My petition for rehearing / en banc re. Experian filing my unredacted credit reports
I decided to file my petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fortunately I got approved for electronic filing in the 9th circuit and that gave me a few extra days.
I thought I was done on Wednesday, spent endless hours since yesterday on rewriting. I didn’t want to be too offensive, but let’s face it, what happened to me in federal court and then on appeal makes any dictatorship look good. The courts did exactly what the people in power want them to do:
IGNORE the rules, the facts and the law to benefit the elite.
It’s not just about my case. It’s about the SYSTEMIC violations of consumer protection laws and the courts consistently backing corporations.
I just saw that the House passed the bailout, Bush signed it and stocks went down.
It is so scary to read the comments on the web from all these people ready to start a civil war.
Any war ALWAYS hurts the working people and the poor most. The elite either already left the country or has their jets standing by. Yes, America was born through revolution. But you can’t possibly think that the militia can prevail against the American military. The military can listen to all communications and has weapons you can’t even imagine. TRILLIONS of your tax dollars have gone into black projects. The army is deployed in America, ready to kill Americans. Blackwater is standing by.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Of course I don’t expect that my petition is granted. I lost my faith in the American justice system a long time ago. But I had to do something.
It’s all I CAN do aside from telling those who are struggling to get by to STOP paying your unsecured debt and prepare.
Stock up on food, fuel and supplies and get ready to be on your own. There is nothing the government will do to help you. All they CAN do is print more money and cause prices to skyrocket.
Here is my entire petition:
Rehearing en banc is warranted here because this case involves questions of exceptional importance:
• Should the over 200 million consumers with credit reports be able to seek justice in the courts without being subjected to identity theft, harassment or assault due to the filing of their most private personal and financial data on the public record, for download from PACER by anyone willing to pay 8 cents/page?
• Should the courts ignore briefs, filings, evidence and arguments of consumer litigants because they are not attorneys or for any other reason?
At least 75% of all consumer credit reports contain errors and often the credit reporting agencies do not correct the false data even after receiving multiple consumer disputes. If corporate lawyers are allowed to subject consumers to identity theft and physical harm by filing entire credit reports, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) are essentially preempted.
Ae in this case, defendants merely need to file the consumers’ credit reports on PACER to force litigants who value their privacy and safety to dismiss all claims in exchange for the removal of the credit reports from the public record.
According to the FBI, identity theft has been the fastest growing crime of the 21st century. In Arizona, electronic filing was implemented in 2005 and already PACER is a goldmine for identity thieves and angry ex-spouses, employees, etc. Electronic filing rules do not preempt privacy laws such as the FCRA requirement to prohibit dissemination of consumer credit data to persons without permissible purpose.
It is paramount that the personal and financial data in consumer credit reports remains confidential.
If it should truly be necessary to file an entire credit report as exhibit, it should be filed under seal or thoroughly redacted.
The panel ignored these issues as well as the facts.
The panel wrote that Experian complied with the Arizona Case Management/Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual. As the record shows, this statement is false.
Additionally, Experian Consumer Affairs Special Services Specialist Kimberly Hughes regularly provides false testimony to assist Experian clients with obtaining unjust dismissals.
While the government bails out bankers and investors, millions of consumers are losing their homes, jobs and health insurance. Consumer protection laws are more important than ever.
1) Appellee Experian did NOT comply with the redaction requirements set forth in the District of Arizona Case Management/Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures. The district court failed to remove two of Baker’s entirely unredacted credit reports from PACER, violating its own order, until after Baker dismissed the case in exchange for nothing but the removal of her credit reports.
2) The FCRA [15 U.S.C. § 1681b] specifically prohibits providing credit data to persons without permissible purpose and the general public had no permissible purpose whatsoever to view Baker’s credit reports.
3) Baker raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Appellee American Agencies violated the FCRA by obtaining her credit reports. Experian’s Kimberly Hughes provided her declaration in support of American Agencies, stating that it did not receive Baker’s credit reports. However, Ms. Hughes is clearly contradicted by Experian’s credit reports. Additionally, Ms. Hughes admitted in the subsequent deposition that American Agencies had in fact received Baker’s credit reports.
4) Baker raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Appellee Thomas Wells violated the FDCPA when he demanded that Baker review her Pacific Bell billing records and let him know how much she really owed instead of accepting her dispute and statement that she owed nothing. Baker had already provided the cancelled check for the payment that Pacific Bell had failed to credit to her account and resulted in the subsequent collection.
5) Appellee ConsumerInfo.com filed Baker’s unredacted credit reports on the public record, but it is not mentioned in the panel’s Memorandum.
Baker filed this action on 3/19/03 against numerous defendants including creditors and collectors, credit bureaus, Fair Isaac, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, the FTC and the FCC. Baker is not an attorney and she has never been to law school. This was her first federal lawsuit, filed only because the regulators ignored her numerous complaints during the previous two years about systemic credit reporting violations and flawed FICO scoring software.
While the regulators were dismissed, Baker hoped that a federal suit would prompt enforcement of consumer protection laws.
The regulators did absolutely nothing to address the issues.
The credit bureaus started to sell credit reports to just about anyone willing to pay for them, even after receiving notice of sales to unlicensed brokers specializing in illegal marketing and false advertising. [1] Baker was approved for a “1%” mortgage. That the interest rate was much higher and that the loan balance would increase substantially due to negative amortization was never disclosed.
Banks charged Baker higher interest rates due to low FICO scores based on false and incomplete credit data and buggy FICO scoring software. In 2007, Baker documented that FICO scores are based on entirely fictitious late payments through misinterpretation of credit data. [2]
Experian’s refusal to report the credit limits for Baker’s Capital One accounts is a major issue in this case.
FICO scores substitute the highest balance for the missing credit limit and this practice can substantially lower the scores.
Despite providing account statements with the correct credit limits to Experian, Baker’s numerous disputes were futile. The credit bureaus were so sure that they would prevail against Baker, they refused to report the credit limits until several class actions were filed.
Appellees American Agencies and Thomas Wells continued to collect an entirely fraudulent debt despite Baker’s numerous disputes.
The district court dismissed both Defendants despite Baker’s submission of her evidence and affidavit in support of her claims.
Baker’s claims against Experian also include the sale of her credit reports to persons without a permissible purpose.
Experian and ConsumerInfo.com promptly filed Baker’s entirely unredacted credit reports on the public record, for download by anyone for 8 cents/page.
Experian and ConsumerInfo.com attorney Marc Carlson, Jones Day, was aware that Baker had been threatened by defendants and subjects of her published fraud investigations. One of the defendants in this case threatened with physical harm and Baker dismissed him when she found out that he lived only a hundred miles from her residence. Baker was afraid for her safety and she had taken extraordinary measures to keep her home address private.
Attorney Carlson filed Baker’s completely unredacted Experian credit reports with every address during the previous 20 years. Attorney Carlson maliciously refused to redact the first seven digits of Baker’s social security number, disclosed on every credit report as her student loan account number.
The district court denied Baker’s motions for complete redaction or removal of all credit reports and it refused to remove two entirely unredacted reports, ignoring its own order! Baker had no choice but to offer dismissal of all her claims with prejudice in exchange for removal of her credit reports from the public record and Experian and ConsumerInfo.com accepted.
Notably, a US Marshal made the 500 mile round trip to Baker’s residence to ensure that she would not publish judge Broomfield’s home address, as she had contemplated at her blog after the dismissal.
Why does a judge deserve more privacy than Baker or anyone else?
What are the criteria to determine that a human being deserves protection?
Skin color? Gender? Wealth? Power?
The panel ignored Baker’s briefs and the filings and exhibits in district court.
I. The panel’s ENTIRE analysis of Baker’s claims against Appellees American Agencies and Thomas Wells:
Summary judgment was proper because Baker failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether American or Wells violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or Arizona state laws. See Butler v. San Diego Dist. Attorney’s Office, 370 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining plaintiff’s summary judgment burden).
The Butler conclusion:
We hold that a district court is not required (or even allowed) to assume that challenged factual allegations in a plaintiff’s complaint are true, irrespective of any evidentiary support, if a defendant makes a properly supported motion for summary judgment based on official immunity that would, on a motion for summary judgment in any other civil case, require plaintiff to produce evidence in opposition.
The panel erred when it assumed that Baker relied on the allegations in her complaint.
In fact, Baker submitted her Experian credit reports and they clearly stated that American Agencies obtained her credit reports twice. Baker submitted correspondence and her affidavit in support of her claims against Thomas Wells. The case was not yet in the discovery stage.
The district court based its American Agencies ruling on Experian’s Kimberly Hughes declaration despite the obvious contradiction with the Experian credit reports.
The district court should have denied the motion for summary judgment because Baker’s evidence raised genuine issues of material fact.
Is it irrelevant that Ms. Hughes committed perjury?
Ms. Hughes admitted during her subsequent deposition that American Agencies in fact received Baker’s credit reports.
II. The panel’s ENTIRE analysis of the filing of Baker’s unredacted credit reports on the public record:
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Baker’s motions for redactions because Experian complied with the redaction requirements set forth in the District of Arizona Case Management/Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.
Baker’s request for sanctions is denied.
The panel does not mention Appellee ConsumerInfo.com and Experian did NOT comply with the requirements in the ECF Manual.
Attorney Marc Carlson represented both Experian and ConsumerInfo.com and after the district court ordered the filing of partially redacted reports, he AGAIN filed Baker’s personal data, in violation of the district court’s order.
While the district court had ordered removal of the unredacted credit reports, it left two completely unredacted credit reports on PACER until after Baker dismissed her claims in exchange for the removal of her credit reports and nothing else.
Additionally, the Arizona ECF Manual states:
E. PRIVACY
1. Redacted Documents
Unless otherwise ordered by the court, parties must refrain from including, or must partially redact where inclusion is necessary, the following personal identifiers from all pleadings and documents filed with the court, including exhibits thereto: … [emphasis added]
It was NOT necessary to include ANY of Baker’s account numbers and personal data. None of Baker’s personal data and account numbers had ANYTHING to do with the case.
The FCRA [15 U.S.C. § 1681b] prohibits providing credit data to any person without a permissible purpose.
The general public has no permissible purpose to view Baker’s credit reports!
While granting the Appellees’ request to not have to provide their employees’ home addresses, the district court maliciously published Baker’s personal and financial data until she offered to dismiss all claims with prejudice for nothing but removal of her credit reports from the public record.
The district court actively supported the Appellees and blatantly ignored the rules, the law and its own order.
Perjury is as common in the courts as lies and deceit are in business. The government gifts trillions of dollars to the military industrial complex, bankers, corporations and investors, but it does nothing to protect the people it supposedly serves.
As evidenced by the opposition to the $700 billion bailout bill, people are finally waking up and they are sick and tired of being ignored and abused.
Many Americans are mad as hell and ready to defend their liberty and rights.
Some have been hoarding guns and ammo and they are ready to defend themselves against the corporate raiders, the corrupt politicians and a justice system that’s lacking any sense of justice.
As of October 2008, the US Army is deployed in America to “help with civil unrest and crowd control” . As a pacifist, Baker opposes violence. She was extremely naïve when she truly believed that she could find justice in the courts.
Baker did not find justice.
She learned the hard way that whoever hires the best liar wins. She learned that pro se litigants are despised, mistreated and ridiculed by the courts.
Baker adapted.
Instead of encouraging her readers to sue for the credit they deserve, Baker has been urging the many millions who are struggling to get by to STOP paying their credit cards and to walk away from over-mortgaged houses and gas guzzlers with negative equity. They need to use their limited funds to prepare for tough times, stock up on food, fuel and supplies and take care of deferred maintenance on their houses and cars.
The courts failed to ensure that credit bureaus, banks and collectors comply with consumer protection laws. The courts gave the corporations the green light to abuse, harass, exploit, lie, deceive and even to commit perjury.
America faces the biggest economic crisis in history – not only due to greedy bankers and corrupt regulators and politicians, but also because as in this case, the courts all too often ignore the facts, rules and law.
For these reasons, the panel should grant rehearing or the Court should rehear this case, en banc.
DATED this 3rd day of October, 2008.
s/ Christine Baker
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Per
Footnotes:
1 “Exh. 18: Trinity junk fax and Mutual Benefit loan approval at 1%” from Baker v.
Equifax, Experian and Trans Union CV 07-8032-PHX-JAT at
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/10357/14365.html
2 “2/26/07: Open Letter to Fair Isaac Regarding its Addition of FICTITIOUS
Derogatory Data to Credit Reports and Sale of Defective myFICO Reports” at
http://mylitigation.net/pr/news/release/2_26_07_open_letter_fair_isaac_regarding_its
_addition_of_fictitious_data/ and “5/4/07 - FICO scores add FICTITOUS Equifax
late payments long after charge-off” at
http://creditlegislation.org/activists/forum11/19.html
3 “9/8/08 Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1” at
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
Posted by Christine on 10/03/2008 at 12:53 PM
2003 Suit (appealed, Experian filed credit reports on PACER) • 2007 Appeal - American Agencies, Experian, CIC • (2) Comments • Permalink
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/435/RipOff0435799.htm
Bank One N.A. moved-in March, 2001 {15 Year, 6.5 fixed, never seconded} Loan Transferred to Homeside Lending November, 2001 all posted payment’s achieved timely conformation from April, 2001 to March, 2002, twelve month old timely paid loan was demanding twelve $102.99 Escrow Shortage monthly’s from April, 2002 to March, 2003. Assistance Filing “Proof of Claim” against Washington Mutual’s Bankruptcy is needed before 3/31/2009 deadline.
November 19, 2004 Washington Mutual requested patience’ promising loan history production’ relating “The Comptroller of the Currency” and “Better Business Bureau” involvement relative to second’ ignored R.E.S.P.A. “Qualified Written Request” telephonically on December 15, 2004 loan management conversed, that Bankruptcy STAY’ was released and loan history was transferred to Washington Mutual archive department in Chicago. Archive department instantly e-mailed unclenched’ loan histories, ending loan manager’s “48 month” covert “Principal Curtailment” concealment, and erroneous Escrow reduction missing fund’s concealment, the Better Business Bureau then removed Washington Mutual’s chief arbitrator chair, expelling for three year’s, “speaking retrospect-fully’ acquiring Credit Report in 2002’ would-have averted Foreclosure Theft’ nothing else!” Case Number 02-xxxxx-H3-13 including Core Adversary Trial’s Appealed award, from at 4541 County Road 138A Alvin, Texas 77511; now at Richard j Pollak 100 Patterson ave. Carnegie, Pa. 15106-2827
December 2007’ Washington Mutual returned $7,515.98 loan payment funds to Bankruptcy Trustee without Arbitration, Explanation or Accountability, as a precursor to July, 2008 Foreclosure’, Mooting Judgment Ruling’ by equating yet’ another Fiduciary fault/guilt Theft admittance, self assessing, while grossly underestimating actual damage, ignoring commitment clauses Contractual damage, accrued damage’s, Interest and accrued Interest.
Specifically’ “Deed” commitment damage’s clause, By the Rights granted’ by Benjamin Franklin and The Founding Fathers, in their leading’ Statute’ of the very First Amendment {SCIENTER = meaning or Science of the Contract - Anti-trusting’ exacting Lending Institution’s’ while including certain Contractor’s “stating” Contractor must contractually abide the universal forwarded stipulations of contract offered, cemented with binding Mutual’ Signature’ requirement} Loan Originator and Loan Manager Both’ protectively harbored $778.34 “Principal Curtailment” {evading’ shouldered $10,286.25 Contractual Commitment’s damage Clause’} Also’ protectively harbored the unaccredited $637.22 Escrow reduction {later claimed’ as November, 2001 erroneous Escrow reduction intended for December, 2001 payment} concealing Both’ by protectively harboring loan History for Four Year’s “Principal Curtailment’s” self defining and $637.22 Escrow Reduction’s definitively “Escrow Curtailment” intentionally coveted from loan statement’s by “pencil shading” Void without digits, December, 2001 payment accountability Box’, then stealthy omitting’ from requested, received 2002 Escrow Summaries and Final’ loan history the first “28” November, 2001 after’ loan transfer Day’s, Also’ returning $336.00 Escrow to progress “Escrow in shortage” for preplanned future $175.26 Escrow reduction, claiming the $637.22 I.R.S 1098 without 2001 fund’s received’ Re-taxing, Credit Repository deception, forcing Bankruptcy, releasing Stay, and Foreclosure Theft.
Washington Mutual Executive Response Center formal December 16, 2005 report’ admitted discovery “Bank One 2001 credited, then suspended, then “Curtailed” $778.34 monthly payment, crediting loans overall Principal only” then transferred loan to Homeside Lending that reduced “Escrow” $637.22 (“claiming” November 28, 2001) explaining’ erroneous misapplication attempt at reversal of “Principal Curtailment.” Loan Management admitted Escrow reduction while denying it vanished unaccredited; singularly defending monthly’s progression concoction.
Actualities; real-time statement starkly contradicts December 16, 2005 Final’ loan history’s recorded date, because Homeside Lending received loan November, 2001 and November 5, 2001 exacts $1,289.85 Escrow transferred, then Escrow reduced by $637.22 to $652.63, accrediting Principal $253.34, accrediting Interest $383.88, accrediting Escrow $175.26, recoiling back-to overall Escrow balance $175.26 action’. November 28, 2001 loan update highlighted Escrow’s $652.63 balance only’, the erroneous Escrow reduction then vanished before December, 2001, because December, 2001 Principal, Escrow and Interest received “pencil shading” without digit accreditation, mirrored on all loan updates, both’ 2002 requested Escrow Summaries, including Final’ loan history that intentionally covertly omitted first 28’, November, 2001 Day’s, add $336.00 Escrow returned, figure Curtailment and Curtailment’s loan Re-terming’ adjustment, equates the $1,148.48 April, 2002 to May, 2003 $102.99 Escrow Shortage, perfecting the irreconcilable pretzel logic that created the phantomlike December, 2001 unsubstantiated, unaccredited void that blocked outside refinance, with twelve $102.99 Escrow shortage’s, reflecting Homeside Lending used “Mindbox” Data Repository’ and Loan Manager used it’s editing, point and click “Soap” Program’, augmenting date’s to protect stolen Escrow, with historic recreation faltering. Blocking outside refinance by erroneous Credit Repository reporting, Also’ loan manager thwarted’ Washington Mutual’s letter promising loan history production, by releasing Bankruptcy “Stay” selfishly knowing loan history concealment protected Principal Curtailment and missing Escrow Reduction whose production would-have eliminated forced Bankruptcy’, adverted Bankruptcy’, forced Bankruptcy’ reversal, Foreclosure was desired solution, release of Bankruptcy Stay action’ was required, because Bankruptcy protected manager from case-load accountability review, additionally’ Washington Mutual’s inherent case-load accountability review, Fear’ protectively circumvents Justice’ by reimbursing’ half of all “Court appointed Attorney” fee’s’ across Texas, Lobbying courtroom participant’s, insuring prosecution protection!
Curtailment defined {“liken-to lopping off Horse’s tail” Curtailment = covert’ prepayment deception, Breach of commitment, of accountability, of relationship, emphasizing intentional Breach of Chartered License, here repeated to mask’} Curtailment abandoned December, 2001 and November 5, 2001 Escrow reduction intended Curtailment replacement, evaporated {liken to “Escrow Curtailment” defined = Anti-trusted} diligent loan history harboring became required’ to protect Homeside Lending Data Repository’ “Mindbox” problematic “point & click” power editor “Soap” extremely assessable Program’s’ limitless historic editing ability’s finality from caseload review. Loan Manager testified’ Homeside Lending used {INNUS} Credit Repository, pondering in-house. Prior to release of Bankruptcy Stay’ all loan histories reported December, 2001 unaccredited, requested Escrow Summaries and November 16, 2004 Final’ loan history report, covertly omitted’ the “first 28, November 2001 day’s” following loan transfer, compelling deception intent, in actuality both {Curtailment-theft’s} relates double standard when prosecuting Violent armed bank robbery thief’s’, theft’ and these isolated matter’s expanded universally, damaging unreported multitude’s.
How about a plain English post?
What did WaMu do?
I HATE legalese.
Check this out:
The headline:
”Open Letter to WaMu: My refusal to pay my $8,000 WaMu (Providian) VISA card due to the 26% interest rate”
Pretty clear, isn’t it?
My SUMMARY:
”In May 2007, Washington Mutual more than doubled my interest rate to 26% despite my flawless credit. On 11/15/07, WaMu DECLINED my request for a lower interest rate and disclosed that it utilized FICO and internal credit scores to determine that I am a high credit risk. Greedy vile bankers don’t deserve to get paid and I stopped paying this account. Chase recently announced that it will no longer utilize credit report data to rate existing accounts. What will it take to get WaMu to stop this vile practice? “
I don’t think a translation is necessary.
And of course for the gruesome PLAIN ENGLISH details, read the entire letter.
Richard, can you write a plain English letter like this?
I have read ATTORNEY filings that are much more readable than your post, especially when the attorney actually had a case.
I’m NOT impressed with nonsensical legalese and your posting implies that you really don’t have a case.
Why shoot yourself in the foot?
