Dealer Services Corporation reviews and complaints

This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of June 23, 2009 by and between the California Corporations Commissioner (“Commissioner”) on the one hand, and Dealer Services Corporation doing business as Discover DSC, (“Discover”) on the other hand, (hereinafter collectively “the Parties”).
RECITALS
This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts:
A. Discover is a corporation in good standing, duly formed and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware, and authorized to conduct business in California. Discover has its principal place of business located at 1320 City Center Drive, Suite 100, Carmel, IN 46032.
B. After Discover’s decision to submit an application to obtain a lenders license under the California Finance Lenders Law at Financial Code sections 22000 et seq. (“CFLL”), it came to the attention of the Commissioner that Discover has engaged in commercial lending in California prior to the issuance of a Finance Lenders License to Discover.
C. It is the intention and desire of the Parties to resolve this matter without the necessity of a hearing and/or other litigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, and the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to settle and resolve the matters between the Parties hereto, for judicial economy and expediency, and to avoid the expense of a hearing, and possible further court proceedings.
2. Dispute Regarding Lending Activity. The Commissioner contends that Discover’s lending activities to California borrowers were in violation of the licensing requirements of the CFLL. Discover contends that Discover and its officers, directors, shareholders and employees did not willfully or knowingly engage in business as a finance lender without a license in violation of the CFLL. Discover has not heretofore and is not now making any admission to any violation of the CFLL or any other wrongdoing. Discover intends by the settlement and compromise described herein merely to avoid further dispute with the Commissioner. The fact that Discover entered into this Agreement shall not be binding or admissible against Discover in any action(s) brought against Discover by third parties.
3. Settlement: Discover further agrees that it shall pay a settlement of sixty thousand dollars ($60, 000) to the California Department of Corporations (“Department”);
said payment to be made no later than five (5) business days from the execution of this Agreement.
4. Failure to Make Payment. Discover acknowledges that failure to pay under this Agreement shall be a breach of this Agreement. Failure by Discover to cure after ten (10) business days written notice to Discover from the Commissioner shall be cause for the Commissioner to summarily revoke any license(s) currently held by Discover, and/or deny any pending application(s) of Discover, its successors and assigns, by whatever names they might be known. Discover hereby waives any notice and hearing rights to contest such revocation(s) and/or denial(s) which may be afforded under the CFLL, the California Administrative Procedure Act, the California Code of Civil Procedure, or any other provision of law in connection therewith as same may pertain to this matter.
5. Effective Date. This Agreement shall not become effective until signed, and delivered by all parties.
6. Settlement Agreement Coverage. The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is intended to constitute a full, final and complete resolution of this matter and Discover is hereby released, as to the Department, from further liability in connection with the subject matter of this Agreement. Specifically, to the extent any complaint against Discover is brought to the Department for prior unlicensed lending activity, this settlement will be a bar to further proceedings by the Department. The parties further acknowledge and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement shall operate to limit the Commissioner's ability to assist any other agency, (county, state or federal) with any prosecution, administrative, civil or criminal, brought by any such agency against Discover based upon any of the activities alleged in this matter or otherwise. The Commissioner acknowledges that Discover is now in full compliance with CFLL licensing requirements, and Discover agrees to comply with the CFLL going forward.
7. Independent Legal Advice. Each of the Parties represents, warrants, and agrees that it has received independent legal advice from its attorneys with respect to the advisability of executing this Agreement.
8. No Other Representation. Each of the parties represents, warrants, and agrees that in executing this Agreement it has relied solely on the statements set forth herein and the advice of its own counsel. Each of the parties further represents, warrants, and agrees that in executing this Agreement it has placed no reliance on any statement, representation, or promise of any other party, or any other person or entity not expressly set forth herein, or upon the failure of any party or any other person or entity to make any statement, representation or disclosure of anything whatsoever. The parties have included this clause: (1) to preclude any claim that any party was in any way fraudulently induced to execute this Agreement; and (2) to preclude the introduction of parol evidence to vary, interpret, supplement, or contradict the terms of this Agreement.
9. Modifications and Qualified Integration. No amendment, change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid or binding to any extent unless it is in writing and signed by all of the parties affected by it.
10. Full Integration. This Agreement is the final written expression and the complete and exclusive statement of all the agreements, conditions, promises, representations, and covenants between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, negotiations, representations, understandings, and discussions between and among the parties, their respective representatives, and any other person or entity, with respect to the subject matter covered hereby.
11. No Presumption From Drafting. In that the parties have had the opportunity to draft, review and edit the language of this Agreement, no presumption for or against any party arising out of drafting all or any part of this Agreement will be applied in any action relating to, connected to, or involving this Agreement. Accordingly, the parties waive the benefit of California Civil Code section 1654 and any successor or amended statute, providing that in cases of uncertainty, language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist.
12. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counter-parts by the Parties, and when each Party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart to the other Party, each counterpart shall be deemed an original and taken together shall constitute one and the same Agreement.
13. Headings and Governing Law. The headings to the paragraphs of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and will not be deemed a part hereof or affect the construction or interpretation of the provisions hereof. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California.
14. Authority For Settlement. Each Party warrants and represents that such Party is fully entitled and duly authorized to enter into and deliver this Agreement. In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, each Party warrants and represents that it is fully entitled to enter into the covenants, and undertake the obligations set forth herein.
15. Public Record. Discover hereby acknowledges that this Agreement will be a matter of public record, and will be admissible and subject to disclosure in any court of competent jurisdiction should enforcement require appropriate judicial action or review.
16. Voluntary Agreement. The Parties each represent and acknowledge that he, she or it is executing this Agreement completely voluntarily and without any duress or undue influence of any kind from any source.

the motor vehicles is and was tortuous, malicious, outrageous, oppressive, fraudulent, made in bad faith…” Grissom concurs.

DSC’s SACC verifies that they have indeed committed unconscionable acts.

In a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, all allegations are considered factual. DSC’s SACC, Page 7, Paragraph 41 explicitly states:

“DSC’s conduct in selling and/or converting the motor vehicles is and was tortuous, malicious, outrageous, oppressive, fraudulent, made in bad faith…” Grissom concurs.

DSC’s SACC verifies that they have indeed committed unconscionable acts. Determining the intent of this “Contract” requires strict adherence to the Objective Theory of Contract, looking to objective, not subjective, criteria to determine the intent of the parties. See, e.g., Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. (N.D.Cal. 1988) 122 F.R.D. 567, 568-569, citing Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 981.

This Contract must be read without preconception and by the full integration of each word. It must also be read in conjunction with the Power of Attorney, which is explicitly incorporated as part of the Agreement.

It is also axiomatic that the court is bound to interpret as true all allegations contained in DSC’s SACC.

The terms of the Contract objectively state that DSC’s intent was to commit unlawful acts that were contrary to California statutory provisions and in violation of public policy.

Join Michael Grissom the man that stop DSC from unlicense lending in California

A Missouri Court in 2010 stated DSC's "contumacious" failure to comply with discovery and Rules of Civil Procedure in another case regarding DSC's unlawful taking of vehicles.

K&E Investments obtained a verdict for conversion along with punitive damages against DSC for stealing dozens of vehicles.

DSC's own local manger, Mike Carroll, objected to the repossession by DSC. However, DSC's representative stated that DSC had the superior lien holder, "I really don't give a f___ about K&E. We're going to do whatever the f___ we have to do."

One stated justification for DSC taking K&E's property and collateral was "it was easier to haul it off than it was to move in on the lot."

The phrase "loan shark" is applied to a lender that charges high rates of interest and designs their credit product to make paying off the debt difficult. A borrower is trapped by loans; unable to pay off the principal, late fees and other added costs. Borrowers become indentured slaves as the aim of a loan shark is to keep their customer in debt, a virtual annuity.

When doing business with DSC, you are swimming with the great white shark, and there is blood in the water.

Dealer Services Corporation lures used car dealers with the promise of a "credit line" of $100, 000 or more. However, there is no actual "line of credit", just separate loans for each car that the dealer purchases from places such as an auction. Each loan, sometimes referred to as advances, has additional "conditions" and "charges" such as:

* Fee of $65 to $125 or more for each loan/advance

* Requirement that all principal, interest and fees loan be paid off within 30 days,

* 48 hours to pay the loan balance in full if vehicle that collateralized loan is sold by dealer;

* A $65 to $125 weekly late charge if a loan is not paid off within 48 hours

* A "curtailment fee" of $65 to $125 for DSC to grant one 30 day extension

* "VIP Fees" for forced placed insurance

Payment is extracted using all means necessary, even though it is a federal offense to use extortion or threats to collect usurious interest of any other sort, including the practice of making consumer loans without a license in jurisdictions that require licenses.

Tom Roddy Normandin - Attorney Mocks Mental Disorder for Pay

Are Dealer Services Corporation tactics psychologically traumatizing? The false charges by DSC were likely devastating for many small used car dealers that were victimized by this unlicensed lender.

DSC’s scorched earth business plan involves the use of lawyers willing to defend wealthy corporations that habitually engage in criminal behavior. The occasional hand slaps received by DSC are chalked up to business costs and are as effective as warnings to a criminal sociopath.

Attorney Tom Normandin’s questions regarding psychosis were surely part of the guerrilla tactics favored by his employer Dealer Services Corporation. DSC corporate counsel John Wick came from Indiana to be part of this charade.

Hopefully the California Supreme Court will see through Tom Normandin and the criminal business practices of his clients (Fariba v. Dealer Services Corporation).

FROM A VICTIM OF DSC...

Open Letter to TOM RODDY NORMANDIN,

Over the years I have been a participant in owning my own business and being the proud husband of a professional wife, with two sons, both United States Marines. Tom, you may think that being a lawyer is fulfilling, however, your attempt to diminish my character in the forum of a deposition is not something you should be proud of.

If the day comes when I can flippantly use serious mental health terms and disorders toward someone in order to discredit them like you did, I will retire from society. When a typical day for me is setting up a camera on someone and using the disguise of reputable law to discredit them, I hope I know when to quit.

Tom, you have openly mocked me, called me names, however, when you attempt to bring shame to my family, this is where I take issue. I am proud to be a father of two Marines on active duty. Our family is held together with the love and respect we have for each other. We are not psychotic, nor do I beat my wife as you so easily tried to accuse me of.

Mental health disorders are a serious issue for some, and should not be brought up as a label even in a deposition. As a licensed attorney you are no more allowed to diagnose mental health disorders as you are to perform open heart surgery.

I expect your attacks, lies and fabrications of the truth when it comes to representing your clients. Personal attacks on me and my family reveal a quality about you and that is something you should not be proud of.

Remember that time in law school when you felt like you would make a difference in someone’s life with the justice they deserve? Now fast forward to today, where you have anointed yourself protector of corporate criminals and use your talents to redefine the law for a paycheck. Money, is that what your driving force is? At what cost to the people you destroy?

My family and I will continue to fight for justice. We want to make a difference, provide for our families, help our fellow man, protect our country, and provide care to the underserved in our community.

We will stand up to those who try to pull others down to their level as well as the individuals who have aligned themselves, and represents in court, any Goliath willing to retain you.

Judge Benjamin Cardozo said that “the final cause of law is the welfare of society”. Tom, you have failed as an attorney and your humanity is called into question.

We the people of the United States need open Internet for America.

Sent to the White House 12/11/2009 by Michael Grissom

Dealer Services Corporation conversion case headed to California Supreme Court.

Defendant and Appellant Dealer Services Corporation attorney Tom Roddy Normandin appeals ruling by the California Fourth Appellate District, Division One D053162. (Fariba v. Dealer Services Corporation filed 11/16/2009 Supreme Court Case S177988).

The Supreme Court is located in San Francisco, which allows DSC corporate counsel John Wick to explain his testimony of 100, 000 loans made in California without a Lenders License to the California Department of Corporations.

DSC has also filed two separate appeals with the Missouri Court of Appeals in 2009. (Case No.’s WD70094 and WD70750).

$3, 773, 042.56 Judgment against Dealer Services Corporation

The Court enters judgment for Plaintiff's and against Defendant Dealer Service Corporation Inc. for the total amount of $3, 773, 042.56 for which let execution go forth.

In Missouri Circuit Court, Kline Corporation received a judgment against notorious UCC bandits Dealer Services Corporation for $3.7 million.
DSC officers John E. Fuller and Eric S. Hurst depositions were ordered by the court after plaintiff originally filed for Mandatory Preliminary and Permanent Injunction against DSC.

Bond of $4, 031, 000.00 issued by Travelers is posted by DSC in their appeal.

Burbank Beat Reporting

Dealer Services Corporation – JOHN WICK “conned” and “tricked” dealer to get vehicles.

When California Auto Sales & Leasing (CASL) went out of business and wholesaler Behyar Fariba attempted to retrieve his vehicles, he discovered 14 of his vehicles were being repossessed by DSC.

Fariba spoke with John Wick, DSC's corporate counsel, who told him DSC "conned" and "tricked" Fariba in order to get the vehicles from him. DSC refused to return the vehicles and Fariba sued.

The court entered judgment in Fariba's favor, awarding possession of the vehicles and $32, 500 in damages. DSC appealed and lost. (Fariba v. Dealer Services Corporation (2009) Cal.App.4th D053162)

DEALER SERVICES CORPORATION – CONVERSION VERDICT UPHELD BY APPELLATE COURT (Fariba v. Dealer Services Corporation (2009) Cal.App.4th D053162)
Appellate Court rules DSC argument “absurd”. DSC asserts that as a matter of law it held a perfected security interest in the vehicles that had priority over Fariba's because it filed a UCC-1 financing statement and Fariba did not. This contention is unavailing. It would be absurd to hold a creditor responsible for imputed knowledge but not hold the same creditor responsible for actual knowledge.
There is no merit to DSC's contention that Fariba could only have priority if it had filed a UCC financing statement prior to DSC. “A consignor has priority over creditors' claims against a consignee if (1) the consignor has filed a UCC financing statement or (2) the creditors have knowledge a substantial amount of the consignee's business is in selling consigned goods”.
DSC had actual knowledge that CASL was substantially engaged in selling vehicles that belonged to others. "[I]f a creditor knows that goods in a debtor's place of business are on consignment, the creditor is not misled by the presence of the consigned goods and its lien should not extend to them." (Matter of High-Line Aviation, Inc, supra, 149 B.R. at p. 737.)
Moreover, based upon DSC manager Colli's inventory audits, a jury could infer DSC had actual knowledge not only of CASL's business model, but also its arrangement with Fariba.
According to Fariba, he also spoke with John Wick, DSC's corporate counsel, who told him DSC "conned" and "tricked" Fariba in order to get the vehicles from him.

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing – Ren’T-Own

A new bill in Congress will make car buyers criminals if they get behind in payments. The Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement Act lobbied by financial institutions wants to change loans and leases to Rent-to-Own contracts.

Dealer Services Corporation president, John Fuller, says his "Ren'T'Own" automobile financing “can separate a delinquent "renter" from his beloved car in a New York minute–no sticky consumer-protection laws to slow things down.

H.R. Bill 1744 introduced 3/26/2009 by Congressman William Lacy Clay (D-MO) claims the purpose is "to protect consumers against unfair rental-purchase practices". Clay also said in 2004 that there is "nothing wrong at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac".

What it actually does is sweep aside consumer credit protection laws, allowing lenders to call loans and leases "rent-to-own". It also supersedes state rights to regulate finance lenders, requiring all states to comply with this new Federal law.

All a lender needs to do is describe the loan as a rental-purchase agreement. No APR's required. No usury laws to abide by. No messy foreclosure or repossession laws to deal with. Just tell the buyer its $400 a month for this Buick, for only 120 months.

Dealer Services Corporation has filed an Indiana Sister-State Judgment against a California car dealer for $334, 221.

DSC has obtained judgments in an Indiana Superior Court against California business owners who obtained loans for flooring cars. The dealers entered into the contracts in California, which is also where they paid on the loans.

A default judgment against Citrus Heights, California defendant Discount Auto Sales, Inc. was entered for $334, 221 by Judge Gary L. Miller in Marion, Indiana Superior Court (Case # 49D05-0803-CC-010515) on 4/29/2008.

Fresno, CA attorney Mark A. Vogt filed the Application For Entry of Judgment On Sister-State Judgment at California Superior Court, Sacramento on 11/26/2008 (Case# 34-2008-[protected]-CU-PT-GDS).

Judgment of $334, 221.07 was entered in favor of DSC for breach of guaranty. No details or exhibits of the contract or how the amount was arrived were available.