Product: Vehicle loan or lease

On XX/XX/year>, along with the request to address several issues, Mercedes Benz Financial Services ( MBFS ) received and accepted a registered Security and Instructions in the form of a Bill of Exchange meeting the requirements of a Negotiable Instrument by UCC 3-104, for the amount of {$44000.00}. Payment was tendered in accordance with UCC 3-603. The Code is clear under ( b ) that if the tender is refused, there is discharge to the extent of the amount of the tender or, as stipulated in UCC 3-309, I am entitled to enforce the lost, destroyed or stolen instrument. MBFS has provided written acknowledgment of my correspondence dated XX/XX/year>, XXXX [ XXXX ] XXXX XXXX  and XX/XX/year>, and states firmly that my attempt to make a payment does not cancel or satisfy any of the balance. 

Mercedes Benz Financial Services has egregiously violated the law by failing to credit the account, return the document with lawful reason for refusal or indicate where the document has gone. Furthermore, they have boldly stated that they have refused my tender. 

MBFS has also refused to address the {$22000.00} in illegal funds collected by demand of a down payment in violation of 15 U.S.C 1662 ( 2 ) In the above-dated letters, MBFS was requested to answer questions pertaining to the Holder in Due Course for which their Prospectus indicates in numerous paragraphs they do not have and are therefore lacking entitlement to enforce. Additionally, they were provided with a Certified UCC-11 showing that they lacked lien perfection XXXX Requests for validation were sent to their XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Mercedes Benz Auto Receivables Trust and Mercedes Benz Financial Services Assistant General Counsel via Administrator, along with several fax numbers, as required in their XXXX filings. Each letter extended ( XXXX ) days to respond, though I waited over ( XXXX ) between each attempt. In my letter they received XX/XX/year>, I imposed a {$1000.00} daily fine which began after the additional ( XXXX ) XXXX days were added to the ( XXXX ) already given. This too was dismissed. 

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and is abundantly pointed out within the Administrative Remedy Demand, are clear that a debt collector must, if requested, provide a verification of the alleged debt, i.e validate the debt. Per the FDCPA, the debt collector is mandated to cease all collection activity until verification is provided. Verification is defined in XXXX XXXX XXXX as : confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averment of statements of party. For a debt to be valid it must be verified. However, MBFS continues to withdraw auto payments from my financial institution for payments and refuses to answer my legally entitled demands. 

On XX/XX/year>, a brief response from MBFS was mailed which contained a poorly photocopied Retail Installment Agreement. I had included a copy of this in my first correspondence thus they were aware it was already in my possession. Most disturbing, the letter ( which was initialed, not signed, and contained only a first name ) is clearly not submitted by someone authorized and fails to meet the legal requirement of a Debt Validation of Authenticity by Affidavit. In fact, it shockingly states that they decline the demands I am legally entitled which were outlined in multiple correspondences. See attached. 

I would also like to note for the record, MBFS was called to question regarding allegations pertaining to a licensed securities investigator who has conducted a preliminary review utilizing the XXXX XXXX and whom is prepared to complete a full forensic audit and in-depth analysis of the securitization process, specifically focused on their securities offering according to the published Prospectus and chain of title analysis and assignment research, bond flow chart, secondary market XXXX and XXXX and the secondary markets those bonds are exchanged on, as it appears that MBFS is drawing down additional bonds against collateral through private placements, engaging in rehypothecation practices and double collateralization. 

No evidence was provided to assure MBFS is not committing securities fraud per speculation and in violation of SEC Rule 10b5 and144a. A detailed complaint is in the process of being filed with the SEC and IRS Tax Advocacy.