Could this be an obstruction of justice by Dealer Services Corporation PERENVOST, NORMANDIN, BERGH, & DAWE a Professional Law firm in Santa Ana, California Mr. Grissom Court documents just the facts: Mr. Benjamin Griffin counsel for Dealer Services Corporation submitted court document Production of discovery to Mr. Grissom December 26, 2007 the following answers Question: within the past five years has any entity registered or licensed your business? If so, for each license or registration:
(a) Identify the license or registration: (b) State the name of the public entity: and (c) State the dates of issuance and expiration.
Under verification under perjury Claudia (Ponce) Rogers signed responses to GRISSOM”S request for discovery and Mr. Benjamin Griffin submitted these facts that were known to be untrue at the time Dealer Services Corporation
submitted these lies.
Dealer Services Corporation is duly registered and licensed corporation in the State of California, holding corporation number C2750084. “GRISSOM SAYS NOT TRUE”
This is a true copy of the California of Secretary Results of search for “dealer services corporation “C2750084 5/27/2005 DEALER SERVICES
CORPORATION, WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS DISCOVER DSC
Dealer Services Corporation has made no attempt to use its legal name in the State of California, which is DISCOVER DSC. This
Corporation has not acted in good faith and has cause Mr. Grissom thousand of dollars in attorney fees, GRISSOM believes the court should allow Dealer Services 14 days to cure the defect, so that the Corporation can apply for a correction to its name.
Dealer Services Corporation is the only name that appears on the contract submitted by Dealer Services Corporation, to Riverside court in February 2008 after the court order both parties to bring a copy of the entire contract
to court, it was at this time GRISSOM discovered he was never given all pages to the contract, and now alleges Dealer Services Corporation intentionally withheld the other pages deceiving GRISSOM.
The court ask Mr. Griffin why a complete copy had not be submitted since Dealer Services Corporation had objected to the contract not being complete with all pages, was this intentionally obstruction of justice by Mr. Griffin and Dealer Services Corporation.
Mr. Grissom is now aware of perjury, misrepresentation, of verify statements by Claudia Ponce Rogers DSC with intent to deceive. DSC was further
instructed, by Department of Corporation (DOC) May 29 2008 to remove the name of DSC, applicant’s legal name as indicated in the Articles of Incorporation.” DISCOVER DSC,
“Please change the name of the Company, or Licensee, to DISCOVER DSC, and resubmit this form with you response”.
However this may become impossible for Dealer Services
Corporation to cure its name since California Secretary of State has already assigned this name to another party.
Grissom is informed and believes based on the above information
§ 22070 Department of Corporation (DOC) received April 1, 2008 (DOC) short form application under the name of DSC followed by the long form filed as a second attempt, to acquire a name under Dealer Services Corporation in August 2008 nether is valid in a court of law, according to California Secretary of State.
Mark Gillette from MORRIS FORRESTER assisted Dealer Services Corporation in May 2009 Automotive Finance Corporation, in 2007 apply for its California finance licenses after it had operated Floorplan Lending many years before, the problem here is AFC never paid the State of California fees for years prior to obtaining the CFL to operate in this state. It appears Mark is a double agent collecting on both side of the table, as his web page states he also assisted the Department of Corporation with California laws for the Department. This gets deeper see AFC complaint coming soon.
DSC withheld information from (DOC)
(1) Lawsuit for Conversion in Orange County Santa Ana courts. (2) DSC further omitted the Conversion of vehicles in two San Diego courtrooms.
The court have falling victims to perjury, misrepresentation of verify
statement s by Claudia Ponce Rogers DSC with intent to deceive, DSC was further instructed , by (DOC) May 29 2008 Exhibit E to remove the name of DSC, applicant’s legal name as indicated in the Articles of Incorporation.” Please change the name of the Company or Licensee to DISCOVER DSC and resubmit this form with you response”.
(a) Dealer Services Corporation is the only name that appears on the contract submitted by Dealer Services Corporation, to Riverside court February 2008
(b) Mr. Griffin failed to submit a complete copy of Dealer agreement as evidence, after objection to the court.
(c) Dealer Services Corporation is duly registered and licensed corporation in the State of California, holding corporation number C2750084.
(d) Under verification under perjury, Claudia (Ponce) Rogers signed responses to GRISSOM”S request for discovery and
(e) Mr. Benjamin Griffin submitted these facts that were known to be untrue at the time Dealer Services Corporation submitted these documents of lies.
GRISSOM believes the court should dismissed the cross complaint as the Plaintiff has no legal grounds to sue in any California court. Simply because Dealer Services Corporation is now licensed to conduct interstate business as Discover DSC, GRISSOM and 100000 other loans in California were conducted under the name of Dealer Services Corporation and not Discover DSC. This also presents Dealer Services Corporation many other problems such as why it filed the cross complaint against GRISSOM using the name Dealer Services Corporation, Mr. Tom Normandin lead attorney has been fighting another conversion case in San Diego California. But he chose not to amend the true name of Dealer Services
Corporation,
Just two days prior DSC submitted SET TWO PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION to response of MICHAEL GRISSOM Request March 3, 2008 of a valid California Lender’s license recorded by the Department of Corporation).
DSC replied it could not determine the location or the “What phase Lender’s license meant.
These acts may constitute obstruction of justice by Mr. Griffin intentional tactic to delay GRISSOM rights to discovery and trail in violation,
June 10 2008 Mr. GRISSOM instructed counsel Mr. Osuji to address the letter from Prenovost Normandin Berge & Drawn, discuss new developments , Grissom’s request of California Lender’s license during th
During trail in Orange County Court Dealer Services Corporation admits that they did not give general counsel John Wick states in Santa Ana Court that Dealer Services Corporation made 100000 usurious California loans, Wick further states Dealer Services Corporation chose not to get a California Lenders License,
(3) civil lawsuits and counterclaims, often claiming millions of
dollars in damages, have been and are being filed against thousands of individuals, organizations and businesses based upon their valid exercise of the rights to petition or free speech, including seeking relief, influencing action, informing, communicating, and otherwise participating with government, the electorate, or in matters of public interest;
(4) such lawsuits, called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPPs, are often ultimately dismissed as
groundless or unconstitutional, but not before the defendants are put to great expense, harassment, and interruption of their
productive activities;
(5) it is in the public interest for individuals, organizations and businesses to participate in matters of public concern and provide information to public entities and other citizens on public issues that affect them without fear of reprisal through abuse of the judicial process;
CALIFORINA DEALERS SALES REACH RECORD BREAKING MONTHS EVER!
Michael Grissom is known as the “Grand Master” of car sales, Grissom says auto dealers across the Nation sold, inventory in two months, what they couldn’t giveaway, prior to "CASH FOR CLUNKER'S" Thursday Grissom met with several of California's most successful auto dealers. In an attempt to
promote future sales events, Grissom found that dealers don’t have new car inventory and the used car market prices, has gone though the roof, a Toyota dealership owner in Costa Mesa, California is buying every used car in sight, but he claims that there’s, just not enough vehicles coming through the auctions to make a difference for his used car inventory, Toyota factory are behind in production of vehicles, it may be several months before dealers receive vehicles to supply its customers demand. Grissom say’s he believes the factory will have to increase there residual on leasing programs to
consumer, as the market try’s to adjust to the many changes we have ahead in 2010 - 2013.
NEW CAR BUYERS RECEIVE DOULBE TAX REWARD
Tip for Obama next year, 2010 would be a great time to promote double tax reward for purchase of new car buyers o lease, tax payer receive double their tax spent on the purchase or lease in the first quarter. (“End of the year 2011 Tax Return”).Sale is generally slow during January – May, When consumers purchase a new vehicle the first quarter; they receive double credit, on their 2011 taxes at the end of the year.
This promote more records breaking sales, during normal slow periods, jump start the economy, increase State taxes, give the dealers more confidence to spend money to attract customers, and the factory gear up their production of vehicles, which puts more Americans back to work, consumers have something to look forward to at the end of the year. It’s a win, win, for all.
But like any out side the box plan, it comes with draw backs, banks have to loan money to borrowers, long term loans aren’t practically in this economy lenders should look at adjusting lease programs with short terms leasing, 18 months or more, to attract buyers who can afford a new vehicles, but chose to hold off.
With clunkers off the market the industry will need lease returns in the market to level off opportunities to recover the lower profits received during short leasing terms.
Lender should offer incentive for those consumers to buy back the lease with a short term loan 36 month this still falls within the five year extended
warranty which is a safe zone for the borrower and lender.
1. The short-term monthly cost of leasing is ALWAYS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than the cost of buying.
For the same car, same price, same term, and same down payment, monthly lease payments will always be 30%-60% lower than loan payments. This is still true even when compared to 0% or low-interest loans
2. The medium-term cost of leasing is ABOUT THE SAME as the cost of buying, assuming the buyer sells/trades his vehicle at loan-end and the leaser returns her vehicle at lease-end.
The overall cost of leasing compared to buying, over the same lease/loan term, is approximately the same, assuming the buyer sells the vehicle
at the end of the loan. Comparisons sometimes show buying to cost a
little less than leasing due to fewer fees, lower total finance costs, and the assumption that a purchased vehicle will return full market value if it is sold or traded at the end of the loan (often a bad assumption, especially if traded). However, when the benefits of wisely investing monthly lease savings are considered, and sales tax savings (in most states), the net cost of leasing can easily be less than buying.
3. The long-term cost of leasing is ALWAYS MORE than the cost of buying, assuming the buyer keeps his vehicle after loan-end. If a buyer keeps his car after the loan has been paid off and drives it for
many more years, the cost is spread over a longer term. It doesn't take
rocket science to figure out that the cost of buying one car and driving it for ten years is less expensive than leasing or buying five different cars over the same period. Therefore, leasing is always more expensive than long-term buying. If long-term financial cost savings were the most important objective in acquiring a new car, it would always be best to buy the car and drive it for as long as it survives — or until the cost of maintenance and repairs begins to exceed the cost of replacing it.
However, many automotive consumers have other objectives that reduce the importance of long-term cost savings.
So, which is better, lease or buy?
It depends on what's most important to you. All of us have different lifestyles and priorities — in cars and in finances. Car lease-versus-buy decisions must be made with your own lifestyle and priority attributes in mind. What's right for one person can be totally wrong for another.
LEASE - If you enjoy driving a new car every two or three years, want lower monthly payments, like having a car that has the latest safety features and is always under warranty, don't like trading and selling used cars, don't care about building ownership equity, have a stable predictable lifestyle, drive an average number of miles, properly maintain your cars, are willing to pay more over the long haul to get these benefits, and understand how leasing works, then you should lease.
BUY - If you don't mind higher monthly payments, prefer to build up trade-in or resale value (equity), like the idea of having ownership, like paying off your loan to be payment-free for a while, don't mind the unexpected cost of repairs after warranty has expired, drive more than average miles, prefer to drive your cars for years to spread out the cost, like to customize your cars, expect lifestyle changes in the near future, and don't like the risk of possible lease-end charges — then you should buy.
THE GRAND MASTER OF CAR SALES!!!
We appreciate taking the time to give your opinion, its great to hear your kind words keep on reading.
Thank you God bless, you and your family, please call Michael Grissom if you hear about any one who has been damaged by Dealer Services
