Selena Brown

4355 Cobb Pkwy #J129

Atlanta, GA 30339-3887
(404) 723-8916
maslow527@gmail.com

December 27, 2010

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20580

Dear Federal Trade Commission:

I have reason to believe that a former outsourced Equifax employee in the

Philippines named Aarica Therise Barreto was involved with my identity theft
and quite possibly many others in 2006. I have enclosed over 200 pages of
supporting documentation to corroborate my claim. The most telling documents
come from a federal/Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuit that I had fled on
my own against Equifax in 2009 (Exh 1).

A federal/FCRA lawsuit was the only way for me to obtain (1) internal credit fle
documents, (2) information on Equifax's standard operating procedures, and (3)
the names and addresses of employees who had accessed my credit fle.
Documentation from the lawsuit confrmed 17 irrefutable “coincidences” involving
my identity theft and Equifax.

COINCIDENCE #1: Initial Contact With Equifax – Identity Stolen

On July 12, 2006, I had obtained my annual free credit report from Equifax (Exh 2,
pg 10, RFA #45) via www.annualcreditreport.com – a federally mandated, secure
website with encryption. My credit report was perfectly fne and contained no
fraudulent information. I did not have contact with any other credit bureau that
day.

Less than three hours later on that same day the identity thief had called Scana
Energy and opened a utility account (home gas service) for an apartment in
Clarkston, GA (Exh 3). Therefore, my identity had been stolen on the same day
that I'd had my initial contact with Equifax.

COINCIDENCE #2: 12 Miles

The identity thief's apartment at 1024 Noble Vines Drive, Apt 4, Clarkston, GA
30021 was only 12 miles from Equifax's downtown Atlanta ofce at 1550
Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 (Exh 4).
1
COINCIDENCE #3: Change of Address

On August 11, 2006, while still in the dark about my identity theft, I had called
Equifax and requested a correction to my last name (Exh 2, pgs 28–29, RFA #146).
Equifax would now have to mail me a new credit report. This new credit report
was going to expose the identity thief because she had already opened a Scana
Energy account (Exh 3) and a Dell charge account (Exh 5) using my name, SSN,
and date of birth with her Clarkston, GA address.

Addresses in your credit fle come from credit applications (Exh 2, pg 5, RFA
#20), therefore, the identity thief's address was now part of my credit fle and it
was about to appear on the credit report that I had requested from Equifax.
Equifax was the only credit bureau that I'd had contact with on August 11, 2006.
On that same day the identity thief had suddenly submitted a change of address,
twice, using two diferent usernames (Exhs 6 & 7). I had spoken with
www.whitefence.com on November 13, 2006 and they had confrmed that
someone using selenabrownzero1@aol.com had twice requested that my home
address be changed to 1024 Noble Vines Dr #4, Clarkston, GA 30021 – the
identity thief's home address.

Both change of address requests were unsuccessful because my mail was being
forwarded to a private UPS mailbox I'd obtained in 2005 after retiring from the
military; I continued to receive my mail as usual.

COINCIDENCE #4: TransUnion and Experian Credit Reports Stolen

On August 30, 2006, while still in the dark about my identity theft, I had visited
www.annualcreditreport.com to obtain my TransUnion and Experian credit
reports, however, I kept receiving “error messages” telling me that I had already
received both credit reports. I knew this was incorrect, so as a precaution I froze
my credit while I investigated the error messages.

I discovered that the error messages had been generated because the identity
thief had stolen my TransUnion and Experian credit reports on August 11 & 12,
2006 (Exhs 8 & 9). Therefore, on August 11, 2006, the very day that I had called
Equifax and generated a credit report that was going to expose the identity thief,
the identity thief had suddenly stolen my TransUnion credit report, and on the
following day she had stolen my Experian credit report.

There are hundreds of complaints on the Internet concerning “error messages”

from www.annualcreditreport.com. It is entirely possible that some of these
consumers are actually identity theft victims and they don't even know it yet.
I discovered my identity theft by investigating the “error messages.”

2
COINCIDENCE #5: 14 Credit Applications

On August 11, 2006, the identity thief had suddenly submitted 14 fraudulent
credit applications for Target, Old Navy, Capital One, HSBC Comp USA, JC
Penney, Dillard's, Zales, Zales (again), Wal-Mart, Nordstrom, HSBC Retail Services
(Exh 2, pgs 11–13, RFAs #54–63), Citi Cards, Home Shopping Network/HSN (Exh
10), and DIRECTV (Exh 11). The credit applications for Target, Citi Cards, Home
Shopping Network/HSN, and DIRECTV were immediately approved.

Prior to August 11, 2006, the identity thief had only opened one utility account,
Scana Energy (Exh 3), and one charge account, Dell (Exh 5). She had also tried
to re-open a closed charge account with WFNNB on July 13, 2006 (Exh 12).
Therefore, the identity thief had been moving at an absolute snail's pace with
fraudulent credit applications until August 11, 2006.

COINCIDENCE #6: Credit File Accessed Three Times

On August 11, 2006, Equifax had accessed my credit fle three diferent times
just to correct my last name (Exh 13, pgs 10–11, Interrog No. 13). This was
highly suspicious because Equifax has been around since 1899 and correcting a
consumer's last name couldn't be too complicated when you've been doing it for
107 years. I asked Equifax for a detailed description of the procedures that they
had used to correct my last name on August 11, 2006. Equifax stated, “...Equifax
responds that Equifax updated plaintif's name in accordance with plaintif's
request.” (Exh 13, pg 11, Interrog No. 14). Well that explains everything.

COINCIDENCE #7: Four Diferent Coincidences on August 11, 2006

On August 11, 2006, the very day that I had called Equifax and generated a credit
report that was going to expose the identity thief, (1) my Equifax credit fle had
been accessed three diferent times just to correct my last name, (2) the identity
thief had suddenly submitted two change of address requests, (3) suddenly stolen
my TransUnion and Experian credit reports, and (4) suddenly submitted 14 credit
applications when she'd previously been moving at a snail's pace.

Why didn't the identity thief do any, or all, of these activities on July 19, 2006;
August 4, 2006; August 10, 2006; or any other random date prior to August 11,
2006? Why did she specifcally choose August 11, 2006?

COINCIDENCE #8: Lost Mail

On August 14, 2006, Ms. Aarica Therise Barreto claims to have received a
“phone call” from me disputing 12 inquiries (Exh 14, pg 7, para 38 & Exh 15, pgs
3–4, Interrog No. 1). I absolutely, positively did not call Equifax on August 14,
2006.
3
Ms. Barreto deleted the 12 inquiries (Scana Energy, Target, Old Navy, Capital One,
HSBC Comp USA, JC Penney, Dillard's, Zales, Zales (again), Wal-Mart, Nordstrom,
and HSBC Retail Services) from my credit fle, generated three credit reports –
#6226017229, #6226017935, and #6226018041 – and then mailed those three
credit reports to me that same day, August 14, 2006 (Exh 14, pg 8, para 40 & Exh
2, pgs 27–28, RFAs #137–145).

I never received those three credit reports, therefore, the post ofce must have
“lost” them. Remember, the change of address requests were unsuccessful; I'd
continued to receive my mail as usual, including the credit report that the identity
thief had tried to intercept (Exh 16) with her change of address requests.

COINCIDENCE #9: Lost Mail Again

On June 22, 2007, I had called Equifax and requested copies of #6226017229,
#6226017935, and #6226018041 (Exh 2, pg 39, RFA #199). Equifax “mailed”
them again and the post ofce “lost” them again (Exh 2, pgs 29–30, RFAs #151–
153). Therefore, the post ofce had lost the same three credit reports twice
within 10 months. These “lost” credit reports coincidentally pertained to a
“phone call” received by Ms. Aarica Therise Barreto on August 14, 2006.

COINCIDENCE #10: Identical Disputes Handled Diferently

During a consumer's dispute Equifax electronically communicates with creditors

via an Automated Consumer Dispute Verifcation (ACDV) form (Exh 17). After
conducting their own investigation, the creditors will electronically send the
ACDV back to Equifax instructing Equifax to either verify, modify or delete the
disputed information.

ACDVs not only provide a paper trail, they also provide profts. According to
testimony given before the House Committee on Financial Services on June 19,
2007, Equifax makes money of every ACDV that it submits to creditors. The
more ACDVs Equifax sends out, the more money Equifax makes (Exh 18, pg 4).

Your Automated Consumer Interview System (ACIS) report (Exh 19) can tell you
if Equifax actually submitted ACDVs to creditors during a particular dispute. The
ACIS report is basically an automated log of each time your credit fle is accessed
for disputes, referrals from other credit bureaus, requests for credit reports, etc.

If ACDVs were submitted to creditors during a dispute, that dispute will be coded
as “DISPUTE.” If ACDVs were not submitted to creditors during a dispute, that
dispute will be coded as “MTNCUPD.” (Exh 20, pgs 1–2, para 1–2).

4
Using my ACIS report (Exh 19), credit reports, and court documents, I created a
dispute chart listing each dispute that Equifax claims to have received from me
between July 2006 – July 2008. Notice on the chart how the 08/14/2006,
09/19/2006, and 10/09/2007 disputes are all coded as “MTNCUPD.” That means
that ACDVs were not submitted to creditors during those three disputes.

DISPUTED ITEM(S) CONFIRMATION DATE DISPUTE

NUMBER CODE
Last Name 6223017080 08/11/2006 DISPUTE

Address 6223010947 08/11/2006 DISPUTE

12 Inquiries: Zales, Nordstrom,

HSBC Retail Svc, Old Navy, 6226017935
Target, Capital One, JC Penney, 6226017229 08/14/2006 MTNCUPD
HSBC Comp USA, Dillard's, 6226018041
Zales, Scana, and Wal-Mart
Request for Security Freeze 6262042315 09/19/2006 MTNCUPD

3 Accounts 6317015115 11/13/2006 DISPUTE

Citi, Dell & Target
Citi 6334050212 11/30/2006 DISPUTE

Dell, Target, GEMB & 6334016391 11/30/2006 DISPUTE

Victoria's Secret
Referral from Experian 6335057576 12/01/2006 DISPUTE

3 Inquiries 6338024658 12/04/2006 DISPUTE

HSBC, Wal-Mart & Cingular
Referral from Experian 6352034669 12/18/2006 DISPUTE
Alert
2 Inquiries & Address 7019049459 01/19/2007 DISPUTE
AT&T and HSN
Referral from Experian 7023017899 01/23/2007 DISPUTE
5 Clarkston, GA addresses
Address Update 7033053689 02/02/2007 DISPUTE

Phone Number Update 7041003429 02/10/2007 DISPUTE

CitiCards 7122032062 05/02/2007 DISPUTE

Address Dispute 7282015106 10/09/2007 MTNCUPD

Toyota Account Closed 2005 7306015539 11/02/2007 DISPUTE

Address Update 8181014736 06/29/2008 DISPUTE

5
I'll address the 09/19/2006 entry frst. Equifax had erroneously listed it as a
“dispute” in court documents (Exh 14, pg 8, para 41). A request for a credit
freeze is not a dispute, it is a request to freeze your credit fle. Equifax would not
have contacted any creditors via ACDVs and asked for their input on September
19, 2006 because creditors have absolutely no say in the credit freeze process.
Therefore, the 09/19/2006 entry is not a dispute, it is a fle maintenance/update
(MTNCUPD) entry in which ACDVs were not submitted because they were not
required.

Now I'll address the 10/09/2007 entry. According to Equifax I had called on
October 9, 2007 and disputed an address (Exh 14, pg 10, para 58). Notice how
the three credit reports issued prior to this “address dispute” all have the same
Current Address line of “1114 E John Sims Py Apt 263, Niceville, FL 32578
Reported: 05/2007” (Exhs 21–23). There are no previous addresses listed,
therefore, the only address I could have disputed on October 9, 2007 would
have been the Niceville, FL address, which was my correct address at that time.
Therefore, according to Equifax I had called on October 9, 2007 and disputed
my correct address.

Equifax “suppressed” the disputed address on October 9, 2007 (Exh 14, pg 10,
para 58). When an item is suppressed in your credit fle that item will not appear
on your credit reports (Exh 2, pg 3, RFA #7). Therefore, when Equifax suppressed
the Niceville, FL address on October 9, 2007, that address should not have
appeared on any credit reports issued on or after October 9, 2007; and yet the
“suppressed” Niceville, FL address appeared on October 9, 2007, twice (Exhs 24–
25), and it appeared after October 9, 2007 on January 3, 2008 (Exh 26); on
February 12, 2008 (Exh 27); and again on March 3, 2008 (Exh 28).

The Current Address line of “1114 E John Sims Py Apt 263, Niceville, FL 32578
Reported: 05/2007” appeared on every credit report issued between May 2007 –
March 2008; there was absolutely no change to the Current Address line on,
or after, October 9, 2007. If I had actually disputed the Niceville, FL address
wouldn't I have given Equifax a new/diferent address to replace the “disputed”
address? Where is the new/diferent address? Therefore, Equifax lied about an
address dispute on October 9, 2007 – lie #1.

I had asked Equifax to list all items that had been suppressed in my credit fle
between June 1, 2006 – June 1, 2009 (Exh 13, pgs 4–5, Interrog No. 3); notice
how the Niceville, FL address is not listed among the suppressed addresses on
page 5 of Exhibit 13. The only addresses Equifax had ever suppressed were fve
Clarkston, GA addresses on January 25, 2007 after they'd received a referral from
Experian. Page 5 of Exhibit 13 clearly shows that Equifax did not suppress any
addresses in October 2007. Therefore, Equifax lied about suppressing my
Niceville, FL address on October 9, 2007 – lie #2.

6
I had defnitely called Equifax on October 9, 2007, however, I never disputed
any addresses. I had called and specifcally requested copies of #6226017229,
#6226017935 and #6226018041. The post ofce had “lost” them twice, so I had
called on October 9, 2007 and requested them again. Therefore, the 10/09/2007
entry is not a dispute, it is a fle maintenance/update (MTNCUPD) entry in which
ACDVs were not submitted because they were not required.

So that brings us to the 08/14/2006 entry, which coincidentally was handled by

Ms. Aarica Therise Barreto. The “MTNCUPD” dispute code means that Ms.
Barreto had not submitted ACDVs to creditors during the “phone call” dispute of
12 inquiries on August 14, 2006. So why had Ms. Barreto deleted the 12 inquiries
without contacting any of the 12 creditors?

According to Equifax, “During the August 14, 2006 dispute in this case, only
inquiries were disputed. No accounts were in dispute. Since only inquiries were
in dispute, Equifax did not send any ACDVs to third parties. It only deleted the
inquiries. The 'MTNCUPD' code was entered on Exhibit F to refect this action.
The 'DISPUTE' code was neither entered nor required since no ACDVs were sent
to third parties as part of the reinvestigation process.” (Exh 20, pg 2, para 3–8).

Therefore, according to Equifax, Ms. Barreto had skipped the 12 ACDVs because
there were no accounts disputed with the 12 inquiries. So if a consumer disputes
inquiries and accounts, ACDVs are required, but if a consumer disputes inquiries
only and no accounts, then ACDVs are not required. Let's put their explanation to
the test with an identical dispute that involved inquiries only and no accounts.

On December 4, 2006, I had called and disputed three inquiries and no accounts
(Exh 14, pg 9, para 50 & Exh 29). According to Equifax's ACDV rule, no ACDVs
were required during my dispute because I had disputed inquiries only and no
accounts – just like the “phone call” dispute on August 14, 2006. However,
my ACIS report clearly shows a “DISPUTE” code for 12/04/2006 (Exh 19), which
means ACDVs were submitted to creditors during my dispute. Remember, if
ACDVs were submitted to creditors during a dispute, that dispute will be coded
as “DISPUTE.” (Exh 20, pg 1, para 1).

So why were two identical disputes of inquiries only and no accounts handled so
diferently? What happened to the ACDV rule during my dispute? I'd even asked
Equifax if ACDVs had been submitted to creditors during my December 4, 2006
dispute and Equifax had denied it (Exh 2, pgs 32–33, RFAs #167–172).

The “DISPUTE” code on my ACIS report for 12/04/2006 (Exh 19) proves that
Equifax lied about not submitting ACDVs to creditors during my December 4,
2006 dispute – lie #3.

7
COINCIDENCE #11: Only One Out of 16

Since the 09/19/2006 and 10/09/2007 entries were not disputes, the updated
dispute chart clearly shows that out of 16 disputes over a two-year period,
Equifax had submitted ACDVs to creditors and made profts of every single
dispute except the 08/14/2006 dispute – the “phone call” dispute received by
Ms. Aarica Therise Barreto.

DISPUTED ITEM(S) CONFIRMATION DATE DISPUTE

NUMBER CODE
Last Name 6223017080 08/11/2006 DISPUTE

Address 6223010947 08/11/2006 DISPUTE

12 Inquiries: Zales, Nordstrom,

HSBC Retail Svc, Old Navy, 6226017935
Target, Capital One, JC Penney, 6226017229 08/14/2006 MTNCUPD
HSBC Comp USA, Dillard's, 6226018041
Zales, Scana, and Wal-Mart
3 Accounts 6317015115 11/13/2006 DISPUTE
Citi, Dell & Target
Citi 6334050212 11/30/2006 DISPUTE

Dell, Target, GEMB & 6334016391 11/30/2006 DISPUTE

Victoria's Secret
Referral from Experian 6335057576 12/01/2006 DISPUTE

3 Inquiries 6338024658 12/04/2006 DISPUTE

HSBC, Wal-Mart & Cingular
Referral from Experian 6352034669 12/18/2006 DISPUTE
Alert
2 Inquiries & Address 7019049459 01/19/2007 DISPUTE
AT&T and HSN
Referral from Experian 7023017899 01/23/2007 DISPUTE
5 Clarkston, GA addresses
Address Update 7033053689 02/02/2007 DISPUTE

Phone Number Update 7041003429 02/10/2007 DISPUTE

CitiCards 7122032062 05/02/2007 DISPUTE

Toyota Account Closed 2005 7306015539 11/02/2007 DISPUTE

Address Update 8181014736 06/29/2008 DISPUTE

8
COINCIDENCE #12: Missing Clarkston, GA Addresses

Experian reported fve fraudulent Clarkston, GA addresses (Exh 30), TransUnion

reported three (Exh 31), Innovis – the youngest credit bureau – reported one
(Exh 32), and Equifax – the oldest credit bureau – reported zero (Exhs 16, 21–28
& 34–41).

Equifax also answered every Request for Admission containing the words
“Clarkston, GA addresses” with the same response, “Without information to
admit or deny,” 25 diferent times (Exh 2, pgs 6–35).

EQUIFAX EXPERIAN TRANSUNION INNOVIS

1024 Noble Vines 1024 Noble Vines 1024 Noble Vines

Dr, Apt 4 Dr, Apt 4 Dr, Apt 4
Clarkston, GA Clarkston, GA Clarkston, GA
30021 30021 30021

1024 Noble Vines 1024 Noble Vines

Dr, (No Apt #) Dr, (No Apt #)
Clarkston, GA Clarkston, GA
30021 30021

751 N Indian 751 N Indian

Creek Dr, Apt 429 Creek Dr, Apt 429
Clarkston, GA Clarkston, GA
30021 30021

1024 Suite 4
Novile Vine Dr
Clarkston, GA
30021

1040 Noble Vines

Dr
Clarkston, GA
30021

9
On August 25, 2008, I had spoken with the Target Fraud Department and was
told that Target had reported 1024 Noble Vines Drive, Apt 4, Clarkston, GA 30021
(Exh 33) and 751 N Indian Creek Dr, Apt 429, Clarkston, GA 30021 (Exh 17) to
Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion between August 2006 – December 2006.
Experian and TransUnion had reported both addresses while Equifax had
reported neither address.

Equifax admitted that Target had reported to them on a monthly basis (Exh 2,
pgs 7–8, RFA #32), however, Equifax reported the Target account, but not the
addresses on the account (Exhs 34 & 35, pgs 3 & 5).

Between August – December 2006 Equifax had never deleted nor suppressed any
Clarkston, GA addresses, and neither I nor the identity thief had ever disputed any
Clarkston, GA addresses (Exh 13, pgs 4–5, Interrog No. 3). There's only one credit
fle on me at Equifax as there is no subfle, mixed fle, or mis-merged fle on me
(Exh 2, pgs 9–10, RFAs #42–44), therefore, the fraudulent addresses should have
been reported on my credit reports for August 2006 (Exh 16), October 2006 (Exh
34), November 2006 (Exh 35), and December 2006 (Exh 36). And yet Equifax did
not report any Clarkston, GA addresses between August – December 2006.

On November 14, 2006, Target had responded to an Equifax ACDV by instructing

Equifax to modify/change my FL address to refect the 751 N Indian Creek Dr,
Apt 429, Clarkston, GA 30021 address that Target had on fle for the account (Exh
17). Instead of following Target's instructions, an Equifax employee had deleted
the Target account claiming that, “...Target responded that the account was a
fraud account and to delete it from Plaintif's fle. Equifax deleted the Citi and
Target accounts based on this information.... ” (Exh 14, pg 8, para 44–45).

Target had not selected “Delete Account” nor “Delete Fraud” on Equifax's ACDV;
Target had specifcally selected “Modify As Shown” on the ACDV. Therefore,
Equifax lied about Target's ACDV response on November 14, 2006 – lie #4.

COINCIDENCE #13: Department 915AA00828

According to my ACIS report (Exh 19) Department 915AA00828 EQUIFAX AUTO

MTNC UP had accessed my credit fle only three times in 22 months (July 2006 –
May 2008):

(1) 08/14/2006 – “Phone call” dispute received by Ms. Barreto

(2) 11/14/2006 – Lie (Target's ACDV response on November 14, 2006)
(3) 10/09/2007 – 2 Lies (address dispute and address suppression)

Therefore, two out of the three entries by Department 915AA00828 EQUIFAX

AUTO MTNC UP are fat out lies (lies #1, 2 and 4 in this letter). What are the
chances the 08/14/2006 entry by Ms. Aarica Therise Barreto is also a lie?

10
COINCIDENCE #14: Missing Phone Number

The fraudulent Clarkston, GA phone number of (404) 296-4431 was reported by

Experian, TransUnion and even Innovis (Exhs 30–32), but not Equifax (Exhs 16,
21–28 & 34–41).

COINCIDENCE #15: Mismatched Confrmation Numbers

Exhibits 37 and 38 contain mismatched confrmation numbers:

Exhibit 37 top of page 3: #6226017229 bottom of each page: #8043038912
Exhibit 38 top of page 3: #6226018041 bottom of each page: #8224013917

Prior to February 12, 2008, every credit report from Equifax displayed perfectly
matching top and bottom confrmation numbers (Exhs 16, 21–28, 34–36 & 40–41).
Equifax explained the mismatched confrmation numbers on Exhibits 37 and 38
by saying, "The reason diferent Equifax documents in this case have diferent
confrmation codes is because one confrmation code is assigned to the document
when it is originally created as part of a reinvestigation. If a consumer later
requests a duplicate copy of a particular document more than 40 days after the
original is created, it is re-printed, but with a diferent confrmation number. In
this case, Plaintif made several requests for duplicate copies of documents that
were previously created. In each instance, the duplicate copy printed with a new
confrmation number because the request was more than 40 days from the date
the document was originally created.” (Exh 20, pgs 2–3, para 9–12).

Therefore, according to Equifax, if a duplicate copy of a credit report is mailed

more than 40 days after the original creation date it will have mismatched top
and bottom confrmation numbers; let's see if it's true.

Confrmation #6226017229 was originally created on August 14, 2006 (Exh 19,
08/14/2006, #6226017229). A duplicate copy was mailed to me 547 days later
on February 12, 2008 (Exh 39). According to Equifax's “40-day rule” Exhibit 39
should have mismatched confrmation numbers because the duplicate copy was
mailed more than 40 days (547 days) after the original creation date of August 14,
2006. Exhibit 39 has a top #6226017229 and a bottom #6226017229; the
confrmation numbers match perfectly.

Confrmation #6317015115 was originally created on November 13, 2006 (Exh

19, 11/13/2006, DISPUTE). A duplicate copy was mailed to me 221 days later on
June 22, 2007 (Exh 40). According to Equifax's “40-day rule” Exhibit 40 should
have mismatched confrmation numbers because the duplicate copy was mailed
more than 40 days (221 days) after the original creation date of November 13,
2006. Exhibit 40 has a top #6317015115 and a bottom #6317015115; the
confrmation numbers match perfectly.

11
Confrmation #7019049459 was originally created on January 19, 2007 (Exh 19,
01/19/2007). A duplicate copy was mailed to me 409 days later on March 3,
2008 (Exh 41). According to Equifax's “40-day rule” Exhibit 41 should have
mismatched confrmation numbers because the duplicate copy was mailed more
than 40 days (409 days) after the original creation date of January 19, 2007.
Exhibit 41 has a top #7019049459 and a bottom #7019049459; the confrmation
numbers match perfectly. Therefore, Equifax's explanation for mismatched
confrmation numbers on credit reports (Exhs 37 & 38) related to the “phone call”
received by Ms. Aarica Therise Barreto on August 14, 2006 is a lie – lie #5.

COINCIDENCE #16: #6226017935, #6226018041, and Clarkston, GA

Equifax has never produced a copy of #6226017935 and #6226018041 with

matching confrmation numbers. #6226017935 pertains to the Target inquiry
and #6226018041 pertains to the Scana Energy inquiry (Exhibit 2, pg 28, RFAs
#141–142). Both inquiries pertain to credit applications containing the same
address, 1024 Noble Vines Drive, Apt 4, Clarkston, GA 30021 (Exhs 3 & 33).

Therefore, the two credit reports that Equifax has never produced with matching
confrmation numbers (#6226017935 and #6226018041) pertain to (1) the “phone
call” received by Ms. Aarica Therise Barreto, and (2) the identity thief's home
address of 1024 Noble Vines Drive, Apt 4, Clarkston, GA 30021.

On February 12, 2008, Equifax was able to produce a copy of #6226017229 with
matching confrmation numbers (Exh 39). If Equifax was able to produce a copy
of #6226017229 with perfectly matching confrmation numbers then they should
also be able to produce a copy of #6226017935 and #6226018041 with perfectly
matching confrmation numbers; all three credit reports had been generated on
the same day, August 14, 2006, by the same person, Ms. Aarica Therise
Barreto, based on the same “phone call.” And yet Equifax cannot – or will not –
produce a copy of #6226017935 and #6226018041 with matching confrmation
numbers.

Is it because #6226017935 and #6226018041 contain at least one deleted

address – 1024 Noble Vines Drive, Apt 4, Clarkston, GA 30021? Since no
addresses were disputed on August 14, 2006, no addresses should have been
deleted on August 14, 2006; therefore, if #6226017935 and #6226018041 contain
deleted Clarkston, GA addresses, Ms. Barreto would have some explaining to do.

COINCIDENCE #17: 17 Days Later...

Because I had begun to suspect that the three “lost” credit reports actually
contained deleted Clarkston, GA addresses, on June 22, 2007, I had called Equifax
and requested copies of #6226017229, #6226017935, and #6226018041 (Exh 2,
pg 39, RFA #199).

12
On July 9, 2007, Ms. Barreto had suddenly left Equifax (Exh 15, pgs 3–4, Interrog
No. 1). Therefore, just 17 days after I had requested proof that #6226017229,
#6226017935, and #6226018041 did not contain any deleted Clarkston, GA
addresses, the very person who had generated the three credit reports, Ms.
Aarica Therise Barreto, had suddenly left Equifax. Her sudden departure was
similar to an earlier sudden departure from Equifax.

In September 2006 a still-unknown female had gained employment at Equifax in

Atlanta, GA by using the stolen identity of a metro-Atlanta woman named “Tonia
Leach.” The identity thief/impostor had managed to work at Equifax for fve
months completely undetected. She suddenly disappeared in February 2007 (Exh
14, pg 2, para 6–7) and just like Ms. Barreto her whereabouts are also currently
unknown. Therefore, two questionable employees (Ms. Barreto and the identity
thief/impostor) had left Equifax within fve months of each other in 2007.

Apparently 2007 was an interesting year for Equifax. In February 2007 hundreds
of consumers had begun noticing fraudulent charges disguised as purchases for
e-books, music, etc. on their credit card and bank statements shortly after their
contact with Equifax – just google the words “Equifax e-books scam.” The
charges were so small ($1.99 – $10.99) that most consumers had actually
overlooked them the frst time.

Equifax had conducted an investigation (allegedly), but had found “no link”
between the fraudulent charges and the consumers' contact with Equifax. Equifax
had also conducted an investigation (allegedly) into my complaint and had also
found “no link” between my identity theft and Equifax. Do 17 irrefutable
“coincidences” and fve diferent lies count as a link?

Think of any lie you've ever told; you only lied when you were trying to hide
something. What is Equifax trying to hide with their fve lies? Each lie is linked
to Ms. Barreto, therefore, I am requesting an investigation into Ms. Aarica Therise
Barreto's possible involvement with my identity theft in 2006. Since Ms. Barreto
had access to over 200 million credit fles, she may have been involved with many
other identity thefts during her employment at Equifax.

Equifax's headquarters is located in Atlanta, GA; if they didn't know that they
actually had an identity thief working for them right under their nose in Atlanta,
GA for fve months, how could they possibly know who they have – or had –
working for them 9,000 miles away in the Philippines?

Sincerely,

/s/
Selena Brown
13