Christine Baker
[redacted]

Email:
In Pro Per

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christine Baker;
Plaintiff,
v.
Capital One Financial, et al;
Defendants. / )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) / CIV-04-1192-PCT-NVW
PLAINTIFF CHRISTINE BAKER’S RESPONSE TO THE CAPITAL ONE SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CONTROVERTING STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Christine Baker hereby responds to Defendant Capital One’s Statement of Facts, and for the purposes of this Motion, admits and denies as follows:

  1. Admit.
  2. Denied as written. While the CRAs submit a dispute code to Capital One with the ACDV, it includes all reported data and it also often includes the actual dispute as received from the consumer. [Capital One Exh. 1 A, B and D and Exh. L 1,2]
  3. Admit.
  4. Admit.
  5. Admit.
  6. Denied as written. One 5291 was discharged, the other 5291 account is open.
  7. Admit.
  8. Admit.
  9. Denied as written. The Experian consumer disclosures include several columns containing 2 or more pieces of data. Column 3 is labeled “Date of status / Last reported.” These are 2 separate entries. The label for Column 8, the last column, is “Status Details” and it contains the account status and history. [Capital One Exhibits 3 A-C.]
  10. Denied as written. It is true that Capital One reports the date last reported in the “Status Date” field. Obviously, the “Status Date” should be the date of the “Status”, no later than the bankruptcy filing date 5/96. The incorrect reporting of the account indicates that Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy in 2001. [Capital One Exhibits 3 A-C.]
  11. Admit.
  12. Denied as written. The May ACDV from MIS also contained “Narrative Code 1 and 2: “PLEASE VERIFY ALL DATA FOR THIS ACCOUNT EVERY NOTATION DATE AND BALANCE WHETHER REPORTED OR NOT.” [Capital One Exhibit 1-A]
  13. Admit.
  14. Denied as written. It is true that the account had no payment activity since the Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1996 and that Capital One verified the incorrect dates. Plaintiff specifically disputed the dates and notations and Capital One should have corrected the status date and the incorrect data in the “Status” column: “Charge Off as of 4-2001, 3-2001, 12-2000, 7-2000, 6-2000, 5-2000, 6-1996. Discharged Through BK Ch 7, 11, or 12 04/30/2001 to 02/28/2002.” [Capital One Exhibits 1 A and 3 A]
  15. Admit.
  16. Denied as written. The June ACDV from MIS also contained “Narrative Code: “PLEASE VERIFY EACH DATE AND BALANCE” [Capital One Exhibit 1-B] The dispute was submitted online with Experian: “Please verify EACH date and balance” with “EACH” capitalized to ensure that Capital One would correct its reporting.
  17. Denied as written. It is true that the account had no payment activity since the Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1996 and that Capital One verified the incorrect dates. Plaintiff specifically disputed the dates and Capital One should have corrected the status date and the incorrect data in the “Status” column: “Charge Off as of 4-2001, 3-2001, 12-2000, 7-2000, 6-2000, 5-2000, 6-1996. Discharged Through BK Ch 7, 11, or 12 04/30/2001 to 02/28/2002.” [Capital One Exhibit 3 B, the 6/7/02 Experian consumer disclosure.]
  18. Admit
  19. Denied as written. Equifax verified the bankruptcy, but appears to be doing so when consumers dispute the reporting of discharged accounts and not the public record reporting of the bankruptcy. Plaintiff has no record of this dispute.
  20. Denied as written. Equifax verified the bankruptcy, but appears to be doing so when consumers dispute the reporting of discharged accounts and not the public record reporting of the bankruptcy. Plaintiff has no record of this dispute.
  21. Admit.
  22. Denied as written. Plaintiff disputed the balance because her Equifax FICO score was only 664 on 9/1/02 and the reported balance of $3,345 exceeded the high credit of $3,316 and no limit was reported. [Capital One Exhibit 1-C] At the time, the Equifax online disputes only allowed for a few select disputes such as balances and the disputes of credit limits or high credit were not an option. Plaintiff had expected that Capital One would report correct and complete after its investigation. During the time the account was not reported to Fair Isaac as over the limit due to the pending investigation, Plaintiff’s Equifax FICO score increased by 27 points to 691. [Affidavit at ¶ 19]
    Capital One failed to report the credit limit and failed to update the highest amount owed along with the balance. Capital One instead continued to report the account as OVER the limit.
  23. Denied. Plaintiff has no record of this dispute, could not locate any reference to this investigation in the Equifax initial disclosures and Capital One did not provide the ADCV.
  24. Denied. Plaintiff has no record of any investigation related to this alleged dispute, could not locate any reference to it in the Equifax initial disclosures and Capital One did not provide the ADCV.
  25. Denied as written. As Plaintiff is a pacifist, she decided to give up on being a productive member of society in 1998 rather than going on a killing spree. Her cancelled check, proving that Pacific Bell had deposited the check for her phone bill in its bank account, was ignored when Plaintiff mailed it by certified mail with her disputes to the Pacific Bell collector. When she finally went to the collector’s office, the manager told her that the cancelled check was “not good enough” and he refused to provide a written statement. That’s why Plaintiff decided to have the police document the events.
    This entirely fraudulent collection prevented Plaintiff from refinancing her home after she had made extraordinary sacrifices to ensure that she could pay her bills on time and to re-establish credit after the 1996 bankruptcy. While mortgage rates were moving lower, Plaintiff had to sell her home (and miss out on $500K+ in subsequent appreciation) because she could not continue to make the $2,200 mortgage payment with no hope of being able to refinance.
    Plaintiff took the proceeds from the sale of her home to start a new life. As she was a licensed real estate and mortgage broker, Plaintiff was looking for real estate investments during her travels from the SouthWest to Alaska while trying to figure out what to do with her life. Plaintiff soon realized that the disadvantaged were being exploited by unscrupulous corporations everywhere. Having a conscience, she was unable to ignore the cruel reality.
    Plaintiff believes that every human being has a soul and a purpose – and it’s not to make as much money as possible, but to help others and to try to make the planet a better place for all. Plaintiff continued to maintain her web sites and her credit forum while “camping”, but chose not to review here credit reports, frustration and aggravation was not on her wish list and she did not need credit.
    In 2001 Compass Bank refused to open a checking account due to information on her credit report and Plaintiff had no choice but to order her reports. She found out that numerous accounts were reported incorrectly and she decided to file her first suit against a CRA in 2001. She had not planned on working 14 hrs/day 360+ days/year, researching credit, credit scores and laws, trying to understand why so many people are suffering in the “greatest country in the world”, helping consumers in foreclosure and with credit problems, maintaining the web sites, etc.
    Not being superwoman and almost 48 years old, the stress and aggravation of the last 5 years are taking a toll. Plaintiff has been ill, has problems with her eyes and sometimes feels like she is going to have a heart attack.
    Plaintiff can’t wait to take serious time off. Until then, she is going to continue to be one of the more productive members in this society: fighting corporate fraud and injustice, publicizing her litigation experiences and research and encouraging consumers to stand up for their rights.
  26. Admit.
  27. Admit.
  28. Admit. Notably, Capital One refused to provide the information related to the fraudulent charges, resulting in the deputy’s refusal to write up a report and to date Plaintiff does not know who has her personal identifying information.
  29. Admit.
  30. Denied as written, Target now reports all limits to all CRAs for Plaintiff’s accounts.
  31. Admit.
  32. Admit.
  33. Admit.
  34. Admit.
  35. Denied as written. Experian didn’t hide “positive” accounts, it listed the NEGATIVE and incorrectly reported as “past due” Providian account in the section for positive accounts.
  36. Denied as written. Providian not only verified incorrect reporting, but it repeatedly changed the reporting to report past due amounts after CRA corrections and Providian started to report the account twice until the duplicate was deleted in response to Plaintiff’s CRA disputes.
  37. The correct status date for the Capital One discharged account is 5/1996 or earlier.
  38. Capital One reported the discharged account with a $779 past due balance until 2001.
  39. In May 2002, Capital One verified the status date for the Capital One discharged account incorrectly as 4/2001. [Capital One Exh. 1 A, 3 A].
  40. In May 2002, Capital One verified the incorrect STATUS DETAILS as “Charge Off as of 4-2001, 3-2001, 12-2000, 7-2000, 6-2000, 5-2000, 6-1996. Discharged Through BK Ch 7, 11, or 12 04/30/2001 to 02/28/2002.” [Capital One Exhibit 3 A]
  41. In June 2002, Capital One verified the status date for the Capital One discharged account incorrectly as 4/2001. [Capital One Exh. 1 B, 3 B].
  42. In June 2002, Capital One verified the incorrect STATUS DETAILS as “Charge Off as of 4-2001, 3-2001, 12-2000, 7-2000, 6-2000, 5-2000, 6-1996. Discharged Through BK Ch 7, 11, or 12 04/30/2001 to 02/28/2002.” [Capital One Exhibit 3 B]
  43. In September 2002, Capital One failed to correct the High Credit in response to Plaintiff’s balance dispute with Equifax.
  44. On at least 10 occasions Capital One refused to report the credit limits in response to Plaintiff’s disputes.
  45. In 1/03 Capital One incorrectly updated the High Credit to $0 and failed to report the credit limit in response to Plaintiff’s Equifax dispute for account 529149. [Exhibit N-1]
  46. In 1/03 Capital One incorrectly updated the High Credit to $0 and failed to report the credit limit in response to Plaintiff’s Equifax dispute for account 5187. [Exhibit N-1]
  47. Plaintiff disputed the incorrect notations and dates for the discharged account directly with Capital One on 7/19/02. [Exhibit L-3]
  48. Plaintiff disputed the missing credit limits directly with Capital One on 11/11/02. [Exhibit L-4]
  49. Capital One refuses to report the Credit Limits as a matter of policy.
  50. Capital One refuses to report the Credit Limits to improve customer retention by deliberately damaging its customers’ credit rating so that competitors will not solicit its customers.
  51. Capital One filed several exhibits containing Plaintiffs social security number and birth date with its Motion for Summary Judgment.
  52. Plaintiff’s personal identifying data was accessible by anyone with a PACER account for 4 weeks until Plaintiff contacted the electronic filing division to have those documents removed on 5/15/06.
  53. Capital One has not apologized to Plaintiff and it has taken no action to mitigate Plaintiff’s potential damages resulting from public access to her social security number and birth date.

Dated this 23rd day of May, 2006.

/s Christine Baker

Plaintiff Pro Per


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of May, 2006, I electronically transmitted the foregoing to the Clerk’s Office using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin D. Quigley, Esq.

Kathleen A. Biesterveld, Esq.

Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP

Attorneys for Capital One

Rodrick J. Coffey, Esq.

Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Equifax Credit Information Services

A copy mailed USPS to:

HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE

United States District Court

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 524

401 West Washington Street, SPC 52

Phoenix, AZ 85003

/s Christine Baker

-7-