Product: Vehicle loan or lease

Affiant transaction was financed by Westlake, and XXXX assigned the " XXXX '', which was afterwards referred to as Consumer Credit Contract, to " Westlake '' XXXX, who works as a sales representative for " XXXX, gave the affiant false and misleading information about the transaction after the affiant questioned the nature of the documents and charges involved, and failed to disclose the mandatory disclosures under " TILA on how much affiant would be spending on credit and receiving the Loan Approval Disclosure, which provides information about the specific loan 's rate, fees, and terms, as well as an estimate of how much affiant would repay over time. '' This gives the Affiant 30 days to accept the loan. The Loan Consummation Disclosure, which includes a notice concerning Affiant 's right to terminate the loan within three days, should have been sent to " Affiant ''. The lender can then disburse the monies.

In addition, " Westlake '' became " creditors '' under the FDCPA with respect to loans they created, acquired, or purchased, 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 4 ), and " Westlake '' became " debt collectors '' within the meaning of the FDCPA when Westlake '' contacted me. The documents contained inside the correspondences after requesting debt validation and getting correspondences from " Westlake '' according to debt validation were statements and the " XXXX, '' " which had been altered from the original document and featured a forged signature. 

Section 807 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, prohibits debt collectors from using any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Section 807 ( 5 ) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.

1692e ( 5 ), specifically prohibits threatening to take any action that can not legally be taken or is not intended to be taken which Westlake Actions shows they have violated the FDCPA Because the Act imposes strict liability, a consumer need not show intentional conduct by the debt collector to be entitled to damages. '' Russell v. Equifax A.R.S, 74 F. 3d 30, 33-34 ( 2nd Cir. 1996 ). 

Westlake dishonoredAffiant Cease and desist and debt validation which resulted in violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692g On XX/XX/XXXX, at " XXXX, XXXX, an employee of " XXXX, '' directed the " Affiant '' to make false statements to " Westlake, '' with the statements being " Tell the bank you have possession of the Car, '' as if it would benefit the Affiant. As cited, Untrue statements amount to constructive fraud. Thompson v. Houston, 135 P.2d 834 : 17 Wash 457. 

XXXX and Westlake were in possession, and improper use of XXXX XXXX 's private information on XX/XX/XXXX where there is a police report. 

Fact : It was a credit application created by an unknown source at XXXX XXXX EDT and printed at XXXX XXXX EDT that contained XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX private information and contained Source : XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX XXXX at the bottom of the credit application, and she wasn't present at " XXXX  '' to authorize anyone to have or use her private information because she wasn't present there to authorize anyone to have or use her private information And after they improperly used her private information, she became aware and contacted the " Affiant '', expressing her outrage and emotional distress over her personal information being used without her consent and knowledge. The " Affiant '' explained that " XXXX  '' unlawfully ran her consumer report, and then the " Affiant '' informed " XXXX '' that XXXX XXXX was aware of " XXXXXXXX XXXX  '' unlawful use of her private information. and a finance manager communicated with XXXX XXXX to clarify that I did not give them any of her personal information and to apologize for unlawfully using and possessing her private information. 

" Westlake '' failed to provide factual documentation to " Affiant '' in response to " Affiant 's '' request for debt validation by sending an altered document with a forged signature on the note and no signature at the bottom of the page, despite the fact that the original document had a signature line at the bottom. Validation requires presentment of the account and general ledger statement signed and dated by the party responsible for maintaining the account. See Pacific Concrete F.C.U. v. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P. 936 ( XXXX ), GE Capital Hawaii , Inc. v. Yonenaka 25 P. 3d 807, 96, Hawaii 32, ( Hawaii App XXXX ), Fooks v. Norwich Housing Authority 28 Conn. L. Rptr . 371, ( Conn. Super. XXXX ), Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates , Inc. 513 A. 2d 1218, 201 Conn. I ( XXXX ), and Solon V. Godbole, 163 III. App. 3d 845, 114 I11. Dec. 890, 516 N.E. 2d 1045 ( 3Dist. XXXX ). 

And after receiving a alter document " Affiant '' begin to question the nature of the transaction and along with who is the holder of the note and upon asking questions and filing a complaint " Affiant '' got a response from XXXX XXXX who is employed as Director of Compliance of Westlake that XXXX is the holder of the Original Note and as of today, XXXX nor Westlake have not provided such proof. 

Westlake failed to provide Affiant with factual documentary evidence concerning this alleged loan, we have fraud in the inducement which means Westlake are no longer the holder and as a result of the fraudulent nature of transaction all payments paid to Westlake are deem Extortion payments And since XXXX presented Affiant false misrepresentation and directing " Affiant '' to give false statements to help the deal be successful and XXXX receiving a unjust financial gain therefore all property and monies paid to XXXX are deemed Extortion payments Westlake nor XXXX is not the holder because the promissory note is forged, and a forged document has legal consequences. 

Westlake and XXXX undoubtedly intended to include economics similar to stealing my promissory note as part of the agreement. 

Furthermore Constructive fraud comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence which resulted in damage to another. Re XXXX 's XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Moreover, Fraud is defined as deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operating prejudicially on the rights of another, and so intended, by inducing him to part with property or surrender some legal right. Also, anything calculated to deceive another to his prejudice and accomplishing the purpose, whether it be an act, a word, silence, the suppression of the truth or other device contrary to the plain rules of common honesty. 23 Am J2d, Fraud, Section 2.

Fraud in the inducement occurs when a person tricks another person into signing an agreement to ones disadvantage by using fraudulent statements and representations. Because fraud negates the meeting of the minds required of a contract, the injured party can seek damages or terminate the contract. 

Under Texas law, a claim for fraudulent inducement must show that the defendant made a material misrepresentation, which one knew was false or without knowledge of its truth, and intended the inducement to cause reliance by the injured party. 

" XXXX  '' provided a false and deceptive form, referring to it as a " XXXX '' and then referring to it as a " CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT '' with a Statement - ( ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSET AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID THE THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER ) So, by naming it " XXXX '' rather than " CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT, '' " XXXX '' intentionally or unintentionally intended to conceal the true nature and title of the document. 

And as action shown by XXXX and Westlake seems to be deemed as Fraud in the inducement due to fraudulent statements and but not limited to material misrepresentation.

If all allegations remained uncontested. In whereas stated Uncontested allegations of fact in affidavit must be accepted as true Morris v. National Cash Register Co., 44 S.W.2d 433. Moreover Statements in affidavits that are not rebutted by the opposing party 's affidavit or pleadings may be accepted as true by the trial court. Winsett v. Donaldson ( Mich 1976 244 N.W.2d 355. 

Regarding a issue that occurred XX/XX/XXXX, Affiant attempted to resolve a matter within good faith with the used car department sales manager at XXXX to inform him of the severe problem thatAffiant am facing in regards to a notice that Affiant sent to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX which went ignored. Furthermore, Affiant notified the sales manager at around XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX that Affiant is aware of the fraudulent transaction and breach of agreement. During this transaction Affiant did not receive full, adequate disclosures of the mutual agreement which took place on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX.Affiant was never informed about my formal right to rescind the transaction, and while trying to explain my situation, the sales manager rudely spoke over me and advised that Affiant should call the corporate office further stating that its not the sales manager 's problem before hanging up. The sales manager failed to provide me with the necessary information to handle this situation appropriately so Affiantcalled back at XXXX XXXX  and spoke to a sales rep by the name of XXXX, in the new car sales department. Affiant then informed XXXX about the situation and expressed that I needed to speak to someone in charge. He said the managers were in a meeting and proceeded by transferring me to a customer relations specialist by the name of XXXX. Affiant attempted to inform XXXX of the situation and XXXX was incompetent. XXXX didnt fully grasp how Affiant was harmed by the agreement. She assumed that nothing was wrong with the agreement and Affiant further informed her about previous correspondence to XXXX. Affiant then explained how he received an altered document. And with XXXX Not helping resolve the issue it didnt do anything but cause emotional distress and an eruption in the Affiants livelihood after becoming aware that the Affiant has been a victim of a fraudulent transaction. 

After communicating with XXXX XXXX and informing him of the situation, the Affiant was contacted by XXXX XXXX, who works for " XXXX '' as a XXXX. After communicating with XXXX XXXX and informing him of the situation, he gave the impression that he was going to help the Affiant, but instead left the Affiant with more worry and unanswered questions that did not benefit or help the affiant in any way. 

The contract was a mutual agreement, and mutual agreements can not exist without full disclosure. As a result, there has been a breach of contract. There is no bona fide signature on the note, the note is forged, the note was stolen, and the value of the stolen property was returned as a loan, in breach of the contract. 

The collateral was not sold at a commercially reasonable price such as the car, was repossessed and sold at a private auction at less than a fair market value XXXX '' and Westlake '' are in violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Due to the parties acting collectively acted in bad faith in its interactions with me. 

The contract is an unfair and deceptive contract with the XXXX and Westlake, the contract was unfair and should not be enforced by the court. 

" Affiant '' encountered difficulties at work as a result of " Westlake '' calls disrupting " Affiant '' production and resulting in a loss of Affiant clients. As a result, the affiant lost a substantial amount of wages, clients, and property. 

Because the activities in this transaction involving the parties listed above, as well as the actions taken by " XXXX '' and " Westlake, '' constitute bank fraud because they include credits, securities, and assets, according to 18 U.S. Code 1344 - Bank fraud : Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice ( 1 ) to defraud a financial institution; or ( 2 ) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises ; shall be fined not more than {>= $1,000,000} or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. 

The rules for federal bank fraud sentencing and punishment are harsh. If found guilty of this felony in federal court, " XXXX '' and " Westlake '' could face a term of up to 30 years in federal prison and fines of up to XXXX XXXX dollars. Furthermore because it involves the nation 's financial institutions, bank fraud is a white-collar crime that is frequently prosecuted at the federal level.. 

Pursuant to 18 USC 891 to extend credit means to make or renew any loan, or to enter into any agreement, tacit or express, whereby the repayment or satisfaction of any debt or claim, whether acknowledged or disputed, valid or invalid, and however arising, may or will be deferred and to collect an extension of credit means to induce in any way any person to make repayment thereof which plaintiff actions can be possible allegations of 18 USC 894 That Affiant 's revocation of signature constitutes a recession of signature. Thus, the contract no longer exists.XXXX XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. 

In contract law, rescission is an equitable remedy which allows a contractual party to cancel the contract. Parties may rescind if they are the victims of a vitiating factor, such as misrepresentation, mistake, duress, or undue influence. And as shown XXXX and Westlake actions were a scheme to defraud me as show by them adding the down payment to the total sales price causing the price to increase instead of being credited to the price of the vehicle and with the misrepresentation of the transaction no reasonable person would be able to know the true price of the car based off the numbers imprinted on the contract and thru the false advertisement of a price that they did not intend to uphold in good faith. 

Affiant hereby revokes and makes void all signatures for cause pursuant to UCC 3-501. XXXX XXXX  of XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. 

Now Affiant is formally and timely removing the aforementioned signature ( s ) for all time and removing any nexus that Westlake may presume to have over Affiant by virtue of said signature ( s ).

Also failed to disclose to me the true cost of credit which
is causing damage to our National Economy. Every contract must h

ave six elements in order to be legally binding. If any one of the elements is missing, then there is no legally binding contract : 1. Offer by a person qualified to make the contract.

2. Acceptance by a party qualified to make and accept the contract.

3. Agreements, full disclosure, and complete understanding by both parties.

4.Consideration given.

5. Every contract must have the element of time to make it lawful.

6. All parties must be of lawful age I would have not entered into that agreement if I knew that the XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX actions were in direct violation of Federal Law surrounding Consumer Credit transactions. It is a well established principle of law that fraud has no statute of limitation, and that its presence vitiates any and every contract or agreement. I demand your bank cancel our agreement and return all property and monies of my labor plus all interest I have ever paid to you for the duration of the agreement. 

I thank you and advance for your cooperation. 

Further Affiant sayeth not