Department of Education, Mail Fraud, Honest Service Fraud and Other Problems

We have a case here, where the Department of Education created consumer lending and borrowing records years after a student graduated from college, without existence of any actual lending and borrowing transactions and corresponding documents. Subsequently, the Department of Education started using these internal records as if the records were based on actual, real life lending and borrowing transactions.

This can work, if the former student believes what the Department of Education tells him, complies and pays whatever the Department of Education tells him to pay. Such a scheme falls apart when the former student instead requests debt validation.

However, in the case addressed here, the Department of Education has also sent out unqualifying documents, such as partial copies of former student's financial aid applications, as fully qualifying bank lending related legally binding promissory notes. This is mail fraud.

Similarly, as part of Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, the Department of Education has refused to admit that the requested documents simply do not exist. Instead, the Department of Education has sent irrelevant material, such as copies of former student's letters to the Department of Education, and states that it has sent the requested alleged lending and borrowing related material. This is honest service fraud, that in this case supports the same objective that mail fraud does – the Department of Education is managed so, that the employees use illegitimate methods in order to prevail in instances where they very clearly are wrongdoers.

If a regular financial institution would attempt to do something like this, it would not get very far, because relevant controls are in place. For all practical purposes, no institution really supervises what the Department of Education does and the Department of Education is managed in a manner that takes advantage of the lack of accountability and abuse of powers granted to this institution.

Below is an open letter to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos that addresses the case described here.

  • The letter published below was delivered to:
  • The office of the Honorable Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, USPS Delivery Confirmation EL484606535US

The Honorable Betsy DeVos

Secretary of Education

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue S.W.

Washington, DC 20202

Dear Secretary DeVos:

Please note that this is an open letter that I will publish on the Internet, on StopExtortion.org and may also publish on other websites.

I am addressing here a case that is related to usage of extortion, document fabrication, involuntary servitude, bullying and harassment by the Department of Education employees. Verifiable proof exists to back up each of these charges.

Because this case continues, at this point I also have to point out that the Department of Education employees may have committed mail fraud by knowing sending me unqualified documents for the purpose of potential monetary gain and honest service fraud by purposefully depriving me of the intangible right of honest FOIA request related services.

You inherited these Department of Education management problems, but now you are in charge and responsible for them. If the Department of Education employees would be instructed to operate differently and legitimately, so that they do not engage in the illegitimate actions addressed here, they would do so.

I will address both mail fraud and honest service fraud below.

Mail Fraud by Usage of False Documents for the Purpose of Potential Monetary Gain

The Department of Education employees have stated that they and their collection agency business partners have sent me copies of promissory notes for student loans. This is incorrect. I have never received any copies of promissory notes of the alleged bank loans. I have received partial copies of my financial aid applications. Obviously, promissory notes of bank loans and student loan financial aid applications are different documents.

The financial aid applications that I filled in and signed are approximately half a page long and do end with a short section that is labeled Promissory Note. Below that section is the only place on the application for a signature and that is where I signed my financial aid applications as a student. Based on these financial aid applications I received Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid that covered the cost of my attending Rhode Island College 1990-1996.

My signing the financial aid applications below the section that is labeled Promissory Note does not in any way make me a borrower. A bank actually lending money to me and my accepting the loan would make me a borrower. In that case, the relevant documents and records would demonstrate that lending and borrowing took place.

According to the information received, the alleged student loan lender was Fleet Bank, a commercial entity that is subject to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements. As I have found out through my research, actual legally binding promissory note documents must contain the following information in order to meet the UCC requirements:

  • The exact principal amount that has to be paid.
  • Specific interest rate.
  • Due date, and when and at what frequencies any money has to be paid.
  • Document must be an unconditional promise to pay.

The financial aid applications that I signed do not contain any such information, because these are merely financial aid applications. No lending and borrowing transactions took place. Without lending and borrowing transactions relevant documents and information do not exist and no valid debt obligation exists either.

Another UCC requirement is that a legally binding promissory note must be an unconditional promise to pay. The financial aid applications that I signed fail this requirement as well, because they do not state with certainty that the financial aid applicant will receive or has received any loan amount at all. Similarly, the financial aid applications that I signed do not in any way demonstrate that I borrowed any money whatsoever.

Of course, IF the Department of Education employees send out correspondence stating that they have sent me legally binding promissory note documents, THEN these Department of Education employees who make such statements and handle financial services related documents must also know what the actual requirements for legally binding promissory note documents are.

To put it differently, the Department of Education employees cannot legitimately say that yes, we do send out copies of legally binding promissory notes, but we don't really know what the requirements for legally binding promissory notes actually are – and, thus, we can send out anything we want and we are not responsible for our actions.

I have notified the Department of Education employees of these matters repeatedly. Therefore, under the current circumstances I have to conclude that these Department of Education employees who peddle partial copies of financial aid applications as legally binding promissory note documents, are deliberately inaccurate and deceptive for the purpose of potential professional and monetary gain.

Once again, I do believe that this is a management problem. If the Department of Education administration would instruct the employees to act legitimately, they would do so.

Further, purposeful usage of false documents does not help to resolve this case. Instead, we should determine whether or not any debt obligation actually exists by using relevant information. Wishful thinking does not help us to find suitable conclusions. The Department of Education and its business partners may wish that the loans existed, because their internal records, that they created, indicate so. That wishful thinking does not turn internal records into actual loans.

Honest Service Fraud by Refusing to Fulfill FOIA Request

Information that Is Needed

In 2017 I sent several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Department of Education FOIA Unit. The Department of Education FOIA Unit has not sent me the requested material and sent me irrelevant material instead.

Irrelevant materials in quantity do not equal relevant materials.

I graduated from college in 1996 and have had to work on an alleged student loan case since December of 2011. Based on the available information, the alleged loans simply do not exist. So, we need documents and information that helps to determine, whether or not any debt obligation actually exists:

  • (1) We need validation that the underlying alleged lending and borrowing transactions actually took place, and
  • (2) that I actually received the allegedly borrowed money either directly, or indirectly as tuition support, and
  • (3) that the corresponding legally binding valid debt instruments exist.

My FOIA requests have focused on these areas.

An important aspect is that if I received any bank loans as a student, then that must have taken place before I graduated from college in 1996. Thus, the Department of Education should not send me documents and computer records that were generated by third parties after I graduated in 1996 as “proof” on bank loan lending and borrowing transactions that allegedly took place before I graduated in 1996.

Similarly, if the Department of Education claims that I borrowed money from Fleet Bank, a commercial entity, as student loans when I attended Rhode Island College 1990-1996 and that the Department of Education holds relevant legally binding promissory notes, then the Department of Education must furnish copies of the actual legally binding promissory notes that meet the Uniform Commercial Code requirements. Sending out financial aid applications in lieu of actual legally binding promissory notes that meet the Uniform Commercial Code requirements is fraud.

Information that the Department of Education Has Furnished

The Department of Education has never furnished the requested documents and information. Instead, the Department of Education has sent me following types of documents:

  • Partial copies of my financial aid applications.
  • Internal documents which seem to have been generated after I had graduated from college.
  • Computer screen snapshots of records that seem to have been generated after I had graduated from college.
  • Copies of my letters to the U.S. Department of Education regarding this case.

The documents that the Department of Education has sent me fall into the following categories:

  • 1) partial copies of my financial aid applications, and
  • 2) internal records and documents that seem to have been generated after I graduated from college, and my correspondence to the Department of Education that was also created after I graduated from college (starting 2011).

Vast majority of the documents that the Department of Education has sent me have been copies of my correspondence to the Department of Education, requesting documents addressed here.

For example, if the current operating practices will continue, the letter that you are reading now, will also become part of additional "evidence" that I owe money to the Department of Education. The Department of Education employees will make an electronic copy of it and when I will request documents identified in the above subsection Information that Is Needed, then instead of sending me the requested documents, they will send me copies of my correspondence to the Department of Education and other institutions, together with other material that was generated after I graduated and with partial copies of my financial aid applications.

However, if the current operating practices will continue, the Department of Education will once again refuse to send me any actually requested material, or admit that the requested documents simply do not exist. This way, this case continues. In the process, the Department of Education and its business partners force me to continue to work on this case.

What we need instead, are the three types of documents and information listed in the above subsection titled Information that Is Needed. Equally importantly, if such documents and information do not exist, the Department of Education must admit that they do not exist.

The Department of Education has been unwilling to admit that we have a case where no lending and borrowing transactions exist, no records exist that as a student I received the alleged loans either directly or indirectly, as tuition support, that the alleged principal balance is over 20 times higher than annual tuition was and nobody can explain where the allegedly borrowed money went to, and that the internal records and other "proof" of debt were created by third parties after I graduated from college.

The Department of Education's unwillingness to be straightforward and honest regarding the realities of this case is why we are having all the problems regarding this case and why we cannot close this case.

The Department of Education is Legally Obligated to Provide the Requested Information

We do know that a guaranty agency created student loan related records and documents after I graduated from college in 1996.

We also know that in 2008, which is 12 years after I graduated from college, the Department of Education created internal records based on the guaranty agency records. Based on the available information I have to conclude that in 2008 the Department of Education created consumer lending records without existence of actual consumer lending transactions and corresponding actual consumer lending documents. Neither Congress nor any other institution has ever authorized the Department of Education to operate this way.

Subsequently, the Department of Education started using these internal records as if these records were based on actual, real life lending and borrowing transactions. Of course, when I requested debt validation in 2011 after a collection agency contacted me, then the Department of Education's case quickly fell apart.

The Department of Education has had over 6 years to work on this case and has dragged me along. As of today, I have not received any documents that demonstrate that the alleged student loan lending and borrowing transactions actually took place, that I actually received the allegedly borrowed money either directly, or indirectly as tuition support, and that the corresponding legally binding valid debt instruments exist.

The Department of Education is making monetary demands in this case. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Department of Education to furnish qualifying proof that the monetary demands are valid.

The Department of Education claims that I borrowed money from Fleet Bank, a commercial entity, as student loans when I attended Rhode Island College 1990-1996. Further, the Department of Education claims that it holds relevant legally binding promissory notes. The Department of Education 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).

The above citation is applicable to the time period when the alleged loans were made. Thus, the Department of Education is in the shoes of the alleged lender, Fleet Bank, a commercial entity. Of course, the Department of Education is in a peculiar situation here, because no loans exist. So, the Department of Education could claim that the above case law does not apply to it because no loans exist. However, then the aspect that there is no valid base for making any monetary demands would become even more obvious.

Your and Department of Education's Debt Obligation

Department of Education's operations have been purposefully set up so, that the Department of Education forces former students to work on cases that are intended to benefit the Department of Education financially and the Department of Education employees professionally regardless of whether or not any debt obligations exist.

For over 6 years I have been forced to work on the Department of Education debt validation case without compensation, against my will. I have been invoicing the Department of Education along the way and will continue to do so. Enclosed is a copy of the latest invoice. At this point the Department of Education owes me $385,434.40. The accumulated debt that the Department of Education owes me has not been resolved and is due in full.

This is a debt that the Department of Education has created. Department of Education's current administration inherited this case. However, the current administration is responsible for the policies that the Department of Education currently implements. Accordingly, as this case continues, I am holding the current administration personally responsible for forcing me to work in involuntary servitude conditions for the sake of personal and professional gain of the Department of Education employees and business partners.

Do Not Let Your Representatives to Lie on Your Behalf

Secretary DeVos, when your representative once again will respond on your behalf, stating that the Department of Education has already sent me the requested documents and information, I will respond by stating in a straightforward manner that this is a lie. It is easy to prove that such a statement is a lie: if the Department of Education has already sent me the requested documents and information, then please send me copies of that previous correspondence that contains the documents and information identified in the above subsection titled Information that Is Needed.

You will fail to do so, because such documents and information do not exist, just like the alleged lending and borrowing transactions do not exist.

So, please stop the fraudulent coverup of previous administrations mistakes. Such coverup will cause you only problems. It will not benefit you or the Department of Education in any way.

Thomas Eklund

Views: 111

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

© 2018   Created by Stop Extortion, Inc..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service