Dealer Services Corporation review: unfair business

STOP DEALER SERVICES CORPORATION NOW! MEET GRISSOM IN INDIANA 16TH – 31ST October Search for Class Action Victims Indiana Evansville, New Albany, Washington, Vincennes, Seymour, Bedford, and more…

If you are a consumer, or Auto Dealer and you believe Dealer Services Corporation has repossesses you’re vehicle, there are laws to protect you against such crimes. There are other crimes that may have happen to you, bring all contracts, letters, recording, to the meeting; we will protect your identity.

Join the Class Action Against Dealer Services Corporation
“Floorplan lenders are under fire” by government agency, you may be entitled to thousands of Dollars.

Call [protected] for locations and appointment, Meet the Man that made Dealer Services Corporation “GET A CALIFORNIA FINANCE LICENSE” He is coming to Indiana near you October 16 – 31 2009

“Our Complaint against Dealer Services Corporation”

1. Excessive interest rates for “flooring agreements” (i.e., loans which used car dealers
may seek from DSC in order to obtain sufficient inventory)
You have stated that applicable law may permit these high interest rates, now that DOC
has licensed DSC.
2. Grand theft in connection with efforts to repossess a borrower’s collateral
You have described the following business practices by DSC: once a used car dealer has
defaulted on his flooring agreement, DSC will come to the dealer’s car lot and will take
any and all cars physically situated on the lot, with no regard for the identity of the
owner of the vehicle; some of the seized cars are NOT inventory; they belong to other
individuals and just happened to be parked at the dealership. DSC refuses to return these
vehicles to their rightful owners, and the car dealers have no viable recourse.
3. Creation of fraudulent vehicle titles
You have related that DSC creates false Illinois state vehicle titles for cars already
registered in California.
You expressed concern that DSC has a long history of conducting the above-described activity,
and that DSC is continuing to engage in this behavior to this day, notwithstanding DOC’s recent
issuance of a finance lender’s license. You are also concerned that, by licensing DSC, DOC has
given tacit approval of DSC’s business practices. Further, you remarked that, by assessing a
$60, 000 penalty in conjunction with the DOC-DSC settlement, DOC has essentially allowed
DSC to purchase its finance lender’s license. In elaborating upon this conclusion, you claimed
that DSC’s attorney, Mark Gillett of Morrison & Foerster, is a member of a DOC-organized
commission that is proposing amendments to the California Financial Code; you alleged that, by
virtue of this relationship, Mr. Gillett has a conflict of interest or has inappropriate influence over
DOC personnel and activities. Finally, you shared your belief that DOC strategically reassigned
a number of Financial Services Division employees who were reviewing and were concerned
about DSC’s pre-licensure activities.

1. Notwithstanding severe limitations in resources and personnel, DOC is a regulatory agency
with an obligation to enforce certain laws and protect the public. By issuing licenses to qualified
applicants, and then requiring the licensees to comply with the terms of the pertinent licensing
laws, DOC is carrying out its legislatively-prescribed mission.
2. For DOC to pursue an administrative case against DSC at this time, DOC would need
evidence that DSC has violated applicable laws AFTER it became licensed. If you have such
information, please submit it to me, so that I can forward it to DOC personnel.
3. Several different law enforcement agencies have jurisdiction over the alleged criminal
violations of law by DSC. Among the potentially interested agencies are (1) DMV, (2) the
Orange County District Attorney, and (3) the Attorney General’s Special Crimes Unit. If you
wish to lodge a complaint in order to effect a criminal prosecution, I shall be pleased to be of
assistance. In preparation for such an effort, however, it would be helpful if you would clearly
identify (1) specific RECENT3 instances in which DSC (or associated individuals or entities)
violated criminal laws, and (2) evidence (e.g., witnesses, documents) establishing each element
of the perceived violation.
4. I have asked you whether Mr. Grissom is seeking any “smoking guns” or other key evidence
in his civil litigation against DSC, particularly if such items are likely to be found in DOC files.
Thus far, you have not identified any such items.
5. On the Morrison & Foerster website, I found the following excerpt in Mr. Gillett’s firm
profile:
Mr. Gillett also assists bank and non-bank financial services companies in examinations,
civil investigations, and formal and informal enforcement actions by state and federal
banking agencies and the FTC. In January 2003, the California Commissioner of
Corporations appointed him to a two-year term on a seven-member Advisory Committee
to advise the Commissioner on recommendations for changes in the California Finance
Lenders Law.
I have been unable to find any legal authority suggesting that Mr. Gillett’s Advisory Committee
role disqualifies him from representing clients in DOC matters. However, by virtue of this letter,
I am relaying your concerns to DOC management about Mr. Gillett and the inappropriate
reassignment of Financial Services Division employees involved with DSC matters.
If you feel I have misstated or omitted any material aspect of the discussions at our meeting,
kindly advise me.
3 As I noted during our meeting, a law enforcement agency must be mindful of the applicable
statute of limitations.
I look forward to continuing to work with you toward a mutually-agreeable resolution of
these matters.
Sincerely,
ELISA B. WOLFE-DONATO
Deputy Attorney General
For EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General