(Some of) Department of Education's Systemic Problems

The open letter below lists some of the problems that the Department of Education as a system has. If we look at the Department of Education as a system that is supposed to benefit traditional students, adult learners and employers, we will most likely find many more problem areas. The systemic problems listed below are specific to one case. However, the problems listed here may very well be relevant to many people. We don't know how many people over the years have paid to the Department of Education money that they did not actually owe, simply because they trusted the information that this institution provided, or because they gave in to the pressure that the Department of Education and its network of business partners applied.

The Department of Education keeps its secrets.

  • 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 EL778989502US

The Honorable Betsy DeVos

Secretary of Education

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue S.W.

Washington, DC 20202

Dear Secretary DeVos:

I am contacting you about the U.S. Department of Education's usage of mail fraud, honest service fraud and involuntary servitude. 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.

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.

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.

Secretary DeVos, I am forced to work on this case but I will not follow illicit demands made by the Department of Education and I expect the Department of Education to follow the laws that pertain to this case. Accordingly, because no valid debt exists, please note that the Department of Education has no legal right whatsoever to demand that I have to work with a collection agency in order to resolve the problems that your predecessors created and are being perpetuated under your administration. It is your responsibility to resolve the mail fraud, honest service fraud and involuntary servitude usage related problems caused by the Department of Education. I can and will continue to call attention to these Department of Education operating practices, but I cannot resolve these Department of Education wrongdoings for you. So, you will either resolve these problems or you will leave them to your successor as part of your legacy that will continue to be documented on StopExtortion.org.

Please note, that if you will allow the current operating practices to continue at the Department of Education, then most likely your representative will simply send me a standard letter stating, that the relevant problems have already been addressed – which is completely false. This will neither resolve anything nor will it help the Department of Education in any way. I will be forced to continue to work on this case by contacting different institutions and members of Congress repeatedly.

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.

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.

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.

A Case of Modern Era Slavery

I will contact the Department of Justice and members of Congress. Doing so can help to increase awareness on how the Department of Education actually operates and increases probability, that I will find people who actually care about following laws. This will take us through the end of the current administration. During the next administration, as needed, the process will start all over again, at that time as part of the current administration's – and your – legacy.

Further, my objective is to make sure that the Department of Education no longer can use mail fraud, honest service fraud and involuntary servitude in this case.

Further, it is likely that while the Department of Education reimbursed the guaranty agency, Fleet National Bank did not submit any reimbursement claims 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? 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? Let's shed some light into this. Once we dig into this, I’m pretty sure that we will find out that the guaranty agency making claim reimbursements has no real life backing. It's just couple of scratch papers that that were created fraudulently.

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.

The Department of Education cannot pin its usage of extortion, document fabrication, involuntary servitude, bullying and harassment on the guaranty agency or any other agency, because it is the Department of Education that through systematic actions has caused the real problems and suffering in this case and knowingly keeps this case open.

At this point I have to stress again that I have no desire to cause problems to the Department of Education or 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.

Thomas Eklund

Views: 48

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