I have worked on Anti-Extortion Case 1 for over a year and a half. Based on my working on this case so far I have to conclude the following:
Below is a copy of another open letter that I sent to Mr. Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education.
In this letter I elaborated on these conclusions and asked Mr. Duncan, if there is anything there that he disagrees with.
Further, I identified categories of victims that the Department of Education operations have generated.
There may very well be instances where the victims do not know that they have been victimized, believe the information that they have received from the Department of Education and make payments accordingly. If I would have believed the information I received, I would also belong into this category.
A copy of the letter published below was delivered to the following people and institutions:
Mr. Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue S.W.
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Mr. Duncan,
Thank you for your letter dated 08/12/13 that your assistant sent to me on your behalf regarding your coercive demands for payments on nonexistent debt that the Department of Education does not own, your purposeful usage of unqualified documents, misleading statements and threats, and your usage of unpaid forced labor for handling debt validation case that the Department of Education should handle with its own labor resources.
Please note that this is an open letter that I will publish on the Internet, on StopExtortion.org so that it is accessible to the general public and to other institutions.
We are at this point disputing two issues:
I am addressing both issues below. Further, I am describing below the conclusions of my working on StopExtortion.org Anti-Extortion Case 1 so far, and the next steps that I have to take.
Mr. Duncan, below is a summary of what I except from the Department of Education at this point in time.
Mr. Duncan, did the previous administration make "voluntary flexible agreements" (VFA) and/or other types of agreements with guaranty agencies that allowed the guaranty agencies to transfer to the Department of Education deficient paperwork as if these individual paperwork bundles were non-performing defaulted loans, so that the Department can initiate collection activity?
This seems to be the case. Further, it seems to be the case, that under your leadership the Department of Education is knowingly engaging in collection of such unvalidated student loans, even though the Department of Education does not have the necessary legally binding debt ownership documentation.
Considering the above, Mr. Duncan, is it not the case, that the Department of Education is engaging in crime under your leadership? Even though the roots of these activities reach to 2006-2008 (and possibly also earlier), your administration is responsible for executing the collection activities of the unvalidated student loans in a systematic and organized manner.
Mr. Duncan, you have managed to hire people who are very good at practicing deceptive debt collection. For example, it takes talent to master a statement like this one in response to a question, whether or not the Department of Education holds the original promissory note documents, and has provided copies of these original documents:
This statement implies, that the Department of Education has the original promissory note debt instruments. However, based on the evidence and information that I consequently have received from your office, this is not true. Based on the evidence and information that I have received from your office, the Department of Education provided copies made from copies, and no office or part of the Department of Education holds the original, complete and legally binding promissory note debt instruments.
That is, the Department of Education holds partial copies of documents, and at the request sends out these copies, implying that the copies were made from the original documents.
Further, based on the evidence and information that I have received from your office, I have to conclude that the Department of Education holds only copies of the front ends of the original Application and Promissory Note financial aid applications. Again, based on the evidence and information that I have received from your office, I have to conclude that it is likely, that these partial copies of front ends of documents have been mixed with copies of back ends of other people’s financial aid applications. This resulted in creating new sets of copies of documents that otherwise would not exist.
Nevertheless, based on the evidence and information that I have received from your office, I have to conclude that these are all copies, made from copies, mixed and matched to create new copies of different documents.
As you obviously must know, the Department of Education holding only copies of debt instrument documents means that the Department of Education is not the legal owner of the alleged debt.
However, you have repeatedly stated, that the Department of Education holds promissory notes and other records supporting the existence of debt, and based on this you have the right to demand payments.
Because this is false, and the Department of Education does not hold legally binding promissory notes or any other records that validly support the existence of my alleged debt, there is no basis for your demands.
So, based on invalid claims of debt ownership, you have been harassing me, extorted money from me, and forced me to work on a case that is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially, causing me emotional distress and a substantial loss of time that I needed to spend for professional development related activities.
Further, you continue to prolong this case, instead of agreeing to end it.
Mr. Duncan, in your response please do address the above.
Or, do you think that every institution and/or individual that holds copies of debt instrument documents is also an owner of the relevant assets?
So, if you make 10 copies of a bank check, you have create 10 times more money? Is that what you think?
Based on the evidence and information that I have received from your office, I have to conclude that the Department of Education holds worthless partial copies of old financial aid applications and other paperwork, that the Department of Education fraudulently tries to serve up as legally binding promissory note debt instruments.
Further, you made the following statement:
Mr. Duncan, indisputably, the word Application is clearly marked in each financial aid application.
Question: Do you dispute that these “Application and Promissory Note” financial aid applications that I signed are not loan disbursement documents?
If you state that I received loans, please provide copies of documents that demonstrate that I received the alleged loans either directly or indirectly, as tuition support. I have asked you repeatedly to provide valid copies of such original documents, and you have failed repeatedly to provide such documents.
Mr. Duncan, of course, as an executive, you must know very well that the Department of Education is not exempt from debt validation requirements. Because I am exposing your avoidance of providing debt validation, probably out of desperation, you are now using purposefully incorrect statements. In your letter dated 08/12/13 you stated the following:
Mr. Duncan, as you very well know, this is completely incorrect.
Based on the evidence and information that I have received from your office, I have to conclude that the Department of Education is unable to provide me valid duplex copies of the original “Application and Promissory Note” documents, because the Department of Education does not have the original “Application and Promissory Note” documents. Similarly, the Department of Education does not have the original support documents that would render the “Application and Promissory Note” documents into legally binding debt instruments.
If the Department of Education were the actual owner of my actual student loans, the Department of Education would need to have the original and complete legally binding promissory notes.
Question: Mr. Duncan, do you dispute that copies of financial aid applications do not qualify as legally binding debt instruments and proof of debt ownership?
The Department of Education does not have the original “Application and Promissory Note” documents, because the Department of Education is not the legal owner of the student loans that I allegedly received from Fleet Bank.
The Department of Education is not the legal owner of the student loans that I allegedly received from Fleet Bank, because there were no student loans that I received from Fleet Bank.
Accordingly, nobody owns this nonexistent debt.
Please note, that if the Department of Education also carries the relevant monetary amounts on its balance sheets as assets, the Department of Education is committing fraud in that area as well, because the Department of Education does not hold any actual documents that would be needed for proving ownership of actual debt.
The same applies to other people’s cases as well, where the Department of Education carries monetary amounts on its balance sheets as assets, even though the Department of Education does not hold all the actual documents that would be needed for proving ownership of actual debt.
Mr. Duncan, as you instructed me to do in your letter dated 07/01/13, I did request copies of signed original documents that validate my receipt of grants and/or student loans in the past from the U.S. Department of Education Office of the Chief Information Officer. As instructed, I requested information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552, as amended, and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 USC 552a, as amended.
I have sent three (3) requests for such information to the Office of the Chief Information Officer, letters dated 07/15/13, 08/05/13 and 08/14/13, all of which were received by the Department of Education. However, so far the U.S. Department of Education has not sent me the requested information. (I will address this issue separately on StopExtortion.org as well.)
First, the U.S. Department of Education FOIA Service Center requested that I must certify, that I am the person who I say that I am. I did so, and sent additional identifying information about myself as well (a copy of my drivers license and Social Security Card).
Next, the U.S. Department of Education FOIA Service Center requested that I must include the statement listed below in my request letter. I am now requesting that you will include the same statement in your response, and will send me copies of the original documents listed below:
“I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing in true and correct, and that I am the person named above, and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years or both, and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3) by a fine of not more than $5,000.”
I did sign this statement, on the condition that I will also receive the requested information by the 30 day deadline listed in the letter. I have no interest in issuing a statement after statement to the Department of Education FOIA Service Center if the Department of Education in return keeps inventing excuses for not providing the requested copies of the original documents and information that it should already have readily available, and, as applicable, admitting that it does not have the original documents and the requested information.
Mr. Duncan, if you refuse to send me the copies listed below of the original documents so, that the copies are accompanied with the statements specified in this letter, then please explain why you refuse to do so, and what legal right did the Department of Education FOIA Service Center have to demand that I must sign the above statement, declaring that they will not consider my Freedom of Information Act related request until I will do so?
You must include the statement listed above in quotation marks and printed in italic font in your letter separately with each set of documents listed below, and provide the following:
Each of the six (6) categories of documents must be accompanied with the relevant statement listed above, followed by the statement listed above in quotation marks and printed in italic font. Further, each signature must be accompanied with the authorized representative’s printed name, position, company or organization’s name where the person currently works, and the signed person’s contact information.
Mr. Duncan, in your letter dated 08/12/13 you made the following statement:
Mr. Duncan, please note the following:
Mr. Duncan, based on my working on this case so far I have to conclude the following:
(1) Through usage of unqualified documents, misleading statements, force and threats, the U.S. Department of Education is generating revenue by collecting on fictional debt that nobody owns.
(2) Further, the U.S. Department of Education is benefitting financially from using unpaid forced labor for handling debt validation case that it should manage with its own labor resources.
That is, the Department of Education is generating revenue by collecting on alleged debt (1) without providing proof that the debt exists, (2) without having the necessary valid legally binding promissory note debt instruments, and (3) without having valid proof of ownership of the alleged debt even though the Department of Education claims that it owns the debt.
Debt collecting activities are carried out by usage of unqualified documents, misleading statements, force and threats.
Further, the Department of Education has organized the debt validation processes so that it forces the former student loan applicant to work on a debt validation case. Even when the Department of Education forces the former student loan applicant to work on the debt validation case for a prolonged period of time, the Department of Education refuses to compensate the former student loan applicant for working on the case that is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially.
Further, the Department of Education has organized the debt validation processes so that if the former student loan applicant is unable to prove that the debt does not exist, the Department of Education insists that the student loan applicant owes the amount of money that the Department of Education alleges is owed, and must pay the Department of Education under the conditions set by the Department of Education, even when the Department of Education does not hold the legally binding debt instruments that would be necessary for proving ownership of the debt.
Mr. Duncan, this is how you have organized your operations.
Question: Mr. Duncan, is there anything in the above conclusions that you disagree with?
Please note, that the cases (A), (B) and (C) listed below fall under the operating model that is described above:
Further, please note that both above (1) and (2) may be applicable in three cases, (A), (B) and (C) described above.
So, the above information produces 6 categories of victims – (1.A), (1.B), (1.C), (2.A), (2.B) and (2.C). Any individual victim may belong into one or more categories. (D) that is listed above forms one or more separate categories of victims.
Mr. Duncan, you probably are very familiar with the operating model described above. This being the case, as an executive, you probably will want to find out what the estimates are for how many people belong into each of the categories, and what the relevant monetary amounts are. Perhaps you already have this information. If not, you can find reliable answers by having the documents that the Department of Education holds audited by an independent and impartial professional company or organization. An alternative, but much less reliable way to get estimates is to have your employees to audit the documents and, possibly, make estimates based on the samples taken.
Mr. Duncan, if you have these figures already, or when you do find out what these figures are, please do share them with me and the rest of the world as well. I can assure you, that there are people who do want to know how many people are affected by the Department of Education’s actions in the cases listed above, and what the relevant monetary amounts are.
Mr. Duncan, I believe that my having worked on StopExtortion Anti-Extortion Case 1 has produced information that can benefit the Department of Education and you personally. If you give the conclusions listed above some thought, then as a leader and manager, you may want to make some changes to how the Department of Education operates under your control.
Because you insist on continuing this case, I have to expand my work so that it covers the areas listed above in the Conclusions so Far section of this letter.
This new case (most likely StopExtortion Anti-Extortion Case 4) will focus on putting an end to the Department of Education debt collection practices, where the Department of Education collects, or attempts to collect, alleged debt
(1) without providing proof that the debt exists, or
(2) without having the necessary valid, complete and legally binding promissory note debt instruments, or
(3) without having valid proof of ownership of the alleged debt even though the Department of Education claims that it owns the debt.
(4) Similarly, this new case will focus on exposing how the Department of Education is benefitting financially from using unpaid forced labor for handling debt validation cases that it should manage with its own labor resources. The Department of Education should be held both legally and financially liable in such instances.
The above objectives will support my working on StopExtortion Anti-Extortion Case 1. Based on your responses so far I have to conclude that in order to resolve StopExtortion Anti-Extortion Case 1, I must work on the above objectives (1), (2), (3) and (4) as a separate case that involves more people and institutions. In your letters you keep stating that your position has not changed. This shows that there is no way to resolve StopExtortion Anti-Extortion Case 1 as a stand-alone case, without pursuing further the areas described here.
So, unlike before, going forward I will have to actively seek out and involve other people, and possibly also other companies and organizations in this new case.
In general terms, I will work with people, companies and organizations that are dissatisfied with how the Department of Education handles its student loan business, and in particular how the Department of Education handles its defaulted student loan business and manages the alleged defaulted student loan collections.
As before, I am working on these cases because you are forcing me to do so. Accordingly, going forward, in addition to invoicing (billing) you for my time, I will also have to invoice you for other expenses that are related to both of these cases. Considering, how inflexible you are and uninterested you are in finding constructive solutions, it is very likely, that this operation will require several years of work. Whether or not Anti-Extortion Case 4 related work will culminate in one or more lawsuits, or solutions can be found through usage of other means, remains to be seen.
Please note, that most likely there will be considerable legal, marketing (advertising and other social media usage) and other case support related expenses involved throughout the time I will have to work on these cases. Among other things I will also have hire help for implementing the Public Investigation of Extortionist Suspects project. This project is described on StopExtortion.org and involves sending out questionnaires and contacting with interview requests people who know you personally, or have worked with you, or have accused you before or are accusing you now of extortion-like acts. We need to put together your public profile as a suspected extortionist. I cannot do all of this work alone.
Of course, I will invoice you as long, but only as long, as you force me to work on resolving Anti-Extortion Case 1. I will invoice you for my time spent and the expenses that I will have to cover. I will advise other people to invoice you for their time spent and their relevant expenses separately.
The difference between Anti-Extortion Case 1 and soon to be opened Anti-Extortion Case 4 is that you can close Anti-Extortion Case 1 simply by providing a usable solution to it. I personally would very much like to close it.
After I launch Anti-Extortion Case 4 and find members for it, then as long as there is at least one person, company or organization that is Anti-Extortion Case 4 member and wants to keep that Case 4 open, Case 4 will remain open.
Mr. Duncan, I both love, admire and respect the United States of America. Similarly, I have the utmost respect for this country’s government. I would like to respect you and the Department of Education as part of this country’s government as well. However, you are not making it easy.
I think that the student loans are a very painful problem for this country and for many people. I am not looking to make the situation worse. Instead, I would like to see improvements in the current situation.
I do understand, that it would be embarrassing for the Department of Education to admit that it has been using in the past, and is currently using the powers granted to it for forcing past student loan applicants to make payments on alleged loans without having all the needed documents and valid rights to make such monetary demands. Admitting this could also be both legally and financially costly.
It is an unfortunate situation, indeed.
However, perhaps a broader based exposure of these Department of Education debt collection activities that are addressed here is precisely what is needed? After all, there is no sign that the Department of Education is able to improve the situation on its own, and is both able and willing to find constructive solutions to student loan validation dispute.
Further, I would think that as a leader you would want to implement voluntarily the policies that are addressed in the Next Steps – Anti-Extortion Case 4 section of this letter as objectives (1), (2), (3) and (4). Ethically, that would certainly be the right thing to do. It could turn out to be the most cost effective alternative as well. (You may want to ask your advisors to put together some decision trees for you on this, with monetary amounts included.)
If the Department of Education would only be allowed to collect on debt that it can fully validate, then that could have the following positive impacts:
Whether you agree with me or not, as long as you continue to make unsubstantiated monetary demands and continue to force me to work on my own case, I have to pursue the avenues where this work naturally takes me. After all, I do have to work on solving this problem. As long as you don’t provide any usable solutions, I have to continue to find the solutions myself.
Of course, as before, I will use only legal (that is, legally acceptable) means, but I will use them in any and all the creative combinations necessary for achieving the stated objectives.
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
© 2024 Created by Stop Extortion, Inc.. Powered by
You need to be a member of StopExtortion to add comments!
Join StopExtortion