Selena Brown4355 Cobb Pkwy #J129Atlanta, GA 30339-3887(404) 723-8916maslow527@gmail.com

December 27, 2010

Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, 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 documentscome 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 calledEquifax 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) CONFIRMATIONNUMBER

DATE DISPUTECODE

Last Name 6223017080 08/11/2006 DISPUTE

Address 6223010947 08/11/2006 DISPUTE

12 Inquiries: Zales, Nordstrom, HSBC Retail Svc, Old Navy, Target, Capital One, JC Penney, HSBC Comp USA, Dillard's, Zales, Scana, and Wal-Mart

6226017935 62260172296226018041

08/14/2006 MTNCUPD

Request for Security Freeze 6262042315 09/19/2006 MTNCUPD

3 Accounts Citi, Dell & Target

6317015115 11/13/2006 DISPUTE

Citi 6334050212 11/30/2006 DISPUTE

Dell, Target, GEMB & Victoria's Secret

6334016391 11/30/2006 DISPUTE

Referral from Experian 6335057576 12/01/2006 DISPUTE

3 Inquiries HSBC, Wal-Mart & Cingular

6338024658 12/04/2006 DISPUTE

Referral from Experian Alert

6352034669 12/18/2006 DISPUTE

2 Inquiries & AddressAT&T and HSN

7019049459 01/19/2007 DISPUTE

Referral from Experian 5 Clarkston, GA addresses

7023017899 01/23/2007 DISPUTE

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) CONFIRMATIONNUMBER

DATE DISPUTECODE

Last Name 6223017080 08/11/2006 DISPUTE

Address 6223010947 08/11/2006 DISPUTE

12 Inquiries: Zales, Nordstrom, HSBC Retail Svc, Old Navy, Target, Capital One, JC Penney, HSBC Comp USA, Dillard's, Zales, Scana, and Wal-Mart

6226017935 62260172296226018041

08/14/2006 MTNCUPD

3 Accounts Citi, Dell & Target

6317015115 11/13/2006 DISPUTE

Citi 6334050212 11/30/2006 DISPUTE

Dell, Target, GEMB & Victoria's Secret

6334016391 11/30/2006 DISPUTE

Referral from Experian 6335057576 12/01/2006 DISPUTE

3 Inquiries HSBC, Wal-Mart & Cingular

6338024658 12/04/2006 DISPUTE

Referral from Experian Alert

6352034669 12/18/2006 DISPUTE

2 Inquiries & AddressAT&T and HSN

7019049459 01/19/2007 DISPUTE

Referral from Experian 5 Clarkston, GA addresses

7023017899 01/23/2007 DISPUTE

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 Dr, Apt 4 Clarkston, GA 30021

1024 Noble Vines Dr, Apt 4 Clarkston, GA 30021

1024 Noble Vines Dr, Apt 4 Clarkston, GA 30021

1024 Noble Vines Dr, (No Apt #) Clarkston, GA 30021

1024 Noble Vines Dr, (No Apt #) Clarkston, GA 30021

751 N Indian Creek Dr, Apt 429Clarkston, GA 30021

751 N Indian Creek Dr, Apt 429Clarkston, GA 30021

1024 Suite 4 Novile Vine Dr Clarkston, GA 30021

1040 Noble Vines DrClarkston, 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