Consumer complaint received 2025-09-26 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with fees charged
Company: Global Lending Services LLC
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
I act as Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX XXXX under a valid Limited Power of Attorney. Under Maryland XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am legally required to act with care, competence, diligence, loyalty, and in the best interests of my principal. 
This correspondence serves as formal notice that I have filed complaints with regulatory authorities, specifically the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ( CFTC ), and the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division. 
The filings concern systemic fraud by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX directly partnered with FICO under the XXXX Analytic Products and Services Master Contract, while XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX directly participated in the formation of XXXX XXXX, XXXX in XXXX. XXXX third purported owner, XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, never lawfully existed due to fatal defects in XXXX corporate lineage, rendering its claimed 33 % ownership void and fatally undermining the legality of XXXX formation. 
Supporting evidence consists entirely of public records, including Georgia XXXX of XXXX filings, FTC findings, federal statutes, and contracts. All exhibits have been XXXX  hashed and anchored to the XXXX XXXX, with verification recorded in the Exhibit Verification Index. The full legal analysis is contained in The Illegality of XXXX and XXXX, which documents the unlawful corporate lineage of XXXX  XXXX XXXX, the void formation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the illegal contracts underlying both XXXX and XXXX. The record is also preserved on the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) with timestamped XXXX certificates. Thus, the evidentiary record is permanent, immutable, and legally incapable of alteration or rebuttal by any party, including your institution. 
Georgia law ( O.C.G.A. 13-8-1 ) and Delaware law ( 6 Del. C. 2706 ) both void agreements contrary to law or founded on illegality. The Supreme Court has confirmed that courts will not enforce contracts founded on illegality ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ), and that no contract exists where the parties have not mutually assented to the same essential terms ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ). Likewise, both Georgia law ( O.C.G.A. 51-6-2 ) and Delaware law ( 6 Del. C. 2706 ) prohibit contracts induced by fraudulent misrepresentation.

In addition, under U.C.C. 9-203 ( b ), no security interest can attach without a valid underlying agreement. Under U.C.C. 3-303 ( b ), an instrument issued without value is unenforceable, and under U.C.C. 3-305 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ), enforcement of a negotiable instrument is barred where real defenses such as fraud in factum and illegality apply. Therefore, both the promissory note and the security interest allegedly securing it are void and unenforceable. 
Furthermore, any attempt by Global Lending Services LLC or its successors to claim status as a " holder in due course '' fails under U.C.C. 3-302. A holder in due course must take the instrument ( 1 ) for value, ( 2 ) in good faith, and ( 3 ) without notice of claims or defenses. Creditors of secured loans typically securitize receivables immediately, transferring them into trusts or selling them to investors. Servicers then enforce the accounts under pooling and servicing agreements. These transactions are not bona fide purchases for value but assignments within a securitization chain. By receipt of this Notice, both the originating creditor and all downstream assignees now have actual knowledge of fraud, illegality, and voidness. Even absent knowledge, the real defenses under U.C.C. 3-305 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) defeat any alleged holder in due course status. Thus, no lender, servicer, trust, or investor may lawfully enforce or claim HIDC protection regarding the alleged secured loan.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation