Department of Education Debt Validation Request Letter Example

Here we go again – my non-existent student loans were assigned to another collection agency. Of course, there are no bank loans and nobody is collecting any money. There is no money to be made from non-existent loans, people!

I graduated from college in 1996. The Department of Education established its records in 2008, showing that I have a large number of outstanding student loans. I received a collection letter in December of 2011, and have been requesting debt validation since then. Case 1 articles describe this process on this website.

The source of the problems is that the Department of Education established internal computer records that are not related to reality. That is, records were created without having anything that demonstrates, that I actually ever received the alleged student loans either directly, or indirectly, as tuition support. Further, the Department of Education apparently operates without having any internal controls, that would react to the fact that the total alleged loan principal is about 20 times higher than was the cost of the relevant average annual tuition, without any documents that would show where that money went to, or how it was used. I did not live on campus, and I received honors scholarship from the college that I attended, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid that covered the cost of my attending college. The Department of Education does have information on this.

So, the numbers do not add up and are unrealistic, yet, the Department of Education established its records anyway.

The Department of Education is for all practical purposes also a large financial company, and, of course, it should not operate this way. No financial company would be allowed to operate so, that consumer lending records can be created without actual lending and borrowing taking place and without having the actual corresponding documents. However, the Department of Education falls into a “gray area” in every way, and it does what it wants without any effective supervision.

Because the records do not tie back to reality, the Department of Education cannot validate them either. The Department of Education is fully aware of this. However, unlike other financial institutions, the Department of Education has the power to make the same demands again and again, even when they cannot validate them. Further, the Department of Education is being run so, that there is no incentive to make reality checks. After all, the demand making process keeps people employed, no matter how little basis the demands have in reality. Because for all practical purposes no institution exists that oversees the Department of Education, what reason is there to change anything?

So, this is a case that is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially. By keeping the case open, the Department of Education has forced me to work on this ongoing debt validation case for 4 years. I have to work on this case and to find a feasible way to bring it to conclusion. The alternative would be financial servitude, paying off large amounts of non-existent debt. The purposeful usage of involuntary servitude by the Department of Education is unconscionable. No matter what, this is just plain wrong.

4 years of debt validation. Time, labor and other resources wasted, that could have been used more productively elsewhere. The only progress that has been made, has been made because of my efforts. The Department of Education clearly tries to stall the process, so that they can avoid admitting that they should have closed this case long time ago, because no documents exist that would demonstrate, that any underlying lending and borrowing transactions actually happened. Of course, then they would also have to admit, that they should not have established these records in the first place, without having any documents that actually validate the correctness of the records. And, of course, then they would have to admit, that their record making and keeping processes really are screwed up.

And, of course, throughout all of these years the individuals involved who are at the Department of Education payroll got paid for their debt validation related task handling, even though nothing has been achieved and no value has been produced.

And, of course, if the Department of Education were to admit wrongdoing, then that would mean that somebody may have to be held responsible for it. Oh no, that cannot happen! Let’s just keep using involuntary servitude instead, and let’s just keep the case open.

What can I say – these individuals keep making a very strong case for the argument, that the Department of Education has zombies on the payroll. Only zombies operate this way, because they are no longer human and therefore are not capable of thinking clearly and for caring about the ethical aspects and the cost-effectiveness of what they do. Then again, maybe it’s the exceptionally poor management that has made them act like zombies? For the sake of these individuals, I do hope so.

Anatomy of Department of Education Debt Validation

Below is a copy of my letter to the latest collection agency. To make this a more productive process, let’s consider this a Department of Education debt validation request letter example.

So, if you are facing Department of Education unvalidated demands for payments on loans, or fees, or penalties, or interest payments that are not in line with the existing agreements, you may want to consider requesting debt validation. For me personally, doing so has been very helpful because the alternative would have been financial servitude and paying off debt that does not really exist. Further, as I describe briefly below, I have made this situation work for me. However, I want to point out that the Department of Education can intentionally make the debt validation process very difficult.

Based on my case I can say that the Department of Education operates so, that they ask the alleged borrower to prove that the debt does not exist. That’s the business model: they create internal records and then ask the alleged borrower to prove that the records are incorrect, and deny the responsibility for having to prove conclusively that the records are correct. So, the involuntary servitude loop has purposely designed to be endless, in order to exhaust the individual: the Department of Education makes monetary demands and uses its authority to enforce the demands, denies its responsibility to validate the accuracy of its demands, and instead keeps insisting that a former student must work on proving that non-existent loans do not exist. Unethical and nonsensical, but this is precisely how the Department of Education currently operates.

The Department of Education does not have the legal right to operate so that it forces former students to prove that unvalidated debt obligations are indeed invalid. Neither Congress nor any other institution has ever authorized the Department of Education to operate this way. It seems that the only way to make this point stick, is to sue them for usage of involuntary servitude. Relevant litigation will be very costly, but when I will take it on, it is very likely that I will win. My problem is, that I have better uses for my time and other resources. In the meanwhile, the amount of money that the Department of Education owes me for forceful usage of my labor, keeps growing and growing. Let’s see, where we end up with all of this.

While the Department of Education keeps using its stalling techniques, I keep requesting that the Department of Education, as the institution that legally is in the shoes of the lender, validates its monetary demands, or then admits that it does not have the right to make the monetary demands that it has been making. That is, I request that the Department of Education does what it is supposed to do. This process can go on and on, because nobody is forcing the Department of Education to do what it is supposed to do.

Normally, when you request debt validation, you should not be forced into involuntary servitude as a result. Whoever is the owner of the alleged debt should be able to furnish documents that validate the monetary demands, or, if the debt and the relevant obligations cannot be validated, the demands should end. If the demands remain unvalidated and do not end, the continued unvalidated demands may qualify as harassment, and when accompanied with threats, as extortion. However, when the Department of Education is involved, normal gets redefined. As a result, you may need to redefine some aspects of the situation as well, so that you end up prevailing no matter what.

When you deal with a powerful oppressor – like the Department of Education clearly is in my case – then you want to turn the oppressor’s strength into energy that fuels you, so that you can do something positive with it. Your solution should work so, that for you the benefits exceed the costs and you end up with net benefits. Further, your solution should be sustainable for you, but preferably much less sustainable for the oppressor. I wrote about this in an earlier article as well, in the Recommended Solutions subsection. This way, without violating any laws, over time you can make a positive impact by contributing to reducing undesirable operating methods, and can make the overall process meaningful and useful for yourself as well. Implementation of these principles may require quite a bit of work, but when implemented, the resulting solution can work very well, and this case is an example of that.

Of course, if you choose to request debt validation, then in the process, and in your correspondence, you want to address only these concepts that actually apply to your situation. So, my case and the letter below provide a general example of how to handle a situation where the Department of Education tries to bully a person into paying them money, even though the monetary demands are unvalidated. However, your situation may differ either partially or substantially, and you should proceed accordingly.

Further, I also want to point out that I am not a legal expert. So, I am not providing legal advice – just my opinions. As needed, you may want to consider getting legal advice. However, the better you understand your situation, your rights and actual obligations, the more solid foundation you can build for your case. Further, learning about the different aspect regarding your case can produce knowledge that can benefit you in different ways. So, do research and explore the relevant concepts.

In my letter I explain first, what I need and why. Then I specify the requests, providing also relevant, specific support information.

I live in Massachusetts, so, in addition to federal laws I also reference relevant Massachusetts laws. In a similar situation, you want to check your state laws and do relevant online research, so that you can effective reference them in your letter.

Debt Validation Request Letter

  • The letter published below was delivered to:
  • -- Efraim Roa, CEO, Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., USPS Delivery Confirmation EK635224795US
  • -- Felipe Yanes, President, Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., USPS Delivery Confirmation EK654186066US

Efraim Roa, CEO

Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc.

169 Myers Corners Road, Suite 110

Wappingers Falls, New York 12590

Dear Efraim Roa,

I am responding to your company’s letter dated 12/03/2015 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.

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.

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.

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: 3130

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