Is It Acceptable that the Department of Education Operates Like Organized Crime – Mafia?

Below is an open letter to the Department of Justice and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Dear reader, I am asking you now the same question that I am asking Attorney General in this letter: based on how the Department of Education uses extortion, document fabrication, bullying and harassment, do you agree that the closest analogy is organized crime – mafia?

Do you personally find such operating practices acceptable?

I don’t know yet what the current administration at the Department of Justice thinks about the case that is addressed below. People there, of course, have to prioritize which cases they handle. Do they care enough about whether or not another government agency is managed so, that its employees break laws and for the sake of personal and professional gain use actions that most likely qualify as mail fraud, honest service fraud and involuntary servitude?

The Department of Education, the government agency which is managed so that its employees have engaged in the problematic actions, is big, powerful, very well connected, likes to operate in undefined gray areas and is very reluctant to admit any wrongdoing.

So, let's see.

What the Department of Education administration does not seem to understand is that denying and defending obvious systemic problems and wrongdoings, together with dragging on a case where they continue to use illegitimate actions, will not benefit the Department of Education and its employees. Operationally it is far more constructive to admit the problems, close the case, make the necessary systemic changes that have not been made already and move on. Otherwise, all the participants will have to continue to spend time on an unconstructive case that leads nowhere. Similarly, if the systemic problems continue, the relevant costs will continue to accumulate as well.

You would think that regarding the case that is being addressed below, after six years during which the Department of Education has consistently failed to validate its demands, but the Department of Education’s wrongdoings can all be validated, the decision makers at the Department of Education will realize this.

Nope, not yet. With all the billions of dollars that the Department of Education spends every year on its own operations, there is very little institutional wisdom gained in return. Apparently, taxpayer money can fund very long decision making processes and continuation of unproductive and illegal operations isn't much of a problem at the Department of Education.

  • The letter published below was delivered to:
  • The office of the Honorable Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, USPS Delivery Confirmation EL778989493US

The Honorable Jeff Sessions

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Sessions,

I am contacting you about the U.S. Department of Education's usage of mail fraud, honest service fraud and involuntary servitude. Specific examples are provided below. The case addressed here is also related to usage of extortion, document fabrication, bullying and harassment by the Department of Education employees. Verifiable proof exists to back up each of these charges. I will provide information in these areas, while focusing primarily on continued usage of mail fraud, honest service fraud and involuntary servitude.

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.

As long as the Department of Education is managed with disrespect for the legal obligations that are relevant to this case, I will have to continue to work on this case. If we can ensure that the Department of Education no longer will be able to use mail fraud, honest service fraud and involuntary servitude in this case, the probability will increase that we can also find a way to close the case addressed here.

  • If the Department of Education would honestly admit that in accordance with the case law (cited below) the Department of Education must furnish legally binding promissory note debt instruments that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments, but partial copies of financial aid applications are not legally binding promissory note debt instruments, we would make progress in this case. However, so far the Department of Education has preferred to use mail fraud instead – because it can.
  • Similarly, if the Department of Education would respond honesty to Freedom of Information (FOIA) request regarding the areas addressed below in section Information that Is Needed, then it would become obvious that no valid basis for making monetary demands exists and case must be closed. However, instead of providing a straightforward response and admitting, that the requested documents do not exist, the Department of Education has been using honest service fraud as is described below.
  • Similarly, if the Department of Education would acknowledge that it is illegal and also immoral to keep an unvalidated alleged student loan case open indefinitely, forcing a former student to work on it in involuntary servitude conditions, we could find a way to close this case.

So, until these problems have not been resolved, I must continue to work on this case by contacting different institutions and members of Congress repeatedly, hoping to find support among people who actually do care about following the laws.

The problems addressed here were caused by previous administrations. The current administration inherited these Department of Education management problems, but now that the current administration is in charge, the current administration is also responsible for resolving the problems that they inherited. If the Department of Education employees would be instructed to operate differently and legitimately, so that they follow the laws that apply to them and do not engage in the illegitimate actions addressed here, they would also act legitimately.

Accordingly, continued usage of mail fraud, honest service fraud and involuntary servitude by the Department of Education employees under the current administration have to be addressed.

I have no desire to cause problems to the Department of Education or to any of the people working there. However, as long as the institutions involved refuse to address the problems related to this case and the Department of Education refuses to close this case, I am in a situation where I must continue to work on this case. So, the case goes on and on.

Attorney General Sessions, there is one related point that I have to make. Please take a look at the information provided below about how the Department of Education uses extortion, document fabrication, bullying and harassment. Do you agree with me, that the closest analogy is organized crime – mafia?

Please note, that if you will simply forward this letter to the Department of Education, most likely the problems will remain the same. The Department of Education will send me a standard letter stating, that the relevant problems have already been addressed – which is completely false.

Case Summary

  • This is a student loan case where the alleged bank loans were created as internal records after the student graduated from college in 1996. The internal records were created first by guaranty agency and then by the Department of Education in 2008.
  • No lending and borrowing documents exist that would demonstrate that the alleged bank lending and borrowing transactions actually took place in reality.
  • No records or documents exist that would demonstrate that the student actually received the allegedly borrowed money either directly, or indirectly, as tuition support.
  • Further, no documents exist that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments.
  • While the Department of Education reimbursed the guaranty agency, regarding the alleged bank loans no claim documents exist submitted by a bank to the guaranty agency for reimbursement. Similarly, no documents exist demonstrating that the guaranty agency actually made any payments to a bank.
  • Thus, the Department of Education has no legal basis for making monetary demands from the former student.
  • Under the circumstances the Department of Education does not have any legal right to demand that the former student must work with a collection agency in order to resolve the problems that the Department of Education and its business partners have created. Yet, the Department of Education continues to make such illicit demands, instead of resolving the problems as has been requested.
  • The Department of Education is legally obligated to provide this case related information and to validate its monetary demands, but has consistently refused to do so, and under the current management continues to refuse to do so.
  • The Department of Education is allowed to keep unvalidated student loan cases open in perpetuity and has found it advantageous to refuse to close the case that is being addressed here. As a result, the Department of Education has created a de facto modern era slavery case by deliberately and purposefully forcing the former student to work in involuntary servitude conditions on the nonexistent student loan case for the sake of personal and professional gain of the Department of Education employees and business partners so far for over 6 (six) years.
  • Most recently the Department of Education has been trying to cover up previously made mistakes by using mail fraud and honest service fraud.

This letter contains detailed support material and even more detailed material is on StopExtortion.org.

Systemic Problem Areas

I attended Rhode Island College 1990-1996 and graduated in 1996. I received Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid that covered the cost of my attending the college.

Based on its own admission, in 2008, which is 12 years after I graduated from college, the Department of Education created internal records based on a guaranty agency records, stating that I received bank loans as a student.

Based on the available information in 2008 the Department of Education created these consumer lending records without existence of the 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. When I requested debt validation in 2011 after a collection agency contacted me, the Department of Education's case quickly fell apart. Instead of providing actual debt validation, the Department of Education provided partial copies of my financial aid applications and copies of internal records that were created after I graduated.

Everything that I have seen that supposedly validates the debt was created after I graduated. Further, currently the Department of Education keeps this case open by using mail fraud and honest service fraud.

There are fundamental problems with how the Department of Education managed infrastructure works:

  • As this case demonstrates, within the Department of Education managed infrastructure consumer lending and borrowing records can be created without existence of any actual consumer lending transactions and documents. Further, consumer lending and borrowing records can be created years after a former student graduated from college, even though the actual lending and borrowing transactions were supposed to take place while the former student was in college.
  • Within the Department of Education managed infrastructure a guaranty agency can create loan reimbursement records without any actual loan reimbursement requests and documents from a bank, without any actual records that show that any payment was made to a bank, and without existence of any actual consumer lending and borrowing transactions.
  • Further, guaranty agency can get reimbursed by the Department of Education without the existence of any actual loan reimbursement requests and documents from a bank, without any actual records that show that any payment was made to a bank, and without existence of any actual consumer lending and borrowing transactions.
  • After creating fictional lending and borrowing transactions as internal records, bullying, harassment and extortion-like techniques can be applied by using a nationwide network of debt collectors in order to collect the nonexistent debt. Government authority can be used in the process to make the requests seem valid, even though they are clearly invalid.
  • Further, the system is allowed to operate without having to provide qualifying proof that the alleged underlying lending and borrowing transactions actually took place and that the alleged borrower ever actually received the money in question either directly or indirectly, as tuition support.
  • Further, the system is allowed to operate so, that the Department of Education and its business partners can use clearly non-qualifying pieces of paper as legally binding debt instruments, without ever having to validate their claims.
  • Further, the system is allowed to operate so, that the Department of Education can ignore case law that clearly applies to the Department of Education.
  • Further, the system is allowed to operate so, that the Department of Education and its business partners can fraudulently create and back date documents.
  • Further, every communication document that is produced in the alleged debt collection process will become evidence that the person who is being targeted owes money, including debt validation requests made by that person.
  • Further, the system is allowed to operate so that the Department of Education can keep the case open in perpetuity even though the Department of Education clearly is not able to provide validating proof that the alleged lending and borrowing transactions ever took place or that it has any actual legally binding debt instruments in its possession.

There is ample of documented evidence presented on StopExtortion.org that demonstrates that all of the above applies to the case addressed here.

Information that Is Needed

At this point we need the four types of information listed below:

  • (1) We need validation that Fleet National Bank submitted one or more requests for reimbursement and that actual payments were made to Fleet National Bank for all the alleged loans that are related to this case. So far only guaranty agency created documents have been presented. However, these documents may have been produced fraudulently at a later date, similarly to the way Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements were produced in 2012 and Indemnification Agreements were produced that suddenly surfaced in 2015 but were backdated to 2007. Further, the documents that guaranty agency produced do not in any way validate that Fleet National Bank actually submitted any claims and that any claims were actually paid to Fleet National Bank for all the alleged loans that are related to this case.
  • For the sake of clarity I will state that the Department of Education has never provided validation that Fleet National Bank submitted a request for reimbursement and actual payments were made to Fleet National Bank for all the alleged loans that are related to this case. The Department of Education may have reimbursed the guaranty agency, but that does not in any way validate that the guaranty agency actually made any payments to Fleet National Bank. The Department of Education reimbursing the guaranty agency does not in any way grant the Department of Education the rights to make monetary demands from me if no evidence exists that Fleet National Bank actually submitted claims to guaranty agency and guaranty agency actually paid claims for all the alleged loans that are related to this case.
  • Given, that the requested documents do not exist, the Department of Education must explicitly state that the requested documents do not exist.

The claim reimbursement documents requested above, that Fleet National Bank would have submitted, would have been created after I graduated from college in 1996.

The rest of the requested documents requested below would have been created before I graduated from college in 1996.

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 National 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.

  • (2) We need signed copies of alleged student loan lending and borrowing documents that validate that the underlying alleged lending and borrowing transactions actually took place while I was a student from 1990-1996.
  • For the sake of clarity I will state that the Department of Education has never provided validation that the alleged lending and borrowing transactions actually took place.
  • Given, that the requested documents do not exist, the Department of Education must explicitly state that the requested documents do not exist.
  • (3) We need copies of signed documents that validate that I actually received the allegedly borrowed money either directly, or indirectly as tuition support while I was a student from 1990-1996.
  • For the sake of clarity I will state that the Department of Education has never provided validation that I actually received the allegedly borrowed money either directly, or indirectly as tuition support.
  • Given, that the requested documents do not exist, the Department of Education must explicitly state that the requested documents do not exist.
  • (4) We need copies of signed original documents that meet Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory notes and were produced while I was a student from 1990-1996.
  • For the sake of clarity I will state that the Department of Education has never provided validation that the alleged lending and borrowing related legally binding debt instruments exist.
  • Given, that the requested documents do not exist, the Department of Education must explicitly state that the requested documents do not exist.

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

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 National 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 National 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.

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 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 National 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.

Honest Service Fraud by Refusing to Fulfill FOIA Request

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 (starting 2011) to the Department of Education that was also created after I graduated from college.

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 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.

Department of Education Employees Are Using Fabricated Documents

In a letter dated 06/03/2016 Department of Education representative stated that “We previously provided you with valid copies of your “Application and Promissory Note” documents, “Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement” notices, and “Request for Claim Reimbursement” form.

This statement is completely false and provides proof that the Department of Education employees are knowingly using fabricated documents to support their monetary demands. This, of course, is a big problem.

Application and Promissory Note Documents

Altered documents. The Department of Education claims that the Application and Promissory Note financial aid documents that I signed are legally binding promissory notes. These documents contain on the same page about half a page long financial aid application section and directly below it two paragraphs long text labeled Promissory Note. Below the Promissory Note section is the only place for a signature.

As a student, I did apply for financial aid. Each of the financial aid applications that I filled in contains one line for signature and that is where I signed these applications.

On the copies of the Application and Promissory Note financial aid applications that the Department of Education has sent me, there are broken, shadowy rectangles around the Promissory Note portions of the applications. These irregularities and possible alterations call into question the authenticity of these documents. Based on visual observations it seems that the Promissory Note section was placed on the document separately, before making a copy of the document, thus covering the area that may have contained other text before. The area that is covered this way is directly above my signature.

Documents that are not verifiable copies of the originals. Instead of furnishing copies of the original documents, the Department of Education keeps sending out partial copies of my financial aid applications together with unidentified documents that could belong to anybody. Apparently, these unidentified documents are supposed to be the back ends of my two-sided (duplex) financial aid applications. There are no unique identifiers, my name or anything else whatsoever on the separate copies of the back ends that relates them reliably with the front ends of the Application and Promissory Note documents. Thus, these separate copies could be the back ends of any person’s documents.

The separate back ends contain information that may be interpreted as Fleet National Bank signing over loans to guaranty agency. Because we do not have reliable documents that show that the alleged lending and borrowing transactions took place at all, or that Fleet National Bank signed over the alleged loans to the guaranty agency, the Department of Education should furnish duplex copies of the original documents.

Existence of such valid documents would then support the validity of the argument that the loans existed and were actually signed over to the guarantee agency.

Documents that do not fulfill requirements set for legally binding promissory notes. As is stated in the section Honest Service Fraud by Refusing to Fulfill FOIA Request, the Department of Education uses partial copies of financial aid applications while stating, that these are legally binding promissory notes. Obviously, financial aid applications and legally binding promissory notes are different documents.

As the holder of valid and legally binding debt instruments, the Department of Education should have the original debt instruments in its possession. Thus, if the Department of Education would provide duplex copies of the original documents, instead of sending me copies made from copies by matching together documents, then that would help to address some of the problems regarding authenticity of the Application and Promissory Note documents.

If the Department of Education does not have the original documents in its possession, then that indicates that the Department of Education is not a valid holder of the debt in question. Anybody can make copies from copies and mix and match them, to create new documents. Such process does not create any legitimate ownership of any alleged debt.

If the Department of Education does not have the original documents in its possession, it also means that we cannot reliably verify the authenticity of the Application and Promissory Note financial aid documents. Obviously, this should disqualify the questionable copies of documents as any sort of valid debt instruments.

Whether or not the Department of Education does not have the original documents in its possession, we cannot operate so that the Department of Education can claim at will which documents it wants to designate as legally binding debt instruments, regardless of the information that the documents do or do not contain. The documents that the Department of Education uses as legally binding debt instruments must fulfill the relevant, commonly accepted requirements.

Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements

I graduated from college in 1996. As part of the debt validation process that started in December of 2011, in 2012 the Department of Education sent me what they claimed to be copies of my original Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements. However, it turned out that these statements were generated in 2012 by entering my current information into a computer system in 2012 – more than 15 years after I graduated from college. Further, the statements contained a wrong address and wrong bank’s name.

Thus, these documents were literally fraudulently fabricated. The Department of Education employee in charge of the communication process at the time apologized for the “mistake” made. Obviously, entering a former student’s information into computer system over 15 years after graduation, in order to generate original financial statements, is not just a mistake. It is fraud.

Further, these Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements documents were statements that, apparently, can be generated at any time, regardless of existence, or non-existence, of actual loans. These were not any kinds of signed documents that would validate that lending and borrowing transactions took place.

Accordingly, the Department of Education employees are fully aware that they have not sent me the legitimate Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements.

Now the Department of Education employees are knowingly using previous fraudulent actions to support their continued monetary demands and other corresponding actions.

Request for Claim Reimbursement Form

In its previous correspondence, the Department of Education stated that its monetary demands are based on having to pay in 1997 an insurance claim to Fleet National Bank. I have requested, but have not received any documents that demonstrate that such insurance claim was actually submitted and paid. I have only received internal documents, such as Request for Claim Reimbursement form, that do not demonstrate that any relevant insurance claim was actually submitted by a bank and paid to a bank.

All the relevant documents that I have seen were created by the guaranty agency. If the guaranty agency created the claim reimbursement forms and handwritten notes actually in 1997, why were these scrap papers kept for all the years but the actual claims submitted by a bank and payment documents to the bank were not kept, if they actually existed at all?

Based on the available information it is certainly possible that the existing claim reimbursement documents were not created in 1997, but much later, after I requested them – just like Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements in 2012 and Indemnification Agreements that suddenly surfaced in 2015 but were backdated to 2007.

Further, it is likely that while the Department of Education reimbursed the guaranty agency, Fleet National Bank did not submit any reimbursement claims to guaranty agency and the guaranty agency did not make any payments to Fleet National Bank regarding this case. Otherwise, why aren't there any documents that show that Fleet National Bank submitted claims and claim reimbursement payments were made to Fleet National Bank?

The most likely scenario is that the guaranty agency making claim reimbursements to Fleet National Bank has no real life backing. It is just couple of scratch papers that were created fraudulently.

Indemnification Agreement Documents

The dispute addressed here started in December of 2011. As is stated above, throughout this time, the Department of Education has sent me partial copies of financial aid applications as alleged debt validation material. Now, the Department of Education is adding to these documents another set of documents that seem to have been created just recently, but were backdated to 2007.

Starting December of 2015, that is 4 (four) years after the dispute started, I have also received copies of Indemnification Agreements between the guaranty agency involved and the Department of Education, referring to “damaged promissory note or promissory note with uninitialed alterations.”

These Indemnification Agreements are dated 3/19/07 and are signed by one guaranty agency employee and nobody else. The agreements contain also obligations that the Secretary of Education has, but nobody from the Department of Education has signed these agreements.

Previously, I have received signed statements from different sources, including Naomi Randolph, Special Assistant, Operations Services, Federal Student Aid, and the Department of Education FOIA Unit, stating that they have sent me copies of all the Department of Education student loan records and copies of all the documents that the Department of Education has regarding this case.

In March of 2014 the Department of Education FOIA Unit sent me on a DVD as PDF files copies of absolutely all of the documents that the Department of Education had in its possession regarding this case. There are no Indemnification Agreements included there.

Never before were the Indemnification Agreements part of the documents that the Department of Education or its debt collector business partners sent me. If these documents existed before, why were they omitted, while the Department of Education’s officials confirmed with their signature that they had sent me copies of all the documents that the Department of Education had regarding this case?

Thus, it seems that the Indemnification Agreements were created at a later date and were backdated. The purpose of doing so seems to be to provide the Department of Education a way out from a situation that the Department of Education is unwilling and unable to handle in any other way, so that the guaranty agency can take over the involuntary servitude usage and unvalidated monetary demands making processes.

If so, this exemplifies how the documents are being created and handled regarding this case, and how the illegitimate methods are continuously being used that also involve or at least implicate high-ranking government officials.

The Indemnification Agreements transfers to the Secretary of Education any rights held by the guaranty agency. However, the guaranty agency does not have any rights to make monetary demands for the same reasons that are being listed in this letter. So, there are no legitimate rights that can be transferred.

The Indemnification Agreements also state that the Secretary of Education may release and transfer back to the guaranty agency his rights. Again, because the Department of Education does not have any legitimate rights to make monetary demands in this case, there are no legitimate rights that can be transferred back to the guaranty agency.

If the Department of Education transfers any rights to the guaranty agency, then the Department of Education is liable for having to prove that it did have legitimate rights to make monetary demands in the first place. If the Department of Education transfers rights that it knows it does not have, the Department of Education is knowingly engaging in fraud. That will make a bad situation even worse.

Extortion by the Department of Education

Collecting actual legitimate student loans is not extortion.

Creating consumer lending records without existence of the actual consumer lending transactions and documents and then making monetary demands by using fabricated documents, involuntary servitude, harassment, abuse of power and bullying is extortion.

These are the actions that the Department of Education employees have been engaging in, using their nationwide debt collectors network in the process. Below is relevant information.

Department of Education Employees Are Knowingly Using Involuntary Servitude and Harassment to Enforce Extortionist Demands

The dispute that is addressed here is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially and the Department of Education employees professionally. Otherwise, this case would not exist. In the process the Department of Education employees and its business partners have made threats that I have to take seriously. Thus, whether I want to do so or not, I must work on this case until it is resolved.

Since December of 2011 the Department of Education has assigned numerous collection agencies to this case. In each instance, the outcome is the same as before: there is no valid debt or debt obligation.

  • In December of 2011 I received a collection letter from the U.S. Department of Education business partner, FMS Investment Corp. (dba FMS Services, aka Financial Management Systems). I responded on 12/16/2011 and requested debt validation. This dispute continued. However, in September of 2012 I received a letter from James K. Schultz of Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, L.L.C. law office, advising me that I should no longer contact FMS Investment Corp. directly, but should direct any future communication to James K. Schultz.
  • Thus, this collection agency that had initially demanded outrageous amounts of money from me, ended up hiring a lawyer so that I would not contact them again with debt validation requests.
  • Thereafter the U.S. Department of Education assigned another collection agency to this case, Collection Technology, Inc. (CTI). The outcome was the same as before: there is no valid debt or debt obligation.
  • Instead of providing the legitimately requested debt validation, Collection Technology, Inc. disappeared. Thereafter the U.S. Department of Education assigned another collection agency to this case, Collecto, Inc., d/b/a EOS CCA. The outcome was the same as before: there is no valid debt or debt obligation.
  • Instead of providing the legitimately requested debt validation, Collecto, Inc., d/b/a EOS CCA disappeared. Thereafter, in December of 2015 the Department of Education assigned another collection agency, Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., to this case. The outcome was the same as before: there is no valid debt or debt obligation.
  • Instead of providing the legitimately requested debt validation, Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. disappeared. Just a few months later, in March of 2016, the Department of Education assigned yet another collection agency, Central Research, Inc., to this case. The outcome was the same as before: there is no valid debt or debt obligation.
  • Instead of providing the legitimately requested debt validation, Central Research, Inc. disappeared. Just a few months later, in May of 2016, the Department of Education assigned yet another collection agency, Windham Professionals, Inc., to this case. The outcome was the same as before: there is no valid debt or debt obligation.
  • Instead of providing the legitimately requested debt validation, Windham Professionals, Inc. disappeared. Just a few months later, in June of 2016, the Department of Education assigned yet another collection agency, Action Financial Services, LLC to this case. The outcome was the same as before: there is no valid debt or debt obligation.

Thus, the same processes were knowingly, intentionally and maliciously repeated, over and over again. The Department of Education employees repeated the same actions, even though it was clear that no valid debt or debt obligation exists.

Because the same steps were repeated over and over again, and the conclusion was always that no valid debt or debt obligation exists, the Department of Education employees cannot say that their objective was collection of the alleged debt. It seems that the objective was to exhaust me, so that I would give up and would pay the perpetrators, even though no bank loans actually exist.

Further, I do not have any security and safety in this case. Even though the Department of Education employees have not furnished the requested validation that their records are based on real life transactions and the alleged debt actually exists, based on their statements, they can force me to pay them through garnishing wages.

Based on the existing information, the Department of Education employees should be fully aware that no valid debt or debt obligation exists in this case. Based on the available evidence, the Department of Education is managed so, that the employees can continuously make monetary demands and try to prevail in the process, whether or not their demands are valid.

So, I do not know what to expect next from the Department of Education. Thus, I must continue to work on this case until it is closed.

Department of Education Employees Use Bullying and Harassment to Enforce Extortionist Demands

After I started requesting debt validation in December of 2011, from 06/2012 to 08/2013, the Department of Education reported the unvalidated, non-existent student loans to Experian credit bureau, as if these were actual loans in collection. I found out about this in June of 2014. Thereafter, I contacted Experian credit bureau and had the invalid records removed from my credit report. Normal people, who do not have any reason to bully and harass somebody, recognize these as invalid entries.

At the time when the Department of Education reported the unvalidated, non-existent student loans to Experian credit bureau from 06/2012 to 08/2013, it must have been completely clear to the Department of Education employees that no documents exist that validate their monetary demands. Thus, it must have been obvious to the Department of Education employees, that they cannot prevail in this case by using legally acceptable means.

The Department of Education employees should be professionals who are fully aware, that neither Congress nor any other institution has ever authorized the Department of Education to report internal records as actual loans to a credit bureau without existence of any documents that demonstrate that the lending and borrowing transactions actually occurred and that the resulting debt obligations actually exist, and without existence of any legally binding valid debt instruments.

If the Department of Education employees are actually following the Higher Education Act of 1965, as they claim, then why did they not report these records to the credit bureaus before 06/2012? Why did the reporting stop at 08/2013 and why did they start the credit bureau reporting process again now, when this dispute is escalating and it is becoming increasingly clear that the monetary demands are not valid and are supported by usage of fraudulent means? Did the Higher Education Act of 1965 cease to exist temporarily, and became now effective again?

The Department of Education employees are fully aware, that no loans exist.

In a letter dated 06/03/2016 Department of Education employee stated that “The Department continues to report information to credit bureaus concerning your defaulted student loans. Information was last reported on May 7, 2016.” The Department of Education employee then cites Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

However, this was a lie. No records were actually reported to any credit bureau.

Thus, I have to conclude that the reason that the Department of Education chose to report these fictional records as actual loans to a credit bureau was bullying and harassment. People at the Department of Education wanted to show how powerful they are and what I can do to me.

Abuse of Power by the Department of Education Employees that Amount to a Modern Era Slavery Case

For over 6 (six) years the Department of Education has forced me to work in involuntary servitude conditions on a case that is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially and its employees professionally. The Department of Education employees have been pursuing this case, even though neither Congress nor any other institution has ever authorized the Department of Education to create consumer lending records without existence of documents that show, that the relevant lending and borrowing transactions actually took place, and without documents that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments, and without making any actual reimbursement payments to a bank.

Further, the Department of Education employees have demanded that I must demonstrate that the non-existent debt does not exist, even though neither Congress nor any other institution has ever authorized the Department of Education to operate by forcing former students to prove that unvalidated debt obligations are indeed invalid, after the Department of Education has created lending and borrowing related computer records without having any actual lending and borrowing related documents, and without documents that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments.

So, once we have established that no lending and borrowing transactions took place, and that financial aid applications cannot be used in lieu of real promissory note legally binding documents, and that in this case the stories about claim reimbursements made to Fleet National Bank are unvalidated bogus, then what's left?

What's left is a case of modern era of slavery, a case where the Department of Education has deliberately and purposefully forced me to work in involuntary servitude conditions for the sake of personal and professional gain of the Department of Education employees and business partners for over six years – as of now. Who knows how many years it will total before we finally will be done with this case.

Until the Department of Education closes the case addressed here, I must continue to work on this case, contacting different institutions and members of Congress repeatedly. I will do so during the current administration and, as needed, will continue during the next administrations, as previous administrations legacy.

I do hope that the current administration cares about the problems addressed here and documented on StopExtortion.org. If not, I do believe that sooner or later we will have a government where people declare usage of mail fraud, honest service fraud, extortion, document fabrication, involuntary servitude, bullying and harassment by the Department of Education employees to be unacceptable.

Thomas Eklund

Views: 120

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