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

Uf/jmme

SAMANTHA RAJAPAKSE- Petitl^rfef^f

v.

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, etal- Respondents

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

No. 19-1192

FILED

JUN 2 2 2021

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT. U.S.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Samantha Rajapakse

Plaintiff/ Pro se

3221 Westonia Drive

Chattanooga, TN 37412

Samantha.rajapakse@outlook.com

423-551-1854

1

Question Presented

Does the Sixth Circuit have the authority and jurisdiction to astray from the

Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to affirm the District Court judgment

granting immunity to Credit Acceptance Corporation, a subprime auto lender

from the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Billing Act, and the Magnuson- Moss

Act enacted by Congress and enhanced by the Comphensive Consumer Credit

Reporting Act of 2016?

2

Question Presented

Does the Sixth Circuit have the authority and jurisdiction to astray from the

Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to affirm the District Court judgment

granting immunity to Credit Acceptance Corporation, a subprime auto lender

from the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Billing Act, and the Magnuson- Moss

Act enacted by Congress and enhanced by the Comphensive Consumer Credit

Reporting Act of 2016?

2

Table of Contents

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Page

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

5

I.

Opinion Below

5

II.

Jurisdiction

5-7

in.

Authority

8-9

IV.

Constitutional and Statutory

11-12

V.

Statement of Case

13

VI.

Reason for Grant

18

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.......................................................

C.

Sixth Circuit opinion opens the door for

Discrimination to Minorities and violation of

the Fourth Amendment,............................................

i

19

20

D. The Sixth Circuit opinion ruled on an issue never

address in the District Court or Appellate Court in

affirming its decision.................................................................

20

E. Sixth Circuit enforced a Vehicle Service Warranties are Qusai

Contracts which cannot be enforced.

24-24

3

E. Sixth Circuit affirming the Distict Court of a private

repossession turned the case into a federal action

which violates Rajapakse 4th Amendment:

F. Sixth Circuit affirm the lower court discrediting § 1681

on

regulating Furnishes reporting information

Raiapakse’s Credit Report:

G. Sixth Circuit affirm the lower court

discrediting § 1681 regulating Furnishes reporting

information on Rsyapakse’s Credit Report:...........

H. Previous Opinions from the Appellate Courts

Affidavits and Evidence not supporting Credit

Acceptance Deceptive History behavior................

■28

28-29

I. The Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner right

to Summary Judgement against Credit Acceptance

for violations as a matter of law..................................... 29

29

CONCLUSION

Appendix A: Order from Sixth Circuit Court 2021

Appendix B: Order from the Sixth Circuit March 2019

Appendix C: District Court of Eastern Michigan

Appendix D: Petitioner’s Equifax Credit Report

Appendix E: Affidavit from Robert Williams, One Stop Auto Sales

Appendix F: Affidavits from Credit Acceptance Consumers of their account

4

Appendix G: Default letter from Credit Acceptance showing the

Original loan balance

n

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

The Sixth Circuit has affirmed the District Court of Eastern

Michigan grant Credit Acceptance Corporation, a private corporation, from

liability to Plaintiff for violation of the 15 U.S.C §1681 of the Fair Credit

Reporting Act. This case is a First Impression whether the court can declare

immunity to a creditor other than the government of United States of America

for a consumer seeking relief.

Opinion Below

The Sixth Circuit 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

5

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

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

The Sixth Circuit also affirmed Petitioner’s petition for failure to state a claim.

JURISDICTION

Case from Federal Court.

The Opinion of the United States Court of Appeal at Appendix A to

the pentition is unpublished.

The Opinion of the United States District Court at Appendix B to the

Petition unpublished.

March 05, 2021, case from the Court of Appeal was decided. Petition

March 19th, 2021, of the deadline

filed a timely Petition before

Overnight by United States Postal Service to the court but due to the

Covid-19 it was filed Marchl4,2021. March 29, 2021, Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit denied an En banc hearing as untimely.

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.§ 1251 (1) for

Writ of Certiorari to be Granted.

Petitioner’s petitioning seeking review of Certiroary under Rule 10 (a)

the Sixth Circuit of Appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the

decision of all United States Court of Appeals on the sam important

6

i

!

matter; has a decided an omporatant federal question in a way that

conflicts with the decision of the United States Supreme Court of last

resort and has departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial

proceedings, has sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call

for an excerise of this Court’s supervisory power.

Petitioner’s Petition on review of Certiorari is filed within the last

decision before the Sixth Ciruit Rule 13 within the ninety days.

7

AUTHORITY

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

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 117 S.Ct. 1793

Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F.Ed Appx. 608,618 (6th Cir.)

C.F Rowlett v. Auheuser-Busch, 832 F.2d 194 206

First National Bank of Arizona, v. Cities Serv. Co.

391 U.S. 253 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed 2d 569 (1968)

Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67

i

Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437,439 (9th Cir.

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

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

Liberty Lobby v. Anderson,

477 U.S. 242 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed 2d 202

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

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

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

Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F. .2d 10Nixon v. Candon, 286 U.S. 73 52 S. Ct. 484 76 L. Ed 984

Pailko v. Connecticut,

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

Soldal v. Cook County,

506 U.S. 56 62-63 113 S.Ct. 538 121 L.Ed. 2d 450 (1992)

8

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

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

U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 101 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed 2d 110 (1983)

Wadlington v. Credit Acceptance Corp. 76 F.3d 103

No. 94-2143

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

Related Cases

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

Rajapakse v. Equifax Information Services No. l:2020-cv-00080 TWT

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Bill of Rights Article III Sec. 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under

this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which

shall be made, under their authority;—to all cases affecting ambassadors,

other public ministers and consuls;—to all cases of admiralty and maritime

jurisdiction;—to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;—

to controversies between two or more states;— between a state and citizens of

another State,—between citizens of different States,—between citizens of the

9

same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a

state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

U.S. Consitution IV Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment involving

government intusion in a private transaction between the parties and the

right of entitlement.

he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no

Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Consitution IVX Fourteenth Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United State and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein

they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state

deprive any peson of life, liberty, or property, without due proces of the law,

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equial protection of the laws.

Other

STATUTORY

10

I

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

11

Introduction

A consumer s credit report has become a vital part of life which affects a

person’s employment, credit worthness, and even obtaining insurance.

Congress has enacted more forceful laws to protect credit reporting to empower

but provide relief when regulation for non-compliance not just for the credit

reporting agencies, but for the furnishers providing information to a

consumer’s lending.

Rod Griffin, Director of Consumer and Advocacy for

Experian gave an interview with CNBC said Americans are obsessed with

working on having a perfrect credit score. Griffin stated:

“There’s a lot tied up in a credit score. Sure, in theory it simply tells

companies how “creditworthy” a particular individual is — how

likely they are to pay their bills on time. And a good score, on the

higher end of a range typically between 300 and 850, can lead to

lower interest rates on loans and better credit card offerings. But for

consumers, it’s not always purely a financial tool: There’s an

emotional component to it, too, that can drive people to extreme

lengths to improve their scores.”

Even a small inaccuarate could affect a consumer’s credit score from fifteen to

twenty points causing denial of auto, housing, and even a higher interest rate

on purchases.

It is for this reason, when credit reporting agency and

furnishers fail to comply with the regulations set up by congress the judicial

system is designed to make a consumer whole and promote trust in the

consumer laws and with the courts.

12

Statement of the Case

Petitioner, Samantha D.Rajapakse in January 2014 purchased a 2004

Chevy Trailblazer from One Stop Auto Sales in Memphis, Shelby County,

Tennessee. The dealer stated there was an existing warranty on the vehicle

that covers bumper-to-bumper coverage and all Rajapakse had to do was go to

any dealership or repair shop after the deductable of $100.00 can have the

vehicle repaired. The amount of the warranty was included $1,300.00 without

the knowledge of Rajapakse and the retail price of $9,800.00. Payments were

$361.00 starting February 2014 for forty-eight months. No documentation

was provided prior to or after to verify the warranty associated with the

vehicle.

Months after purchasing the vehicle the check engine indication

came on the vechile and Rajapakse attempted take it to various repair shops

and dealerships to have the vehicle repaired and was denied. After serveral

contacts in an attempt from the One Stop Auto and Credit Acceptance to

provide proof of

service coverage Rajapakse demanded a refund of the

warranty on the vehicle and adjust the lending amount of the balance.

The

dispute in locating the warranty extended for two (2) years with Credit

Acceptance. June 2016 Credit Acceptance had no indication of where the

warranty could used but stated because they had told Rajapakse the warranty

existed she was not entitled to a full refund but instead a rebate or pro rate

for the remaining time left on the warranty. Rajapakse disagreeded and filed

a complaint in district court of Eastern Michigan.

13

Judiciary Proceedings

History of the District Court First Proceedings:

Petitioner pro se first proceedings were filed in June 2016, in the District

Court of Eastern Michigan against Credit Acceptance Corporation. Credit

Acceptance filed a motion to compel arbitration. District Court granted Credit

Acceptance motion to arbitration and dismissed Petitioner’s complaint without

Prejudice. Credit Acceptanced rescinded their right to arbitration and

Rajapakse filed a notice with the court informing of the creditor’s actions.

District Court denied Plaintiffs motion and denied her motion and notice.

Credit Acceptance never arbitrated the dispute. [Appendix BJ.

History of the District Court Second Proceedings:

Petitioner’s, Pro se filed her second case in September 2017 against Credit

Acceptance, it Board Members and management after was discovery during

the dismissal of Petitioner’s first case and the filing of her second case Credit

Acceptance was reporting a lower balance $10,334.34 to all three of the credit

reporting agencies and sending Rajapakse a higher balance $17,334.34 (both)

as the original loan balance for the same auto loan. Experian and Tran Union

removed and supressed Credit Acceptance from reporting after sufficient

documentation was provided,

but Equifax continued to allow Credit

14

i

Acceptance to report inaccurate payments and failed to post payments. In

January 2017 Credit Acceptance affirmed the debt as $10,334.34 and

Rajapakse had already paid $12,334.34 so Rajapakse cease making payments

to Credit Acceptance and Credit Acceptance cease any collection of debt

against Rajapakse. Rajapakse continue her suit against Credit Acceptance

for inaccurate information prior to Rajapakse’s last payment showing missed

some payments the balance of the warranty coverage $5,469.34 and not the

loan for the vehicle on Rajapakse’s Equifax Credit Report. In February 2018

one year after Rajapakse made her last payment Credit Acceptance

Corporation sent Rajapakse a default balance $5,649.34 for the warranty and

one (1) day later repossessed the vehicle. Petitioner immediately filed several

injunctive motions to the district court to have the vehicle returned due to

inaccuraties payment histories from the three payment histories obtained by

Credit Acceptance; district court denied her motions. A preliminary hearing

was held in which both parties were instructed by the Magistrate to present

evidence i.e., proof of payments for the ruling merits on the entitlement of the

vehicle. Petitioner presented Credit Acceptance two inconsistent payment

histories showing every payment made from February 2014 to January 2017

alone with proof of payment and the second one that did not show any credits

on the accout related to the warranty. Credit Acceptance provided a third

payment history and an affidavit from an Agent of Credit Acceptance stating

Rajapakse missed payments from February 2014 to October 2014 and the first

payment started in November 2014. Credit Acceptance told the District Court

15

Rajapakse drove the vehicle for six months without payment. The district

court ordered Credit Acceptance not to remove the vehicle until the court was

allowed to review the evidence; the order was oral and not stated into the

order. Credit Acceptance refused to provide Rajapakse location of the vehicle

within the 10 days so that she may allowed retain the vehicle with payment

i

or retain her personal items that were left in the vehicle at the time of the

repossession. Petitoner requested through the court seeking her personal

items which the court never addressed or order Credit Acceptance to provide

such location. Credit Acceptance relocated the vehicle to an undisclose auction

location for a schedule date of sale. The District Court Magistrate report and

recommendation stated since Credit Acceptance already had the vehicle, they

had entitlement and if Rajapakse should file for summary judgment and seek

damanges if there were any.

Petitioner filed twice and was denied by the

district court. Credit Acceptance later sold at an undisclosed date. A year

later, Credit Acceptance had the repo driver return parital personal items in

Rajapakse’s vehicle. Petitioner provided affidavits entered into the record of

the court from other Credit Acceptance Consumers with similar issues related

to their account i.e., miss applied payments, warranty coverage, hidden fees,

and wrongful repossessions. Credit Acceptance did not provide any additional

evidence to rebuttal.

Petitioner amended her complaint to include One Stop Auto Sales and Robert

Williams, owner for misrepresenting warranty coverage of the vehicle sold to

16

Rajapakse. Defendant Williams provided to the court via his attorney an

affidavit detailing Credit Acceptance marketing the warranty and gap

insurance as a condition in obtaining an auto loan approval,

how Credit

Acceptance not only market the warranties i.e., but acting as a creditor and

debt collector on the vehicle service agreement and gap insurance by handling

consumer’s claims, arbitrating disputes, and provided incentives to authorized

dealers who sold the services warranties to its customers as a condition of loan

approval.

Pre-damaged vehicles were selected by Credit Acceptance for

consumer financing without disclosing to the consumer the damages of the

financed vehicles. The district court opinion was Rajapakse made the

statement related to the warranty not Williams and Credit Acceptance had

immunity because there were no laws against auto lenders for consumers to

bringing suit against.

Opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court:

Petitioner returned to the Sixth Circuit as a Right to Appeal which the court

affirmed the District Court ruling stating Rajapakse failed to state a claim in

which relief could be sought.

Petitioner petitioned to en banc due on March 19,2021 which was filed to arrive

to the court under Rule 29 of the Court of Appeal but was denied due to the

17

court received it overnight via the United States Postal Service it but filing

the petiton untimely.

REASON FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI

A. Credit Acceptance was granted the same soveriegn Immunity as

the United States Government:

March 26,2021 the Sixth Circuit Appeallate Court upheld the District

Court of Eastern Michigan judgment that a private creditor, Credit Accptance

Corporation was granted immunity a creditor violates the 15 U.S.C§ 1681 of

the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Fair Billing Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Act

15 U.S.C §2300, §2301 The Sixth Circuit affirming the district court ruling

will have a major impact on consumer’s credit setting an auto loan contract

itself if enforceable even when the account is in error and set a presidence as

the only court in the United States who can authorize and grant immunity

when a creditor or furnisher non-compliance of laws enacted by Congress.

The affirmation of the Sixth Circuit allows other courts to decide who is

entitled as a consumer to protected by the laws enacted by Congress and who

is not. If the courts have personal issues with a person race, sexuality, or just

being pro se it will be up to their descretion to deny a consumer right of

protection by the court by granting immunity to creditor’s negligence and

intentional wrongdoing. The trust in consumer’s having the empowerment of

18

1

Congress enacted laws would be worthless because all other courts would be

obligated to enforce except this Circuit and the lower court jurisdiction.

B. 15 U.S.C§ 1681 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the

Comprehenive Consumer Credit Reporting Act 2016 established

by Congress Protects Consumer’s credit Accuracy and regulate

furnishers.

Two years prior to Petitioner filing her second complaint Congress enactd

the Comprehenive Consumer Credit Reporting Act of 2016 to empowe

consumers how to handle credit disputes under Sec. 106 requiring

Furnishers of credit information to maintain maximum accuratcy records

necessary to verify accurate disputes. Credit Acceptance had three (3)

payment histories entered into the record of the court which leaves not

dispute information was not accurate. District court began to explain the

accounting process that not even Credit Acceptance could explain.

Concluding the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court to not enforced the

laws enacted by Congress instead dissect a creditor’s accounting even when

the creditor cannot do it themselves. The same Sixth Circuit who affirmed

the lower court judgment is the same court who opininon held in Watkins

v. Simmons & Clark, 618 F.2d 398, 399 the purpose of statutory recovery

is to “encourage lawsuits by individuals’ consumers as a means of enforcing

creditors compliance with the act.”

19

C. Sixth Circuit opinion opens the door for Discrimination to

Minorities and violation of the Fourth Amendment:

In review of Petitioner’s writ is a constitutional question whether a

constitional violation occurred where the vehicle seized was objectively

unreasonable. Three inconsistent payment histories on one original

loan are unreasonable and a constitutional violation, U.S. v. Place, 462

U.S. 696, 701 103 S. Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed 2d 110. The Sixth Circuit

opinion leaves the door for creditors

inaccurate

accounts to have

property taken from when there is not entitlement. This entitlement by

the courts can affect a person with a good credit score to experience a

decrease in credit even when the consumer can show an accurate

payment record a conflict in a previous opinion by the court prohibiting

of unreasonable seizure to entend to property regardless of whether the

processor or has private interest in upholding the Fourth Amendment,

Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 62-63 113 S.Ct. 538 121 L.Ed 2d

450. An intentional discrimination in deliberate or reckless disregard

to a Plaintiffs rights like Rajapakse’s civil rights to punitive damages,

C.F. Rowlett v. Auheuser-Busch, Inc., 832 F.2d 194, 206

D. The Sixth Circuit opinion ruled on an issue never address in

the District Court or Appellate Court in affirming its decision.

20

District Court nor the Credit Acceptance never argued Plaintiff failed to

state a claim. Infact, Credit Acceptance again asked for motion to compel

to arbitrate which is a breach of their contract due to the vehicle being

repossessed. Petition asserted that in Credit Acceptance own contract it

states that default repossession is not to be arbitrated. This issue brings

to the attention what this court opinion regarding Pro se litigation’s cases

being dismissed by Rule 12 for failure to state a claim. The same Circuit

held that the court must treat all of the well-pleaded allegations of the

complaint as true, Saylor v. Parker Seal Co., 975 F.2d 252, 254 most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 415 U.S. 232, 236 94 S.Ct.

1683 40 L.Ed 2d 90. A Complaint by a pro se is to be taken liberal and not

held by the same standard and counsel. The court must also consider in a

complaint in order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

under rule 12(b)(6) should be denied only if it appears “beyond doubt” that

the Plaintiff not not prove not set of facts in support of the claim that would

entitle the Plaintiff for relief, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 548 U.S. 903 127

S.Ct. 1955.

This was not the case and Credit Acceptance should not have

prevailed.

D.

Sixth Circuit affirming the Distict Court of a private

repossession turned the case into a federal action which

violates Rajapakse 4th Amendment:

21

The United States Constitution Fourth Amendment states “ All Persons

shall be secured by unreasonable search and seizure. 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 have 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, 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.

Conflicting opinions from the Sixth

Circuit in a previous ruling held that the circuit determined the federal

court authority holding the rights of a pro se litigant requires careful

protection where highly technical requirement are involved, especially

when enforcing those requirements might result in a loss of the opportunity

to prosecute or defend a lawsuite on the merits, Brown v. Matauszak, 415

F.EdAppx. 608,618 (quoting Garaux v. Pulley, 735F.2d 437,439 9th Circuit,

1984) the Sixth Circuit should be consistent with the rulings of the

Appellant courts regarding Pro se litigants. Petitioner being pro se have

22

the same consitutional rights in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to

protect her property from a wrongful seizure from creditors negligence.

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 should prevail when Plaintiff

has met the threshold requirements of the court.

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

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

Tennessee and the contract were 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 Rajapakse1 s property, §1692k.

23

This court opinion in Bracy u. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 117 S.Ct. 1793

due process requires a fair trial before a judge without actual bias

against Plaintiff in an interest in the outcome of the case. Any claim of

a bias judge the Petitoner must show either actual baias or the

appearance of bias creating a conclusive presumption of actual bias,

U.S. v. Lowe, 106 F3d 1498,1504. (citing opinion from the Sixth Circuit)

that was presented into the appeallate record of the behavior of the

District Court. The action of the district court supports why Credit

Acceptance could have prevail with three different payment histories

on the account and the two-original balance on one original loan.

E.

Sixth Circuit enforced a Vehicle Service

Warranties are Qusai Contracts which cannot be

enforced.

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

Sec. 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,

24

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 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,

i

i

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

allowing Rajapakse the right to protect and defend her property.

F.

Sixth Circuit affirm the lower court discrediting §

1681 regulating Furnishes reporting information

on

Raiapakse’s Credit Report:

The lower court was presented with two inconsistent payment histories from

Credit Acceptance and Credit Acceptance submitted a third one resulting in

three inconsistent payment histories. The lower court remedy was to allow

Credit Acceptance to discredit the two previous one in order for the court to

make a ruling. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Basically, the Sixth Circuit gave

total control to creditors who are found liable in presenting inaccurate

25

information furnished on consumer’s credit, allow a creditor to alter their

accounting records and submit it to the court with an affidavit discrediting

their own documents to make the current document as true and accurate.

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.^f 666 ( 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, § 168ls2. Credit Acceptance by the Sixth Circuit affirmation does

not have to comply with the thirty-day requirement nor given any reason why

in a timely frame.

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 1681n states in

26

additional to liability for punitive damages. Credit Acceptance admitting the

credit report was intentional, Rajapakse was entitled to punitive damages for

such violation. This act and laws do not apply to Credit Acceptance since the

Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling granting this creditor immunity

H. Previous Opinions from the Appellate Courts Affidavits

and Evidence not supporting Credit Acceptance Deceptive

History behavior:

Affidavits obtained by social media

entered into the record 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 Credit Acceptance had a

pattern and practice for over ten years of conducting this type of business but

were never mentioned in the lower court judgment and never mentioned in the

Circuit Court and it never contradict Petitoner’s previous evidence. 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.

Affidavits even from Williams of One Stop Auto Sale provided by his counsel

and

submitted by Rajapakse was discredited as her statement made.

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

27

842. Sixth Circuit opinion can make the statement by affidavit from one party

be the statement of another party. It also gives presence that even if the

affidavits supports the Plaintiff in a case, the contract is still enforcable

because it was signed and breached.

I. The Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner right to Summary

Judgement against Credit Acceptance for violations as a

matter of law.

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. This court opinion in Liberty Lobby v. Anderson,

477 U.S. 242 106 S.Ct. 2505 91 L.Ed 2d 202 (quoting First National Bank

of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed 2d 569.

“evidence in a summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a paterial

facs is “genuine” that is if the evidence is such a reasonble jury could return

a verdict for the moving party.” Rajapakse had a right as a matter of law to

i

relief for invasion and to use the court for any available remedy to make good

the wrong done, Nixon v. Condon, 286, U.S. 73 52 S Ct. 484 76 L. Ed 984.

Evidence the warranty was fraudulent supported the facts and laws Credit

Acceptance has provided services with no intentioning of honoring. The

intentional denial of Rajapakse’s right to summary judgment at a matter of

28

law, was the government intentional deprivation of Rajapakse of life, liberty

and of property survives due process scrutiny, it must still implement in a fair

manner, Pailko u. Connecticut, 302, TJ.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 u. 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.

i

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be Granted.

Date June 22,2021

29

■

Samantha Rajapakse

Pro Se/ Petitioner

3221 Westonia Drive

Chattanooga, TN 37412

423-551-1854

Samantharajapakse@ymail.com

30