In what has all the markings of a sovereign citizen case, a District Court judge in Idaho has dismissed claims that a creditor violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after the plaintiff financed the purchase of an $85,000 vehicle.
The background: The plaintiff purchased a 2023 Toyota Sequoia for roughly $84,700 and signed a retail installment contract that was later assigned to the defendant. The plaintiff then began filing a series of documents, including signing the contract “By: Jason-Henry: Allen Without Recourse” and later declaring that the creditor’s chief financial officer had been appointed the plaintiff’s “fiduciary.”
- Shortly after the purchase, the plaintiff claimed he had transferred the vehicle into a private trust, asserted that the debt had been paid via documents he created himself, and demanded “clear title” to the vehicle.
- During the next several months, the plaintiff sent letters insisting that the loan was satisfied, accusing the creditor of violating multiple laws, and issuing a “cease and desist” demand to stop all collection activity.
- The plaintiff then filed a 93-page complaint, asserting 17 different causes of action, including alleged violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and several federal criminal statutes.
The ruling: Judge Amanda K. Brailsford of the District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed or granted summary judgment for the defendant on all federal claims. The judge noted that many of the plaintiff’s theories relied on statutes that do not provide private rights of action, including federal criminal fraud and false statement statutes. As the Court put it, “a private citizen is not empowered … to prosecute criminal statutes.”
- On the FCRA claim, the plaintiff argued the creditor furnished inaccurate information, but the Court emphasized that a private claim under the FCRA requires the consumer to first dispute the information directly with a credit reporting agency. The plaintiff sent letters only to the creditor, not to any credit bureau, and therefore failed to trigger any duty to investigate. As Judge Brailsford explained, the furnisher’s obligations “do not arise unless it receives notice of the dispute from the [credit reporting agencies] directly.”
- The FDCPA claim failed because the defendant was a creditor, not a debt collector. The Court reiterated that the FDCPA applies only to those collecting debts owed to others. Since the creditor held the loan after its assignment, it was attempting to collect its own debt and therefore fell outside the statute.
- The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining state law claims and counterclaims, closing out the case entirely.
