Open Letter to Central Research, Inc. – You Are Expected to Demonstrate Integrity

I was contacted by yet another collection agency, Central Research, Inc. regarding the alleged student loans. The previous collection agency disappeared after I sent debt validation request. Similarly, every other collection company that the Department of Education has assigned to this case during the over 4 year period of time has disappeared. The Department of Education is fully aware, that no loans exist, yet, they keep assigning collection agencies – just because they believe that they can.

The relatively standard letter that Central Research, Inc. sent me states the following:

  • If you notify us in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, we will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification.

Further, Central Research, Inc. also states what their fees are regarding this case.

This is all non-negotiable. I have no say in this. However, with this letter Central Research, Inc. is making an unconditional promise to provide financial services – and I intend to hold them accountable in this area.

So, if Central Research, Inc., like everybody else before them, will send me partial copies of financial aid applications without any proof that I ever actually received any of the alleged loans, they clearly are not providing verification of the alleged debt. That may qualify as false advertising, and may be illegal on other grounds as well.

Similarly, if Central Research, Inc., like every other collection agency before them, will simply disappear after I continue making debt validation requests, they demonstrate blatant lack of integrity.

Only if Central Research, Inc. has the courage to admit that no real documents exist that validate the monetary demands, only then do they demonstrate integrity.

So, it remains to be seen, if Central Research, Inc. is managed so, that this company’s operations are actually based on demonstrating integrity.

That will bring us to the main point of this case, which is that the problems that I have been experiencing are caused by Department of Education employees making internal records without the necessary validation, and then using these internal records as if the necessary validation actually existed.

To put it differently, Department of Education operates so that people there wish that something was true, and then act as if it actually were true, using the powers of the federal government in the process.

This has all been documented online for 4 years now. We have to put an end to such operating practices.

  • The letter published below was delivered to:
  • Johnny Dillard, CEO, Central Research, Inc., USPS Delivery Confirmation EK654186145US
  • Scott Dillard, President, Central Research, Inc., USPS Delivery Confirmation EK654186123US

Johnny Dillard, CEO

Central Research, Inc.

506 Enterprise Dr. Suite 200

Lowell, AR 72745

Dear Mr. Dillard:

I am responding to your company’s letter dated 03/02/2016 and am requesting debt validation and not to be contacted by phone. Please note that this is an open letter that I may publish on StopExtortion.org and on other websites.

Please forward the enclosed latest invoice to your client, the Department of Education. The Department of Education has refused to pay for its usage of my labor in involuntary servitude conditions, but has not disputed the validity of this debt. Accordingly, I conclude that this debt is valid and will continue to invoice the Department of Education for as long, as the Department of Education continues to use my labor in involuntary servitude conditions.

I attended state owned Rhode Island College between 1990 and 1996 as an honors student. As far as I know, as a student I did not qualify for bank loans because I was in the U.S. on a temporary visa when I first attended college, and then on Green Card until graduation, without any credit history, co-signer or collateral. Further, initially I did not have any work experience and work history either. While I was a student my income was extremely low and did not support borrowing from a bank tens of thousands of dollars.

According to publicly accessible sources the in-state cost of tuition to attend the state owned Rhode Island College from 1990 to 1996 ranged from $1,703 to $2,838 a year. The Department of Education insists that I borrowed $46,354.00 as principal from Fleet National Bank. The amount of money that the Department of Education claims that I borrowed is several times higher than I possibly could have received as loans, even if I would have borrowed money. As a student, I did not live on campus. The Department of Education is unable to explain, how the $46,354.00 supposedly was used or where did it go. No relevant lending and borrowing related records exist that show that I actually borrowed this money and that I received it either directly, or indirectly, as tuition support.

I did receive Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid that covered the cost of my attending Rhode Island College. The Department of Education does have information on this, but has knowingly forced me to work on this debt validation case for 4 (four) years against my will. Accordingly, I have been invoicing the Department of Education for the usage of my labor in involuntary servitude conditions.

Further Communication

I am thereby instructing your company’s representatives not to contact me by phone. Any communication with me must be handled by mail. Do not call me and do not contact any third parties such as my employer, neighbors, friends or family members.

Please note that failure to comply with the above may be a violation of State and Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts and/or other statutes, and may also be grounds for civil action, regulatory sanction, and/or other action. Further, release, transfer, and/or disclosure of personal information such as phone number, address and/or other privileged, confidential, and/or private personal data may be a violation of Massachusetts debt collection laws and regulations, such as MGL c. 93, s. 49: Debt collection in an unfair, deceptive or unreasonable manner, 209 CMR 18: Conduct of the Business of Debt Collectors and Loan Services, and 940 CMR 7.00: Debt Collection Regulations (Current).

Debt Validation Request

I dispute the validity of the debt in entirety and every portion of it. This is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b) that your claim is disputed and debt validation is requested.

Your client, the Department of Education, claims that it holds legally binding promissory notes. Your client is responsible for validating such claims and the corresponding monetary demands. In accordance with case law, (citing)

  • as assignees, the Guaranty Agencies and other secondary holders step into the shoes of the lender from whom they have taken the promissory notes and are subject to any defenses that the student/obligee may assert against the assignor/lender. See Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, 788 F. Supp. 1233, 1248 n.9 (D.D.C. 1992), reversed on other grounds, 27 F.2d 573 (D.C. Cir. 1994), vacated, 515 U.S. 1139, on reconsideration, 59 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Please note that the above citation is applicable to the time period during which I attended college and the alleged loans were made. Accordingly, I request that your client furnishes copies of the following documents:

  • 1) Exact copies of the original documents that demonstrate that student loan lending and borrowing transactions did take place and the resulting debt exists.
  • During the 4 (four) years long debt validation dispute your client has not been able to show that I received any student loans either directly or indirectly, as tuition support. However, I did receive Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid that covered the cost of my attending Rhode Island College.
  • 2) Copies of original documents that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments.
  • The partial, front-end copies of the Application and Promissory Note documents that I filled in and your client has furnished, are financial aid applications. As such, these documents do not contain the following information that is necessary for a document to qualify as a legally binding promissory note:
  • – The exact principal amount that has to be paid. The partial copies of the Application and Promissory Note documents that were furnished to me state that the principal can be the amount printed in the loan application, or less, which then also includes zero ($0.00).
  • – Specific interest rate.
  • – Due date, and when and at what frequencies any money has to be paid.
  • – Further, a promissory note must be an unconditional promise to pay. The signed partial copy of the Application and Promissory Note financial aid document on its own is not an unconditional promise to pay, because the financial aid applicant may not receive any loan at all, or may receive the loan in the future at an unknown point in time, in which case the loan amount will be disclosed to the borrower in the Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement.
  • That is, the Application and Promissory Note financial aid document does not state with certainty that the financial aid applicant will receive or has received any loan amount at all. If the applicant does not receive any loan amount, then there is no debt or debt obligation.
  • Therefore, the Application and Promissory Note financial aid document on its own qualifies at the most as a conditional promise to pay, dependent on the content of the Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement and any other documents that the applicant will sign when receiving a loan.
  • Accordingly, as was pointed out above, if your client claims that lending and borrowing transactions occurred, your client must furnish relevant signed documents that amount to legally binding promissory note debt instrument and to unconditional promise to pay.
  • 3) Two-sided (duplex) exact copies of the two-sided original (duplex) Application and Promissory Note documents.
  • If your client is the actual legal owner of the alleged debt, then your client must have the original, fully qualifying Promissory Note documents in its possession. So far, your client has furnished copies of the front end of the two-sided Application and Promissory Note documents, and separate copies of what could be the back ends of any person’s documents. Nothing links these copies reliably together. There is no information on the separate copies of the back ends that relates them reliably with the front ends of the Application and Promissory Note documents.
  • I do not accept the unidentifiable separate back ends as parts of the same documents. Any person who handled these documents could have made a copy of the front end of my financial aid applications, and the back end of another person’s financial aid applications, and put them next to each other either accidentally or intentionally, claiming that these two copies belong together as one document.
  • Please note, that the guaranty agency that seems to be the source of the relevant documents, has already shown that it can manufacture legal documents at will – an act, that I consider to be equivalent to forgery.
  • The separate back ends contain information that may be interpreted as Fleet Bank signing over loans to guaranty agency. Because we do not have reliable documents that show that the alleged student loans existed in the first place, or that Fleet Bank signed over the alleged loans to the guaranty agency, your client must furnish documents that prove that the alleged loans exist and that your client is the legal owner of the said alleged loans.
  • Accordingly, your client must furnish exact duplex copies of the original Application and Promissory Note documents as is requested above. However, during the 4 (four) years long debt validation dispute your client has not been able to furnish exact duplex copies of the original Application and Promissory Note documents. Instead, your client sent me repeatedly partial copies of documents, that were made from partial copies of documents.
  • Please do not send me one-sided copies, so that you make separate copies of the front and back end of the original documents.
  • Similarly, please do not send me two-sided copies that are made from copies. Such copies can be made by putting together two sheets of paper and copying both sides as if it were one document. Such act would be equivalent to forgery.
  • 4) Exact copies of all of the original Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements that apply to the loans that I allegedly received.
  • During the 4 (four) years long debt validation dispute your client has not been able to furnish exact copies of all of the original Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements that apply to the loans that I allegedly received.
  • Please do not send me copies of documents that were manufactured after I graduated from college. Manufacturing such documents after I graduated from college is an act that is equivalent to forgery.
  • 5) Both (5.1) and (5.2) listed below:
  • (5.1) Copies of the original insurance claims that Fleet National Bank allegedly submitted to the guaranty agency.
  • (5.2) Copies of the original financial transactions documents that clearly demonstrate that the guaranty agency actually made insurance payments to Fleet National Bank on my behalf.
  • Your client’s previous correspondence states that your client’s monetary demands are in part based on the payments of insurance claims to Fleet Bank. However, your client has not provided copies of the insurance claims that Fleet Bank allegedly submitted. Similarly, your client has not provided copies of the documents that show that my alleged student loan insurance claims payments to Fleet Bank ever actually took place.
  • 6) We already had a documented incident where the guaranty agency that is involved created student loan borrowing related “original” Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement legal documents in 2012 by entering my current information into their computer system (and used a wrong bank’s name), while I graduated from college in 1996. As is stated above, I consider manufacturing such documents at will to be acts equivalent to forgery.
  • Therefore, please have each document notary certified, stating that
  • (6.1) the document is the exact copy of the original document, not a copy of a copy, and
  • (6.2) the copy was made in the presence of the notary who certifies it, and
  • (6.3) which company or organization currently holds the original document.

Based on the available information, qualifying Promissory Note documents in this case do not exist at all, and your client does not have even the original two-sided (duplex) financial aid Application and Promissory Note documents in its possession. Thus, based on the available information, your client has partial copies of irrelevant documents, created internal records and now claims ownership of an alleged debt.

Further, based on the available information, the “loan” records were created after I graduated from college, by picking approximately 80% of the amounts from the financial aid applications, without existence of the corresponding lending and borrowing transactions and the relevant documents. Such internal record creating does not create debt.

I have requested debt validation in this case since December of 2011. Your client has repeatedly failed to validate that (1) I received student loans and that any debt actually exists, and (2) that your client holds valid legally binding promissory note debt instruments, and (3) that your client is the legal owner of the alleged debt.

If your client is unable to validate the debt as requested above within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, you and your client must stop making any further monetary demands and state in writing that the Department of Education will not under any circumstances make any further demands regarding the specific previously claimed alleged debt, and will not authorize any individual, company, organization or institution to make any kinds of further demands regarding the specific previously claimed alleged debt.

Thomas Eklund

Views: 1617

Comment

You need to be a member of StopExtortion to add comments!

Join StopExtortion

FOLLOW ON TWITTER!

Link to StopExtortion.org

If you find the information on this website useful, please link to www.StopExtortion.org

Your linking to this website can help other people to find it and, thus, can benefit people.

Thank you in advance for your help!

StopExtortion.org

Events

Videos

Photos

© 2019   Created by Stop Extortion, Inc..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service