Consumer complaint received 2021-10-26 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Fraudulent loan
Company: Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
I am XXXX XXXX and Im submitting this complaint myself and there is no third party involved. Bridgecrest presented me with a fraudulent contract, they did not fully disclose all accurate and truthful information in the loan contract. 

The United States Supreme Court clearly states that : Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.-Brady vs United States , 397 I.S. 742, 748 ( 1970 ). Also XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX defines fraud as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another ( individual ), in reliance upon it, to part with some valuable things belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. 

Bridgecrest did not inform me of my right to rescind in the contract, they also failed to inform me the true nature of the loan and stated that they gave me a loan. There was also illegal conduct in regards to the loan, including but not limited to a down payment being paid which is against federal law pursuant to 15 USC 1605. Bridgecrest is unable to loan money and/or credit as determined by case Bowen v. Needles Nat . Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637. 

The contract with Bridgecrest is deemed void and fraudulent based on the information outlined above and the following cases outline this : Barnsdall Refining Corn v. Birnam Wood Oil Co.. 92 F 26 817., Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co. , 147 Wis 559. 572 ; 132 NW 1122., Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83, Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166. 

Bridgecrest   is not the holder not and the title ( even though they informed that it is their vehicle which it is not ). Bridgecrest is making false/fraudulent claims by stating they are the holder of the title/note. 

Bridgecrest has committed numerous violations of my consumer rights including but not limited to 15 USC 1605, 15 USC 1635, 15 USC 1692j ( a ), 15 USC 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ), 15 USC 1692e ( 7 ), 15 USC 1692e ( 8 ), 15 USC 1692e ( 10 ), 15 USC 1692f and many more which has outlined in an Affidavit of Truth that was sent to them and delivered XX/XX/XXXX, with a signed return receipt as proof of delivery. 

Bridgecrest has committed numerous crimes against me including but not limited to 18 USC 1341, 18 USC 3718, 18 USC 1028A and many more which has outlined in an Affidavit of Truth that was sent to them and delivered 10/15/21, with a signed return receipt as proof of delivery. 

Bridgecrest was also sent a Bill of Particulars, and Cease and Desist exercising my consumer rights pursuant to 15 USC 1692c ( c ) ( 2 ) along with the Affidavit of Truth. 

I demanded the Bridgecrest send me the following information : ( 1 ) Name and address of the original creditor who created the debt, ( 2 ) Nane on file of alleged debtor, ( 3 ) Alleged Account # ( 4 ) Address on file for alleged creditor, ( 5 ) Amount of alleged debt, ( 6 ) Daye this alleged debt became payable, ( 7 ) Date of original charge or delinquency, ( 8 ) Was this debt assigned to a debt collector or purchased?, ( 9 ) Amount paid of debt was purchased, ( 10 ) Commission for debt of collection efforts are successful, ( 11 ) Documentary evidence that this agency is in fact the holder in due course, & ( 12 ) Certified copy of the original negative information notice required by FCRA section 623 ( 7 ) ( A ). Bridgecrest gave a response that was not sufficient as they didnt provide the information requested above. 

Bridgecrest violated my Cease and Desist on XX/XX/XXXX by sending me a letter that did not sufficiently respond to my concerns, request and demands but also informed me that it was an attempt to collect a debt. 

I also informed Bridgecrest that a sufficient response to my Affidavit of Truth was affidavit response with rebuttal, point for point anything else would constitute as a non-reasonable response and that not only does my unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce but that I can/will file fault judgement in the favor of me, the consumer.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation