh in favor of another extension. But nothing in the record suggests that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously or otherwise abused its prerogative to control its docket, particularly in light of the district court's denial of the FTC's request for a one-week extension to file its reply papers. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 81 L. Ed. 153, 57 S. Ct. 163 (1936) (court has inherent power to "control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants."); see also Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000).
C. Scope of Injunction [Murkey and [*31] Gill]
Murkey maintains that the district court abused its discretion in prohibiting him from engaging in the credit repair business and that some lesser restriction would have sufficed in these circumstances. Although inartfully stated, Gill also objects to the scope of the injunction, but on the grounds that he "personally never violated any federal law[,]" and that the district court erroneously attributed to him the acts of a "third-party independent contractor." Neither argument has merit.
Defendant Murkey offers no reason why he should be able to continue offering credit repair services. He claims to have ceased advertising in newspapers and on the radio and to have "legally improved the credit reports of over 2500 consumers." The court should enjoin him, at most, "from making any specific representations that it deems to be misleading and to obey all laws in all respects[,]" so that he could "continue to render an invaluable service to the public."
But Murkey had his chance. Although he now claims that the less-restrictive terms of the district court's preliminary injunction should be the terms of the permanent injunction, his violation of those terms undermines the credibility [*32] of his argument. The district court found a real likelihood of recur-ring violation on the basis of: (1) the systematic nature of the misrepresentations, made in weekly radio broadcasts and local newspaper advertisements; (2) Defendants' continued operation of their credit repair business through the" non-profit" organization CRCA; (3) Defendants' ongoing efforts to collect from previous clients under the CRCA, admittedly in violation of the preliminary injunction: (4) Defendants' continued transmission of the same false and misleading letters. As the district court observed, Defendants" have continuously ignored and violated both the CRO Act and the preliminary injunction in this case." FTC v. Gill, 71 F. Supp. 2d at 1047. We find no basis for disturbing the district court's prudent assessment that giving Defendants another chance might prove to be unwise.
As for Defendant Gill's protestations that he was not involved and should not be subject to the permanent injunction (or the equitable monetary relief), he cites no evidence that tends to establish that these "facts" are in genuine dispute. He does state he is "prepared to present evidence at trial," but he never [*33] states what the evidence consists of and why he could not have presented it in his opposition to the FTC's summary judgment motion. Rather, he asserts that Murkey's offices, telephones, and employees were separate and apart from Gill's and that by written agreement, Murkey agreed "to provide certain clerical credit repair services for certain clients of Gill's law firm[.]" Neither Murkey nor Gill was an employee of the other, and they shared no common employees, Gill states. "Murkey at all times retained his independence, similar to an independent probate paralegal service." As Gill committed no wrongful acts of his own, and Gill's liability was premised solely on Murkey's wrongful acts, he maintains the judgment is erroneous.
But Gill was involved from the outset, as his contract with Murkey demonstrated. He, not Murkey," retained the ultimate responsibility for the quality and sufficiency of the services furnished to [his] clients," although Murkey per-formed the actual credit repair services for the Gill Law Offices. As discussed above, consumers signed retainer agreements with the firm, not with Murkey (which enabled Murkey and Gill to avoid the surety obligation under [*34] California law). Gill acknowledged that he spoke with Murkey regularly and elected to sign on the credit repair clients as law firm clients rather than simply refer them to Murkey. He stated that he did not receive any of the fees Murkey collected, but offers no evidence to support his contention.
Even assuming that Gill's law firm was not a sole pro-prietorship or partnership, the district court nevertheless gave Gill the benefit of the doubt and applied the rigorous standard for corporate liability. Notably, the court applied the test articulated in FTC v. Publishing Clearing House, 104 F.3d at 1170, and required the FTC to show: "(1) that the corporation committed misrepresentations or omissions of a kind usually relied on by a reasonably prudent person, resulting in consumer injury, and (2) that [Gill] participated directly in the acts or practices or had authority to control them. "Id. (quoting FTC v. American Standard Credit Systems, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1080, 1087 (C. D. Cal. 1994). We find no error in the district court's conclusion that the FTC established the first element, and neither Gill nor Murkey have disputed that Gill had the [*35] requisite knowledge of the representations. Both defendants are personally liable.
D. Amount of Equitable Monetary Relief
Defendant Murkey's only complaint about the district court's judgment against him in the amount of $ 1,335,912.14 is that the district court should have taken into consideration "the thousands of consumers who have benefitted from his services over the years." Murkey cites no authority for this proposition, and none exists.
In fact, as the district court correctly noted, Section 1679g provides for recovery of "any amount paid by the person to the credit repair organization" if the CRO violated any provi-sion of the CRO Act. Moreover, the CRO Act incorporates the FTC's authority under the FTC Act to seek monetary remedies. 15 U.S.C. § 1679h. We have held that restitution is a form of ancillary relief available to the court in these circumstances to effect complete justice. See FTC v. Pantron I Corp., 33 F.3d at 1102. In the absence of proof of "actual damages," the court properly used the amounts consumers paid as the basis for the amount Defendants should be ordered to pay for their wrongdoing. Murkey does not contest [*36] the district court's calculation of the amount of equitable monetary relief, and we affirm the judgment.
Finally, for the reasons discussed above, Defendant Gill's contention that he should not be ordered to pay anything because he received nothing does not establish any abuse of discretion on the district court's part. Gill has offered no evidence to support this assertion, and even if he did, his knowledge and de facto control over the conduct of the parties (as the primary signatory to the retainer agreements) supports the district court's decision and judgment in any event. Defendant Gill, like Defendant Murkey, fails to establish a basis for reversing the district court on any of the grounds raised in his appeal.
AFFIRMED.
April 08, 2004
OTTIANO v. CREDIT DATA SOUTHWEST, INC
"Michael J. Ottiano appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendant in his action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 ...."
"For CREDIT DATA SOUTHWEST, INC., Defendant-Appellee: Christopher A. Coury, John M. Fry, Esq., RYLEY, CARLOCK & APPLEWHITE, Phoenix, AZ."
...
"("The reasonableness of the procedures and whether the agency [*3] followed them will be jury questions in the overwhelming majority of cases.")."
"VACATED AND REMANDED."
MIS (CreditData SW) is a "non profit" collection agency
Well, of course all CRAs are in one way or another collections agencies, although it's not quite as obvious as with CreditData SW.
It does explain why they were DETERMINED not to investigate my American Agencies disputes.
The good news is that it looks like they'd have resources (punitive damages) - but how they can operate a collection agency as a NON PROFIT corporation is beyond me.
Oh, at http://www.merchantsinfo.com/pic/ it lists Premier Information Center. BINGO!!!
That's great. It appears that they sell the crappy worthless reports to consumers and the REAL reports to business. I am SO looking forward to discover!
http://www.merchantsinfo.com/fms/
Financial Management Services (FMS) provides traditional, third party collection services. Our goal is to create better, more flexible options for businesses needing help with the collection of their delinquent accounts. We are collections specialists in the Real Estate Industry. We know and understand Landlord-Tenant Provisions. We provide top notch training and have a computer system designed to serve the needs of our clients.
We are a full service collection agency. Providing the most effective debt recovery solutions for our customers by producing the greatest return. We have over 30 years of successfully serving our clients and getting the job done.
We are a subsidary of Merchants Information Solutions, Inc. a mutual benefit company who provides credit information, automated decision and data management services to customers in the credit, payment processing, housing, retail and other financial markets.
FMS is HIPPA compliant.
Member's of
Arizona Collectors Association Arizona Multi-housing Association
American Collectors Association Associated Credit Bureaus
Licensed and Bonded by the State of
CreditData SW - Premier Credit
I called the 602-528-7785 on my credit report, it was answered by a recording from Premier Credit. Got transferred to a person and she said that CDSW closed shop last September and they always sold reports for them.
So I wonder how much Premier Credit paid for getting the CDSW phone #.
She told me they had a web site, after some searching I found https://www.cdsw.com/ - and a sample for their tri-merged at http://www.cdsw.com/CDSWSampleReport.pdf
Contrary to the crappy CIC reports, it actually contains some data, and I decided to pay the $32. But I couldn't find an order link. So I called the 800#, but that's only a recording of the Premier Credit locations - mostly scummy credit counseling outfits. So I might another long distance call, to find out that I had to type www.premiercredit report.com exactly into the URL, because searches won't find it. As I noticed.
That URL forwarded me to https://www.cdsw.com/dtc1/ConsumerMainPage.asp?SubscriberNumber=999&userID=consumer&password=consumer&prod=0
There I order the trimerged. I couldn't believe it's almost identical to the CIC report. NOT at all the sample posted at https://www.cdsw.com/.
$32 wasted.
Capital One is protecting the privacy of the THIEF!!!!
Freaking unbelievable!
I just got the phone call from Cap One, they will not provide me with any information on the charges that were rejected -- due to privacy issues!!!!
They are protecting the criminals, but why am I surprised?
More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000
GAO: Most Corporations Don't Pay Federal Taxes
"To make it even more sickening, most corporations that actually do owe taxes pay a rate less than 5%. So when you add the corporations that pay no taxes with those that pay tiny taxes, 94% of US-controlled companies and 89% of foreign-controlled companies paid zero to 4% in taxes."
At the Memory Hole site you'll find very cool and rare stuff such as http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm">Bush sitting around doing nothing for 5 minutes after he was told that the second plane hit the towers on 9/11. I didn't even watch the vid, just check out the page with the frames - very cool.
While the 9/11 footage and transcripts are most popular, there are tons of rare documents at the site.
April 07, 2004
Those MORONS at Capital One!!!! (Why ID Theft sucks)
As I recently posted, I became an ID theft victim when someone started charging to my Capital One credit card.
The Capital One fraud department had told me they would turn off the account and send me a new card with a new account number.
I specifically asked whether recurring charges would automatically be transferred to the new account or whether I needed to contact everybody.
She assured me that I needed to do NOTHING. The charges would automatically be transferred to the new account.
Now the charges for one of my webhosting accounts were declined. I have literally PILES of paper all around me, working on my MIS objection, have to pull out statements, sure enough, it's that stolen card that declined the charges. Called Capital One up to find out what the hell is going on, and found out that my new account is "restricted" and all charges are declined.
Why didn't Capital One at least notify me?????
Lesson learned:
Do NOT report your card stolen until you made sure that your recurring and pending charges have posted. I had a choice. I didn't have to tell them right away that the charges were fraudulent.
Stupid me, I thought I'd minimize their exposure and "work" related to new fraudulent charges. Won't I ever learn that it doesn't pay to be considerate and honest when dealing with banks?
"I must be the stupidest MF on the planet!!!!"
So, I need to speak to the fraud department, which is of course CLOSED.
More crap to deal with. So now I can go through the hassle of giving the webhost a new credit card #, and I should probably see what other charges got or iare going to get declined.
Just about everybody I deal with is doing nothing but screwing up. I wasn't in great mood dealing with the MIS attorneys' lies, but this just really does it. My desk is a mess, the windows on the computer are all screwed up, I could just scream!
April 06, 2004
FCRA bankruptcy class action - UPDATE!
I finally got an update from Bill Mullen, maybe in response to my comment at http://www.creditsuit.org/blog/archives/000205.html: "Mr. Smith never responded, and that's rather disturbing. They got paid and now they're done, don't want to work anymore?"
Well, they're NOT done yet.
They also did NOT get paid yet. And that turned into quite an issue. Apparently a class member filed a motion to ENFORCE the court order requiring the class counsel to update the web site with the court filings.
http://www.fcraclassaction.com/fcra/courtDocs.html
There are a lot of interesting filings, but I really don't have time right now to read a lot other than the filings in my own suit.
Johnson, Smith, Hibbard and Wildman certainly have sunk a LOT of time and resources into this case for 5 years now, and I can see why they want to get paid. Especially since they've been fighting all 3 CRAs, that's a daunting task!
I wonder if they regret having filed this class action, I guess the amount of attorneys fees will be a deciding factor.
This really is an extremely important settlement, according to http://www.fcraclassaction.com/howMany.html:
"In late July 2003, over four million (4,065,289) individual notices were mailed to potential class members."
Most important, credit scoring has been addressed, I had a very quick look at Evan Hendrick's affidavit, great stuff. The CRAs of course wanted to report the bk with a notation that it belongs to someone else, which I don't think would do a thing for scores. Scores don't READ explanations.
The need for uniformity in credit reporting standards is discussed, another key issue. After several years of INTENSE study I still don't know how reported data relates between the CRAs. That's because it often doesn't. It makes NO sense at all.
There is a lot of work to be done. And when even $5 MILL jury verdicts do absolutely NOTHING to improve the quality of reports, clearly ONLY class actions will change the CRA procedures.
Anyway, below is the current status as provided by Mr. Mullen:
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding the class action lawsuits against Equifax, Experian and Trans Union.
Judge Currie approved the settlements (as modified) at the conclusion of the January 12, 2004 fairness hearing.
The benefits of the settlements are as follows:
• Each of the credit bureaus will remove any reference to bankruptcy from credit reports of class members. Experian and Trans Union did this effective July 31, 2003. Equifax has until May 31, 2004 to comply. In the meantime, Equifax can refer to bankruptcy as long as it makes clear it was the bankruptcy of another person.
• Class members receive a free credit report from each credit bureau if they requested it by January 31, 2004 using the form in the mailed notice.
• If a Defendant violates the settlement – that is, issues a credit report with the bankruptcy notation on it – with respect to a class member, that class member has certain remedies he or she can pursue without having to prove the Defendant broke any law. These remedies are set forth in paragraph 20 of the Second Modified Stipulations of Settlement. (These and other documents are available at www.fcraclassaction.com.) The remedies do not apply to anything that occurred prior to July 31, 2003.
Neither the settlements as approved nor the previously proposed settlements provided for any cash payments to class members for anything that occurred prior to July 31, 2003.
Keep in mind that the settlements are NOT final yet. The process is by no means over. Certain objectors who opposed approval of the settlements could still appeal the court’s decision.
Any of the Defendants could choose not to provide the free credit reports until the settlements are final.
From FBI Director to MBNA Exec?
9/11 Panel Plans Hard Questions for the F.B.I. and Justice Dept
"Panel members said the most probing questions were likely to be directed at Mr. Ashcroft, who was sworn in as attorney general seven months before the attacks, and at Mr. Freeh, who ran the F.B.I. from 1993 until he retired in June 2001. He is now an executive with the MBNA Corporation, a large financial-services company."
What do you do as FBI Director that qualifies you to become an exec at MBNA?
April 05, 2004
MIS (CreditData SW) - the lying liars at Ryley Carlock & Applewhite
Their attorneys Jon Fry and Christopher Coury wrote in their Motion for Summary Judgment:
They accuse me of "factually incorrect" assertions and in the very NEXT sentence admit that my assertions were corrct!
"$0 past due as of 8-2001"
What are they smoking when they write those filings?
But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
CreditData SW had actually MALICIOUSLY added this PAST DUE notation to the reporting when they corrected the reporting to reflect that I had closed the account, not Union Bank.
I did of course NOT pay this past due account in 8/01. Not only was this account never past due, but I never even had a balance on this account. It was an overdraft credit line for my Union Bank checking account and I did not write any bad checks.
Of course that's exactly how the account was reported by CreditData SW - no balance ever!
The hours I have had to waste because of the lying liars at Ryley Carlock & Applewhite and the brainless buttheads at CreditData SW.
Did they have a hiring requirement of IQ's below 30?
Probably not. It's more likely that they DELIBERATELY added negative notations to accounts to lower the credit scores.
The lower the scores, the more money their "clients", the creditors made by overcharging me.
And the more I got declined and applied, the more reports were ordered and paid for.
Clearly, their profits increased as they kept my credit scores low. No matter how much I disputed, they either refused disputes or added INCORRECT derogatory dates or notations and they very effectively ensured FALSE low credit scores.
April 03, 2004
Debt cancellation programs - do they work?
I'm inundated with debt cancellation spam and it's NOT a way to improve your credit rating. This approach is similar to the claims that you don't have to pay income tax. A major promoter of that theory was recently arrested in Las Vegas.
DEBT-CANCELLATION PROGRAMS
An analysis by G. Edward Griffin, Revised December 18, 2003
This is a real interesting read! There's a letter from the OCC:
"If a fraudulent document such as those described above is presented to your financial institution, do not return it. Instead, retain the document and file a Suspicious Activity Report. Deliver the instrument and a copy of the SAR to the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
Why am I shocked to see how they investigate consumer "fraud" while refusing to do anything about bank fraud and perjury?
This concept of debt cancellation is really fascinating and Edward Griffin does an excellent job analyzing the various aspects, including ethics and morality.
And in case you don't want to read it all, here's my take on it: Don't do it unless you have legal skills AND money and some serious luck.
HOWEVER, if you're being sued, try it as defense.
Discharging the debts through bankruptcy is definitely cheaper, faster, safer AND gets you better credit.
I also read about the Fabians at that site. Not an easy read, but interesting.
April 02, 2004
Bank One PERJURY and really strange happenings
Randy updated his blog today. Judge Schwab dismissed ALL claims, the failure to investigate and correct the reporting as well as the many inquiries without a permissible purpose.
Since he already ordered the MAJOR credit reporting violations to arbitration, the remaining claims are NOT complicated.
Several VERY disturbing issues:
1) Randy had pointed out in his objection that Bank One committed PERJURY and he attached the proof, Bank One's OWN documentation! Judge Schwab IGNORED Randy's claim and documentation and he ruled in favor of Bank One.
2) Judge Schwab did not even MENTION the inquiries. He simply dismissed all claims and closed the case.
This is truly astounding, how can that be????????
3) It occurred to me that this is SO important to Bank One because most likely there will NEVER be another consumer who can LITIGATE this issue. Bank One continues to insist that they can legally report an account as charge-off and NOT mention the bankruptcy. If they get Randy dismissed, that's it!!!! Most consumers will be forced into arbitration.
4) If Bank One prevails, they stand to make TONS of money off repayments of discharged accounts because consumers will have no choice but to PAY the discharged debts if they want decent credit scores, housing, etc.
On the bright side:
My Bank One news release has now been accessed 28,435 times and 1,002 media outlets received it. MANY reprinted the entire press release or link to it.
Given this overwhelming response, I'm going to send out another press release about the Bank One VP Sharon Adams perjury.
I'm really fed up with these lying bastards.
Pacific Bell did it to me, Wells Fargo did it to Lynette, and now Bank One got Randy's case dismissed ONLY due to perjury. Perjury means nothing to the corporate scum.
There have been a lot of filings this week and I don't want to post ahead of Randy. I can say one thing though: Randy's case morphed from an every day credit reporting suit to one hell of a documentary about what's wrong with the legal system and of course with Bank One.
I can't wait to see what Judge Schwab does next. He usually issues orders literally a day or two after filings.
DECLINE the Bush loan application
"By racking up the highest deficit in American history (half a trillion this year alone!) Bush has asked every American for a $4,500 loan that WE are going to have to pay back in taxes later. As current and future taxpayers, this hits young Americans particularly hard. Send George Bush a note rejecting his request for credit and letting him know that prioritizing the war in Iraq and his tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy above our future is unacceptable. When you do, $1 will be contributed to the MoveOn.org Voter Fund."
From the notice of decline to Bush:
"Too many recent requests for credit."
It's a serious subject and not a joke, but I can't help it, it sure is funny to me.
Here's the entire "adverse action letter":
TO: President Bush (Loan Applicant)
FROM: (Your Name and Email Address)
SUBJECT: Application for Loan
______________________________
Dear President Bush,
(Your personal note)
As American tax payers, we regret to inform you that your request for a loan of $4,500 against our future earnings is being denied. Your loan does not meet the credit standards we look for in a borrower for the following reasons:
• Too much outstanding debt. On the day you took office the Congressional Budget Office projected a $5.6 trillion surplus. Your fiscal irresponsibility has taken this surplus and converted it into deficits for the foreseeable future. This money has been spent on tax cuts for the wealthy and a war with Iraq.
• Failure to properly prioritize spending. While spending trillions on tax cuts for the rich and the war with Iraq, your budget underfunds education, cuts environmental programs and shortchanges America’s veterans and their families.
• Failure to accurately estimate actual budget costs. You only presented a five year budget to hide the costs of making your tax cuts permanent. Furthermore, you leave significant costs outside the budget by pretending that there will be no costs for the war on terrorism after this year.
• Too many recent requests for credit. Due to your reckless fiscal policies the federal government has already had to increase its debt ceiling (credit limit) twice during your Presidency.
(your name)
(your address)
April 01, 2004
Insurance credit scoring on the Rollye James show tonight
Last week someone called Rollye's show about insurance companies running credit reports and Rollye thought that they only look for "no" derogs and you'll be ok.
I e-mailed her the PEMCO insurance scoring rate sheet from the Bank One press release and she is outraged.
Just heard her mention that she'll talk about this in a bit, and that's really really cool.
It's so important to raise awareness!
Thanks, Rollye!
For stations check the Rollye James show website, I listen on XM 165.