6/16/08 amended complaint: Trans Union tortuous interference with my business
Last night I filed my amended complaint with my NEW claim:
TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
86) Baker contracts with consumers to analyze their credit reports and FICO credit scores, draft disputes to credit bureaus and/or to recommend specific actions to improve FICO credit scores.
87) Trans Union was aware of Baker’s contractual relations with her clients at all times relevant hereto.
88) Baker’s clients expect that their FICO credit scores will increase after they send their factual disputes to Trans Union according to Baker’s instructions or after Baker directly contacts Trans Union on behalf of her clients.
89) Trans Union at all times knew that it is required by law to correct disputed consumer credit data.
90) TransUnion knowingly, intentionally and maliciously failed to correct the disputed data on numerous occasions in violation of the FCRA.
91) TransUnion knowingly, intentionally and maliciously interfered with Baker’s contractual relations with her clients.
92) As a proximate result of the foregoing intentional interference by TransUnion, Baker has suffered and will continue to suffer financial damages, emotional distress and mental anguish.
93) The actions of Trans Union were malicious, reckless and/or oppressive and were undertaken to injure Baker and her clients. Accordingly, Trans Union is liable to Baker for punitive and exemplary damages in an amount proven at trial.
I already scanned the TU discovery responses, will post those later. As usually, they did NOT provide a single substantive answer. Don’t I wish I could depose them, but the $350 in litigation donations won’t even pay for the transportation to get to the depositions, not to mention the thousands of dollars required to pay for the court reporter, transcripts, hotel, etc.
I don’t know what to do next.
Hope for them to throw me a few bucks for a settlement?
Waste endless hours on more written discovery that won’t get me anywhere?
Maybe I’ll file a motion for summary judgment. They didn’t respond to my requests for admission within 30 days.
At least I got to say how it is. Since I’m the only credit professional in the country, there won’t be any big suits to build on this as with Cap One and their refusal to report the credit limits.
BTW, my client just got her new myFICO TU report, Trans Union CONTINUED to report without the date closed despite this litigation.
The credit bureaus have absolute power.
The corporations and their scumbag management and lawyers can do whatever they want, destroy lives and kill human beings without any repercussions.
Also from my complaint:
IV. INTRODUCTION
13) This Complaint is about the fact that thousands of consumers are in foreclosure (the subprime crisis) because credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”) willfully disregard the FCRA requirement to provide consumer credit reports only to persons with a permissible purpose and the regulators refuse to investigate complaints of illegal activities and false mortgage advertising.
14) The CRAs’ motives are obvious, they get paid for every consumer credit report provided to lenders and profits are far more important to CRAs than protecting consumers’ personal and financial data and complying with the FCRA.
15) The CRAs and reseller NCO ignored Baker’s written and well documented complaints in 2004 and 2005 about mortgage banker Dana Capital’s illegal activities, including obtaining Baker’s consumer credit report for unlicensed marketers in 2004.
16) When Baker applied with “Trinity Financial” for a mortgage in 3/07, she was shocked to see that again Dana Capital’s account was utilized to obtain her credit reports from reseller NCO – Baker did NOT apply for anything with Dana Capital.
17) The California and Arizona mortgage licensing departments also had failed to act on Baker’s complaints and allowed Dana Capital to continue to establish often unlicensed branches for the purpose of engaging in illegal telephone and fax advertising of mortgages with entirely false terms.
18) Regulators with the mandate to protect consumers instead protected mortgage companies engaging in false advertising of interest rates as low as 1%, as Baker documented at her website http://creditsuit.org/credit.php?/blog/comments/housing_sales_slowdown_californians_house_poor_mortgage_fraud_rampant/.
19) Baker suspects that the licensing agencies decided to ignore complaints to sustain economic growth, as much of the cash obtained from refinances was used to pay
off credit cards and to purchase more products the borrowers could not afford.20) No amount of money can adequately compensate the people who lost their homes, end up divorced, depressed and/or ill due to financial problems and some no doubt
die because the economy and corporate profits are more important than compliance with consumer protection laws.21) Because Baker does not have the legal skills and cash to sue the government, she plans to write a book about her credit work, research and litigation and the corruption throughout American government and business, hopefully encouraging more qualified people or organizations to seek justice and to put the responsible persons into prison.
Judge Teilborg denied the TU motion to strike this part of my complaint and the 12(c) motion for judgment as moot, since I was amending the complaint. So now TU can file their motions again and I’ll have to waste my time responding again.
Is it time I let it go, write my book, remove myself from this agony and do something more enjoyable?
As much as I’d like to make a difference for all, it’s rather obvious that I’m not a lawyer, I’m not superwoman, NO politician gives a damn, NOBODY else is DOING anything to put the credit bureaus in their place and very few people are sending donations.
My grapes and potatoes are looking good and being 50 years old, I’m looking forward to more rewarding activities and PAID work.
Helping people NOT pay their credit cards is very rewarding. There’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with not paying as promised.
It’s by far the easiest way to find justice in America. We have absolutely NO moral obligation to pay the bankers, if anything, we have a moral obligation NOT to pay.
Posted by Christine on 06/17/2008 at 11:27 AM
2007 Inquiry suit • Trans Union • (4) Comments • Permalink
Hi Christine,
I forget if in our other exchanges if I mentioned the book Born Losers by Scott Sandage. It is about the rise of the credit reporting agencies in the mid 1800’s. In particular, he tells the story of a case where a business was ruined because of the shoddy reporting of a credit agency. If I remember correctly, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In any case, it was a big and important case. It is a book you should definitely read, and it may give you some ammunition and precedence that you can call upon in your cases here. -Steve
Steve, there is NO precedence for my case.
Everything I do is cutting edge 21st century science and technology.
“It is about the rise of the credit reporting agencies in the mid 1800’s.”
That can’t be, you’re a hundred years off.
“If I remember correctly, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court”
I’ll appreciate any cites, but I really don’t have time to read an entire book to MAYBE get a cite from the 1800s that has long been overturned and couldn’t possibly have anything to do with a credit consultant suing a credit bureau for its refusal to correct data on a client credit report. Not to mention that the FCRA wasn’t even enacted until the 70s.
The biggest problem is that few people understand how 21st century the issues are.
That’s aside from people thinking that I get up in the morning and wonder how I could get through another dull and boring day since I have nothing to do. It ain’t so. It’s hard to say what’s the bigger problem for me, lack of time or lack of money.
The biggest problem is that people don’t understand how OLD these issues are. (Including yourself, evidentially.) The computer has amplified the problems, but the conflicts are very old, and ongoing.
In the swill of law, which both gives the corporations power and attempts to limit that power, it is good to have some perspective of the problem. It isn’t just the narrow issue of following “this law,” because there is probably another law that states the exact opposite. The judge will try to decide between two conflicting laws. If you educate the judge about the problems and the history of credit reporting, and the damages it does, you will have a better chance of winning your argument because it makes it less personal and more systemic.
You can’t argue what you don’t know. While you are making a personal claim of harm, showing a systemic problem that has re-occurred will raise your status and the validity of your claims.
Read the book, or not, but there is nothing new under the Sun. It’s all the same laws with new names trying to fix the same problems.
-Steve
Funny how you know it all, but I don’t see the links to YOUR litigation.
Would a pearl fall out of your crown if you posted the cite?
