Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Samantha Delane Rajapakse, Petitioner v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, et al.

No:

ta tlfg

9 a

■

t/w

@fnjbreme <^omt oft/i/i ty/fiited 0tate6

SAMANTHA RAJAPAKSE- Petitioner

v.

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, etal- Respondents

t

‘ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

\ ;

U

, __ Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

t

l . 's

%

¥'

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Samantha Rajapakse

708 Marley Way

Chattanooga, TN 37412

PILED

OCT 0 2 2018

gri&RFh,1FFCTOURTLURSKJ

423-551-1854

\'

y

RlCElVlD

OCT 7-2019

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S,

1

Question Presented

Does the courts have jurisdiction to give auto lenders immunity from the

Consumer Protection Laws enacted by congress when evidence in the court

records presents inconsistent, inaccurate payment histories, Fraud on the

account, , establishing wrongful seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the

United States Constitution.

J

2

List of Parties

Brett A. Roberts, Executive Officer/ Board of Credit Acceptance

Arthur Smith, Chief Analytics

Charles Pierce, Chief Legal Officer

Douglas W. Busk, Treasurer

Daniel A. Ualtowski, Chief Sales Officer

Kenneth S. Booth, Chief Financial Officer

John S. Soave, Chief Information Officer

Steven M. Jones, Chief Operation Officer

Sandy Pollack, Manager of Regulatory

Board of Credit Acceptance

Glenda Flanagan, Vice President, Senior Advisor, Whole Foods

Scott J. Vassalluzzo, Managing Member of Prescott General Partners, LLC

Thomas N. Tryforos, Private Investor

All parties mentioned are represented by appearance of Counsel Stephen W.

King of King and Murray, LLC.

Related Cases

Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corporation 2:16-cv-13144

3

Table of Contents

Page

I.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

5

II.

Opinion Below

5

III.

Jurisdiction

5-6

IV. Authority

6-7

IV.

Constitution and Statutory

7

V.

Statement of Case

8-12

VI.

Reason for Grant

12

A. The Courts action of a Private repossession turned

The case into a federal action which violates

Rajapakse’s Fourth Amendment............................

12-13

B. Rights of Pro se Rajapakse to defend her Property

Rights in the courts................................................

13-14

C. Laws and Statues related to Auto Warranties

14-15

D. Furnisher furnishing information on Rajapakse’s

Credit report........................................................

15-16

E. Affidavit and Evidence Supporting Credit Acceptance

Deceptive history behavior.........................................

16-17

F. Moving Party Sought Summary Judgment Against

Credit Acceptance for violations............................

17-18

CONCLUSION

18

4

11

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Petitioner, Samantha Rajapakse, a consumer was denied the right to

enter and ordered to pay the filing fees to appeal. The Sixth Circuit based the

order on the district court Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation.

Rajapakse objected to the Report and Recommendation citing with supportive

evidence the Magistrate departed from the laws the Consumer Protection Act

as well as judicial misconduct, Rajapakse respectfully petitions this court for

a Writ of Certiorari to review the judgment of the Sixth Circuit and the

district Court.

Opinion Below

The Sixth Circuit has held the lower court decision Credit Acceptance

was immune from being sued in court for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act,

intentionally violated the Fair Credit Report and Truth in Lending Act. The

court discredited the laws and regulation, and the agency of the Consumer

Financial

Protection Bureau,

related regulations furnisher accurate

information on a consumer’s credit and the right for a consumer to bring suit.

The lower court allowed Credit Acceptance to wrongful seize/ wrongful

repossess Rajapakse’s vehicle with just the contract and two inconsistent

payment histories and credit report to support the debt owed not validated.

5

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C 1251 (a) and shall have

original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more

states. Petitioner, Samantha Rajapakse, consumer is located in the State of

Tennessee and the property was located in Tennessee. Credit Acceptance

Corporation and all parties are located in the State of Michigan. Tennessee

does not allow pro se access through the courts through electronic-filing.

Michigan allows pro se access filing for pro se to electronic filing.

AUTHORITY

Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67

Wadlington v. Credit Acceptance Corp.

Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S 991, 1004

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201

Middaugh v. City of Three Rivers, No. 15-1140

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818

Hensley v. Gassman, 693 F. .3d 681, 687

Streit v. Frieside Chrysler Plymonth, Inc., 697 F. .2d. 193

U.S. v. Maze, 414, U.S. 395 94 S. Ct. 646 38 L. Ed. .2d 603

Wilbank v. Sec. of Health and Human Services, 847 F. .2d 301, 303

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574, 587 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. .2d 538

Nixon v. Candon, 286 U.S. 73 52 S. Ct. 484 76 L. Ed 984

6

Pailko v. Connecticut,

302 U.S. 310, 325-326 [58 S. Ct. 149, 152, 82 L Ed. 288]

Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F. .2d 10-12

CONSTITIUTION AND STATUTORY PROVISION

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FOURTH AMENDMENT

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

STATUTORY

15 U.S.C§ 1601 Truth in Lending Act Z Regulation of auto loans

15 U.S.C §1601- §1692Fair Credit Reporting Act

15 U.S.C §1692i(a)(2) §1692k Fair Debt Collection Practice Act.

15 U.S.C §2300-§2301 Magnuson-Moss Act

18 U.S.C§ 1001

RULES

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

DOCTRINE

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity

Due Process Clause

7

STATEMENT OF CASE

Petitioner, Samantha Rajapakse (hereinafter as Rajapakse) purchased

a 2007 Chevy Trailblazer, January 7, 2014 from One Stop Auto Sales in

Memphis, Shelby County Tennessee. The vehicle had a sticker showing an

existing warranty. It was at the time of signing the warranty was a Vehicle

Service Agreement (VSA) assigned to First Automotive as the company. The

loan and warranty was assigned

with Credit Acceptance Corporation

(hereinafter as Credit Acceptance) in the amount of $17,334.34, with payments

starting February 7, 2014 for forty-eight months in the amount of $361.00 a

month. The warranty provided no additional paperwork provided by a third

party company, dealer or Credit Acceptance as it related to details of the

coverage. The dealer told Rajapakse the warranty covered bumper-to-bumper

coverage and warranty was valid at any dealership or repair shop in the United

States. Shortly after the sale of the Trailblazer, the check engine light came

on and Rajapakse took the vehicle to have it serviced at a local dealership and

was denied. She later took the vehicle to a repair shop and was denied as well.

Without any proof of coverage, she contacted the dealer and Credit acceptance

both informing Rajapakse the vehicle was covered by a warranty. Neither the

dealer nor Credit Acceptance could not provide additional proof of existing

coverage. Rajapakse paid out of pocket for the repairs and contacted Credit

Acceptance in October, 2014, in locating the warranty for the vehicle for

cancellation.

8

In October, 2014, after exhausting all means of contacting Credit

Acceptance in seeking proof of coverage of the vehicle’s warranty, Rajapakse

demanded the amount financed for the warranty be canceled for non-delivery

of service and the amount financed be adjusted amount and interest to reflect

the new balance on the loan. Credit Acceptance refused cancellation of the

warranty stating was coverage for the vehicle while not providing no

documentation or claim number to show. Credit Acceptance responded stating

the vehicle was covered but could not provide the name of the company nor any

related documents to support coverage, only a number. Credit Acceptance

informed Rajapakse in order to cancel the warranty to contact a toll free

number and request a cancellation of the policy. Rajapakse contacted the

number and was told to provide the company with a vin number to complete

the cancellation process. Rajapakse provided the information related to the

vehicle in processing the cancellation. Credit Acceptance never adjusted the

account and continue to keep the fraudulent warranty on the loan.

In June, 2016, after the dispute issue going into its third year of the auto

loan, prior to the expiration of the alleged warranty coverage, Credit

Acceptance agreed to cancel the warranty and adjust the refund “pro rated”

[Appendix

] of the remaining coverage in the amount of $150.00 and applied

it as a rebate. Rajapakse stated she was entitled to a full refund of the

warranty for non-delivery of the services nor the location of the warranty could

not be found. Credit Acceptance stated again the vehicle was covered by a

9

warranty and Rajapakse never filed a claim against the warranty so therefore,

she elected not to used the warranty. Credit Acceptance continue to send

letters within the ten-day grace period on default of the auto loan showing the

amount of the original loan as $17,334.34 for the vehicle. Rajapakse continue

to pay the $361.00 the full amount while disputing the account.

Rajapakse made her final payment to Credit Acceptance in January,

2017 which made the total payments made over $12,000.00. [Appendix

]

Credit Acceptance never sent any default letters on the loan and repeatedly

told informed Rajapakse the loan was being process to send her the title of the

vehicle. In January, 2017, while monitoring her credit, Rajapakse notice Credit

Acceptance had been reporting the original loan amount as $10,893.34 the

same date as the loan was consummated. Rajapakse disputed with the three

major credit bureaus and through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

(hereinafter as CFPB) with supportive documents from Credit Acceptance the

amount and the loan amount being reported. Experian, Transunion and

Equifax removed Credit Acceptance account off Rajapakse’s credit report.

Credit Acceptance continue to place the account back with all three credit

bureaus as the original loan as $10,893.34. Rajapakse disputed the loan

amount additional three more times with the credit bureaus and with CFPB

and the credit bureaus removed the account off Rajapakse’s credit. Transunion

and Experian removed it completely, but due to Equifax later being breached,

Credit Acceptance continue to furnish inaccurate information on Rajapakse’s

10

credit reporting the original loan amount as $10,892.34 and missing payments

from January, 2014 to September, 2014. August, 2017 Counsel for Credit

Acceptance Stephen W. King contacted Rajapakse when she relocated to

Kansas to resolve the dispute Credit Acceptance would removed the loan off

Rajapakse’s Credit and provide her with a title. Credit Acceptance never

provided the title. [ Appendix: N - Affidavit of Shaniece Harris]

Credit Acceptance position has been stated they are not liable for the

warranty because they do not service the warranty but can not provide any

documentation ( checks or payments) to a third party. In February, 2018 Credit

Acceptance repossessed Rajapakse vehicle and her personal effects inside. The

vehicle has not been located 2018 and in February, 2019, Counsel, Stephen W.

King partial had the the contents inside the vehicle delivered directly to

Rajapakse. Former Defendant, Robert Williams, [Appendix: E] Managing

Member of One Stop Auto Sales testified by affidavit Credit Acceptance is the

sole owner of the warranties sold to its customers and the warranties are

attached to pre-select vehicles approved only by Credit Acceptance

Rajapakse filed summary judgement against Credit Acceptance on the

original complaint and the amend complaint after Credit Acceptance Counsel

on the record, Stephen W. King admitted to the Magistrate Rajapakse’s credit

report was in fact in error along with supportive evidence in the record of the

court, facts, and law. The court denied

judgment.

11

Rajapakse motion for summary

Rajapakse filed timely motions in seeking redemption of the vehicle, but

the court deem that since the vehicle was already repossessed the only remedy

was to sue for damages, Fuentes v. Shevin, 407, U.S 67.

REASON FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI

Credit Acceptance has a long standing of deceptive practices in this

country. The New York Attorney General has filed state charges against

Credit Acceptance for issues from the warranty to miss applied payments. In

Wadlington v. Credit Acceptance the Sixth Circuit Court. Evidence, Fact, and

Law, the Sixth Circuit has upheld the District Court dismissal of Rajapakse’s

complaint citing moot and found no evidence to support her complaint, [see

Petitioner Emergency Stay related to judicial behavior and misconduct].

A. The courts action of a private repossession turned the case

into a federal action which violates Rajapakse 4th

Amendment:

This court held in Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004, raising issues

of the government violating the fourth Amendment in a private case,

two issues has to be risen. 1) a sufficient transformation of a private

repossession to a government to a state action and it 2) has to be

unreasonable. This court further held that whether the right at issue

was clearly establish at the time of the defendant allege misconduct,

12

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201. The Doctrine of qualified Immunity

Protects government officials “from liability for civil damages inso far

as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

constitutional rights which a reason person would have know,

Middaugh v. City of Three Rivers, No. 15-1140, Sixth Circuit, March

29,2017 (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818; Hensley v.

Gassman, 693 F. 3d. 681, 687.

B. Rights of Pro s Rajapakse to defend her property rights in

the court.

Despite the repeated ruling from the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court

of the United States, those representing themselves in court as pro se have a hurdle

that needs no more assistance from the courts. Rajapakse was given an

order to be appointed of counsel to represent her in the court

proceedings. As thousands of Pro se that would benefit from

appointment of counsel with less knowledge of court procedures, not to

mention lack of legal terminology,

Counsel for Credit Acceptance never acted as a “debt collector” for

the account. Prior to the lawsuit filed, Rajapakse had possession of the

vehicle until February, 2018. Since the case was filed prior to the

possession of the vehicle, Credit Acceptance violated the 1692i(a)(2),

Credit Acceptance should have filed a suit in state of Tennessee court

seeking possession of the vehicle to enforce their interest in real

13

property in the state of Tennessee since the vehicle was located in

Tennessee and the contract was consummated in Tennessee. Credit

Acceptance violated the Fair Debt Collection Act by using the suit in

court over the fraudulent warranty and misapplied payments to

wrongfully repossess Rajapakse’s property, §1692k

C. Laws and Statues related to Auto Warranties:

As today more people are financing vehicles auto lenders are held under

Z regulation to furnish accurate information on a consumer’s credit. More and

more are adding vehicle service agreements (VSA) to cover the expensive cost

of repairs on associated with their vehicles. Rajapakse did the same in

protecting her vehicle repairs and when it was revealed the coverage did not exist,

Credit Acceptance should have removed the cost of the warranty in full and

adjusted her account. Chapter 4718 U.S.C §1001(2) fraud is defined as making

any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.

Although Credit Acceptance testified they hold no liability to the warranty,

Affidavit of Robert Williams, Managing Member of One Stop Auto testified

marketing and operation of the warranty, including claims originated from

Credit Acceptance. Magnuson-Moss Act§ 2300-§2301 states breach of warranty

is when a consumer does not receive conditions of the warranty, terms and

exclusions, coverage, how file a claim and when the warranty is void nor the

location of how to contact the coverage. Credit Acceptance applied a “rebate”

or pro rate to the account for the non-delivery of the warranty, but under the

14

Truth in Lending Act rebates only applies to the financing of new vehicles.

Rajapakse’s vehicle was used. Credit Acceptance had an obligation to disclose

to Rajapakse who was obligated to provide service on the warranty, Streit v.

Fireside Chrysler Plymouth, Inc, 697 F .2d 193. The court erred by not

allowing Rajapakse the right to protect and defend her property.

D. Furnisher furnishing Information

on Raiapakse’s Credit

Report:

Consumers rely on creditors to report accurate information on their

credit to increase their credit score and reflect proper payments with the

company payment histories. Today credit reports are used for those seeking

employment with many companies and more with federal, county, and state

government. Inaccurate information being reported on a consumer’s credit

causes denial of credit, high interest rates, and denial of employment to good

paying jobs. When a consumer has a dispute with a creditor over inaccurate

information or payments, consumers are not helpless in disputing these

dipute.#16>6>6 ( c) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act furnisher are to be prompt

and fair crediting of payments. Credit Acceptance took three years to even

adjust the account related to the warranty. The responsibility of information

related to the account to the consumer reporting agencies was Credit

Acceptance, 1681s2. After Rajapakse disputed the lowest amount on the credit

and it continue to be placed back on her credit by Credit Acceptance, Credit

Acceptance validated the original loan amount of $10,893.34. The amount of

15

payment was over $12,000.00, entitlement to the vehicle was Rajapakse and

not Credit Acceptance. Credit Acceptance wrongfully repossessed Rajapakse’s

vehicle without entitlement and therefore it has become a wrongful

repossession. Creditors don’t return personal effects property of someone they

have repossessed a year later if there was any kind of wrongdoing.

Credit Acceptance altered their payment history in the record by

entering a payment history in to the record with an affidavit showing

Rajapakse defaulted on the loan by not making a payment from February, 2014

to September, 2018. The payment history that was previously provided to

Rajapakse by Credit Acceptance detailed payments were made within that

time line. Credit Acceptance swore on oath the missing payment history was

correct rather than the previous ones. By devising a scheme to defraud through

unlawfully obtaining possession, U.S. v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395 94 S Ct. 645 38 L.

Ed. .2d 603. The Sixth Circuit held in Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F. .2d 72 “

Negligent of non-compliance with “any” requirement of the FCRA gives rise to

liability for “any” actual damages and reasonable attorney fees. FCRA 168In

states in additional to liability for punitive damages.

Credit Acceptance

admitting the credit report was intentional, Rajapakse was entitled to punitive

damages for such violation.

E. Affidavits and Evidence Supporting Credit Acceptance

Deceptive History behavior:

16

Affidavits from consumers of Credit Acceptance were collected from

Facebook, U.S Morales, 687 F .3d 697 702-02 and provided substantial

evidence, Wilbanks v. Sec. of Health and Human Services, 847 F .2d 301, 303.

This court held that facial plausibility when the Plaintiff Pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S 129, S. Ct. 1955, 167

L . Ed . 2d 929. The court ruling was bias because it made creditable Credit

Acceptance payment history submitted into the court with an affidavit, but

discredit previous payment history and credit report of Credit Acceptance.

Affidavits submitted by Rajapakse supported the inaccurate payment history,

the deceptive behavior and injuries caused by Credit Acceptance. Substantial

evidence supported a reason conclusion, Richardson v. Perales, 402, 387, 401,

91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. .2d 842.

F. Moving Party sought Summary Judgement against Credit

Acceptance for violations:

Summary judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P 56 c in considering

a motion for summary judgment, the district court must construe the evidence

and draw all reasonable inference in favor of the non-moving party, Matsushita

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89

L Ed. 2d 538. Rajapakse had a federal right to sue to invasion and to used the

court for any available remedy to make good the wrong done, Nixon v. Condon,

17

286, U.S. 73 52 S Ct. 484 76 L. Ed 984. Evidence the warranty was fraudulent

supported the facts and laws, the intentional denied Rajapakse the right to

summary judgment at a matter of law, was the government depriving

Rajapakse of life, liberty and of property survives due process scrutiny, it must

still implemented in a fair manner, Pailko v. Connecticut, 302, U.S. 319, 325326 [58 S Ct. 149, 152, 82 L. Ed 288]. Rajapakse stated a claim in court under

1983 against the courts under the United States Constitution of the Due

Process Clause which is still protected, Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken,, 829

F. .2d 10,12.

CONCLUSION

A Writ of Certiorari is essential to protect Plaintiffs right as pro se to seeking

relief which the laws of this Court and the state does not support the judgment

of the Sixth Circuit. Without interim relief, Petition for certiorari and correct

the Six Circuit extraordinary decision to uphold a law identical to one this

court has already upheld and protect for representing themselves and

consumer laws in this court. This Court must allow Writ of Certiorari to ensure

Public Trust that those who come before the court Pro Se without counsel to

ensure the protect of the Fourth Amendment and 14th Amendment Rights will

be protect and well guarded.

18

Date September 30, 2019

l

Samantha Rajapakse

Pro Se/ Petitioner

708 Marley Way

Chattanooga, TN 37412

423-551-1854

Samantharaj apakse@ymail.com

19

CL

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A: Order from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Appendix B: Summary of Docket for Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Appendix C: Order from Eastern District Court of Michigan

Appendix D: Summary of Docket for Eastern District Court of Michigan

Appendix E: Affidavit from Former Defendant Robert Williams of One

Stop Auto Sales testimony to Warranty attach with Credit

Acceptance

Appendix F: Affidavit of Christopher Arthur testimony

to Credit Acceptance deceptive practice.

Appendix G: Affidavit of Synthia Johnson testimony to Credit Acceptance

Deceptive practice.

Appendix H: Affidavit of Kip Fitzgerald testimony to Credit Acceptance

Deceptive practice.

Appendix I: Affidavit of Amanda Stinson testimony to Credit Acceptance

Deceptive practice.

Appendix J: Affidavit of Marcus Mays testimony to Credit Acceptance

Deceptive practice.

Appendix K: Samantha Rajapakse credit report showing original balance

Of creditor, Credit Acceptance of auto loan

Appendix L: Letters from Credit Acceptance showing original balance

Of auto loan

_Appendix M: Letter from Council Edmund Ford,, Jr audit of

Account from Credit Acceptance

34

Appendix N: Affidavit of Shaniece Harris related to hearsay

Conversation between Counsel King of

Credit Acceptance and Rajapakse

Misc

The Federal Judicial Center

Judges who were Impeached

The Federal Judicial Center

Judicial Conduct and Disability Act

35