For over 4.5 years I have been forced to work on resolving a case that is based on creating debt by creating internal records which are not backed with actual lending and borrowing transactions and the corresponding documents.

Isn’t this nice – I just write down in my computer that somebody owes me money and BOOM, that person owes me money.

Who can operate this way?

One of the largest financial institutions in this country at this point in time, the Department of Education.

Of course, there is one problem related to operating this way. The alleged debt cannot be validated. I mean, if I would offer you printed copies of my computer records and other similar “documents” that I have created as “proof” that you owe me money, would you take that seriously?

Because the Department of Education has been utterly unable to validate its monetary demands, the employees of the Department of Education decided to pursue different techniques. So, they assign collection agencies to this case every few months, forcing me to work on the case continuously.

For example, 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 will be the same as before: there is no valid debt or debt obligation.

Thus, the same processes are knowingly, intentionally and maliciously repeated, over and over again. If this is allowed to continue, we can expect the Department of Education employees to repeat the same actions or to try to find new ways for repeating the same actions, even though it is clear that no valid debt or debt obligation exists.

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

The letter below addresses relevant topics.

• The letter published below was delivered to Robert Morgan, Operations Manager, Action Financial Services, LLC, USPS Delivery Confirmation EL292335666US

Attn: Robert Morgan, Operations Manager

Action Financial Services, LLC

4894 N Runway Dr. Suite 103

Central Point, OR 97502

Dear Robert Morgan:

I am responding to your company’s letter dated 08/10/2016. Similarly to the previous correspondence, please note that this is an open letter that I may publish on StopExtortion.org and on other websites.

While you did not provide debt validation, the letter that I received from you has a touch of humanity.

Here’s where we stand with this case, as far as I am concerned:

• We have had over 4.5 years of dispute. It is clear that no debt and debt validation exist.
• If your client, the Department of Education, wants to resolve the internal record making, usage and enforcement dispute addressed here, of course, we can do so. I am sure that we can find a reasonable solution to this case if both sides are willing to be reasonable and realistic with their expectations.
• If your client wants to continue this dispute, of course, we will do so. In the process, the following will occur:
• - Because no debt actually exists, the Department of Education does not and will not benefit from this case in any way, while continuing to waste money and labor by keeping the case open. The same processes will continue.
• - The Department of Education’s liabilities regarding this case will continue to increase and accumulate.
• - I will be forced to continue to contact different individuals and institutions in order to draw attention to the Department of Education’s actions and violations. I will continue to do so during the current administration. I will start all over during the next administration, contacting large number of individuals and institutions again and again, just like I have done so far.

This case feeds my energy, which I turn into positive and constructive actions and results. So, once again, if the Department of Education wants to continue this process, we will do so. However, I have better uses for my time and labor than working in involuntary servitude conditions on an internal record making, usage and enforcement dispute that is not based on actual lending and borrowing transactions and corresponding documentation, and exists only because it is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially and the Department of Education employees professionally.

In order to resolve this case, first and foremost, the Department of Education must stop making any further monetary demands and must state in writing that the Department of Education will not under any circumstances make any further demands regarding the specific previously claimed alleged debt, and will not authorize any individual, company, organization or institution to make any kinds of further demands regarding the specific previously claimed alleged debt.

Thereafter we can negotiate other aspects that are related to resolving this case.

Because of the threats that the Department of Education and its business partners have made, until the Department of Education issues the above statement, I must continue to work on this case.

Please forward the enclosed updated invoice to your client, the Department of Education. For over 4.5 years your client has forced me to work in involuntary servitude conditions on this case that is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially and its employees professionally. I have invoiced your client for usage of my labor and will continue to do so. The Department of Education has not disputed the validity of this debt. Due to your client’s failure to honor its obligation to pay for usage of my labor, the entire unpaid invoiced balance is due and payable immediately.

Your Failure to Provide Debt Validation

As you already know, your company did not send me any of the requested documents. Similarly, your company did not send me any documents that would validate that I borrowed the alleged bank loans as a student. Below is a comparison of the documents that I asked for and what you sent me. Further, below is another debt validation request.

Your company sent me the same partial copies of financial aid applications that Windham Professionals, Inc. sent me couple of months ago, and Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. sent couple of months before that, and the Department of Education has sent in the past. As I have stated in the past, because I filled in these financial aid applications, I received Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid. As experienced professionals, you and your colleagues should know very well that the partial copies of financial aid applications that you sent me do not constitute the requested validation that (1) I received the alleged student loans and that the relevant debt exists, and (2) that the Department of Education holds relevant valid legally binding promissory note debt instruments, and (3) that the Department of Education is the legal owner of the relevant alleged debt.

For as long as the Department of Education continues to claim that it holds legally binding promissory note documents, the Department of Education is in the shoes of the lender and is obligated to validate its monetary demands. The Department of Education has consistently failed to fulfill this obligation and its employees are fully aware of that.

Comparison of Debt Validation Documents Requested and Received

Below is a comparison of the debt validation documents that I requested in my letter and what you sent me in response.

1) I requested:

Exact copies of the original documents that demonstrate that student loan lending and borrowing transactions did take place and the resulting debt exists.

You sent:

Absolutely nothing.

2) I requested:

Copies of original documents that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments.

You sent:

Partial copies of financial aid applications. You did not send any copies of the original documents that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments.

3) I requested:

Two-sided (duplex) exact copies of the two-sided original (duplex) Application and Promissory Note documents.

You sent:

Partial copies of financial aid applications and unidentified documents that could belong to anybody.

You did not send any two-sided (duplex) exact copies of the two-sided original (duplex) Application and Promissory Note documents.

4) I requested:

Exact copies of all of the original Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements that apply to the loans that I allegedly received.

You sent:

Absolutely nothing.

5) I requested:

(5.1) Copies of the original insurance claims that Fleet National Bank allegedly submitted to the guaranty agency.

(5.2) Copies of the original financial transactions documents that clearly demonstrate that the guaranty agency actually made insurance payments to Fleet National Bank on my behalf.

You sent:

Absolutely nothing, except that for some reason you included copies of documents that indicate, that there was a business deal between the guaranty agency and the Department of Education. This took place in 2007. According to the previous correspondence, the payments to Fleet Bank allegedly took place in 1997, 10 years earlier.

6) I requested:

Notarized documents.

You sent:

Absolutely nothing.

I have to ask you the same questions that I asked Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. before you: What was the thinking here? That a document is a document is a document, and it doesn’t really matter what you send? That as long as you send something, you can claim that you sent the “requested debt validation documents”?

So, you only validated that I filled in financial aid applications. Please note, that I filled in these financial aid applications that I was asked to fill in. Further, I received Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid because I filled in these financial aid applications. As far as I can remember, there were no other kinds of financial aid applications that I was asked to fill in.

I do not know, why I had to fill in these specific financial aid applications, or if there were any other kinds of financial aid applications that I could have filled in while I attended college over 20 years ago. However, I am not obligated to have the relevant knowledge.

For as long as the Department of Education continues to claim, that it holds legally binding promissory note documents, the Department of Education is in the shoes of the lender and is obligated to validate its monetary demands. For the last 4 (four) years the Department of Education has failed to fulfill this obligation.

Further, both your company’s employees, and the Department of Education’s employees who are handling this case, should be experienced professionals. Thus, it should be completely clear to everybody involved, that in my case the Department of Education has not provided any debt validation in the past, and that your company did not send me any documents whatsoever that would validate the monetary demands. Therefore, I have to make the same request again.

Debt Validation Request

I have requested debt validation numerous times after receiving a collection letter in December of 2011. This is the second time I request debt validation through your company.

I dispute the validity of the debt in entirety and every portion of it. This is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b) that your claim is disputed and debt validation is requested.

Your client, the Department of Education, claims that it holds legally binding promissory notes. Your client is responsible for validating such claims and the corresponding monetary demands. In accordance with case law, (citing)

• as assignees, the Guaranty Agencies and other secondary holders step into the shoes of the lender from whom they have taken the promissory notes and are subject to any defenses that the student/obligee may assert against the assignor/lender. See Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, 788 F. Supp. 1233, 1248 n.9 (D.D.C. 1992), reversed on other grounds, 27 F.2d 573 (D.C. Cir. 1994), vacated, 515 U.S. 1139, on reconsideration, 59 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Please note that the above citation is applicable to the time period during which I attended college and the alleged loans were made. Accordingly, I request that your client furnishes copies of the following documents:

• 1) Exact copies of the original documents that demonstrate that student loan lending and borrowing transactions did take place and the resulting debt exists.
• During the 4 (four) years long debt validation dispute your client has not been able to show that I received any student loans either directly or indirectly, as tuition support. However, I did receive Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid that covered the cost of my attending Rhode Island College.
• 2) Copies of original documents that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments.
• The partial, front-end copies of the Application and Promissory Note documents that I filled in and your client has furnished, are financial aid applications. As such, these documents do not contain the following information that is necessary for a document to qualify as a legally binding promissory note:
• – The exact principal amount that has to be paid. The partial copies of the Application and Promissory Note documents that were furnished to me state that the principal can be the amount printed in the loan application, or less, which then also includes zero ($0.00).
• – Specific interest rate.
• – Due date, and when and at what frequencies any money has to be paid.
• – Further, a promissory note must be an unconditional promise to pay. The signed partial copy of the Application and Promissory Note financial aid document on its own is not an unconditional promise to pay, because the financial aid applicant may not receive any loan at all, or may receive the loan in the future at an unknown point in time, in which case the loan amount will be disclosed to the borrower in the Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement.
• That is, the Application and Promissory Note financial aid document does not state with certainty that the financial aid applicant will receive or has received any loan amount at all. If the applicant does not receive any loan amount, then there is no debt or debt obligation.
• Therefore, the Application and Promissory Note financial aid document on its own qualifies at the most as a conditional promise to pay, dependent on the content of the Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement and any other documents that the applicant will sign when receiving a loan.
• Accordingly, as was pointed out above, if your client claims that lending and borrowing transactions occurred, your client must furnish relevant signed documents that amount to legally binding promissory note debt instrument and to unconditional promise to pay.
• 3) Two-sided (duplex) exact copies of the two-sided original (duplex) Application and Promissory Note documents.
• If your client is the actual legal owner of the alleged debt, then your client must have the original, fully qualifying Promissory Note documents in its possession. So far, your client has furnished copies of the front end of the two-sided Application and Promissory Note documents, and separate copies of what could be the back ends of any person’s documents. Nothing links these copies reliably together. There is no information on the separate copies of the back ends that relates them reliably with the front ends of the Application and Promissory Note documents.
• I do not accept the unidentifiable separate back ends as parts of the same documents. Any person who handled these documents could have made a copy of the front end of my financial aid applications, and the back end of another person’s financial aid applications, and put them next to each other either accidentally or intentionally, claiming that these two copies belong together as one document.
• Please note, that the guaranty agency that seems to be the source of the relevant documents, has already shown that it can manufacture legal documents at will – an act, that I consider to be equivalent to forgery.
• The separate back ends contain information that may be interpreted as Fleet Bank signing over loans to guaranty agency. Because we do not have reliable documents that show that the alleged student loans existed in the first place, or that Fleet Bank signed over the alleged loans to the guaranty agency, your client must furnish documents that prove that the alleged loans exist and that your client is the legal owner of the said alleged loans.
• Accordingly, your client must furnish exact duplex copies of the original Application and Promissory Note documents as is requested above. However, during the 4 (four) years long debt validation dispute your client has not been able to furnish exact duplex copies of the original Application and Promissory Note documents. Instead, your client sent me repeatedly partial copies of documents, that were made from partial copies of documents.
• Please do not send me one-sided copies, so that you make separate copies of the front and back end of the original documents.
• Similarly, please do not send me two-sided copies that are made from copies. Such copies can be made by putting together two sheets of paper and copying both sides as if it were one document. Such act would be equivalent to forgery.
• 4) Exact copies of all of the original Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements that apply to the loans that I allegedly received.
• During the 4 (four) years long debt validation dispute your client has not been able to furnish exact copies of all of the original Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements that apply to the loans that I allegedly received.
• Please do not send me copies of documents that were manufactured after I graduated from college. Manufacturing such documents after I graduated from college is an act that is equivalent to forgery.
• 5) Both (5.1) and (5.2) listed below:
• (5.1) Copies of the original insurance claims that Fleet National Bank allegedly submitted to the guaranty agency.
• (5.2) Copies of the original financial transactions documents that clearly demonstrate that the guaranty agency actually made insurance payments to Fleet National Bank on my behalf.
• Your client’s previous correspondence states that your client’s monetary demands are in part based on the payments of insurance claims to Fleet Bank. However, your client has not provided copies of the insurance claims that Fleet Bank allegedly submitted. Similarly, your client has not provided copies of the documents that show that my alleged student loan insurance claims payments to Fleet Bank ever actually took place.
• 6) We already had a documented incident where the guaranty agency that is involved created student loan borrowing related “original” Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement legal documents in 2012 by entering my current information into their computer system (and used a wrong bank’s name), while I graduated from college in 1996. As is stated above, I consider manufacturing such documents at will to be acts equivalent to forgery.
• Therefore, please have each document notary certified, stating that
• (6.1) the document is the exact copy of the original document, not a copy of a copy, and
• (6.2) the copy was made in the presence of the notary who certifies it, and
• (6.3) which company or organization currently holds the original document.

Based on the available information, qualifying Promissory Note documents in this case do not exist at all, and your client does not have even the original two-sided (duplex) financial aid Application and Promissory Note documents in its possession. Thus, based on the available information, your client has partial copies of irrelevant documents, created internal records and now claims ownership of an alleged debt.

Further, based on the available information, the “loan” records were created after I graduated from college, by picking approximately 80% of the amounts from the financial aid applications, without existence of the corresponding lending and borrowing transactions and the relevant documents. Such internal record creating does not create debt.

I have requested debt validation in this case since December of 2011. Your client has repeatedly failed to validate that (1) I received student loans and that any debt actually exists, and (2) that your client holds valid legally binding promissory note debt instruments, and (3) that your client is the legal owner of the alleged debt.

FOR THE SECOND TIME: If your client is unable to validate the debt as requested above by the indicated deadline, you and your client must stop making any further monetary demands and state in writing that the Department of Education will not under any circumstances make any further demands regarding the specific previously claimed alleged debt, and will not authorize any individual, company, organization or institution to make any kinds of further demands regarding the specific previously claimed alleged debt.

Further Actions, False Advertising and Breach of Contract Charges

Please furnish the requested debt validation documents by 10/12/2016. For each listed debt validation item for which the requested documents do not exist, please state separately in writing that the requested documents do not exist OR that you were not able to obtain the requested documents from the Department of Education.

Your company can fulfil its obligations in one of the following three ways:

• By furnishing the requested debt validation.
• By stating for each relevant debt validation request item that the requested documents do not exist.
• By sending a response, clearly stating that you did try to obtain the requested debt validation documents from the Department of Education, but the Department of Education failed to furnish the requested documents.

The letter dated 06/28/2016 that your company sent to me lists monetary demands and states the following:

• If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification.

Further, the same letter also states what your company’s fees are regarding this case.

This is all non-negotiable. However, because your company at this point has received the requested notice of the debt being disputed, with the letter that your company sent, your company is making an unconditional promise to provide financial services in the form or debt validation, which also qualifies as a contract.

So, if your company, like everybody else before you, will send me partial copies of financial aid applications without furnishing qualifying proof that I ever actually received any of the alleged loans, then your company clearly is not providing verification of the alleged debt. Filling in financial aid applications and receiving bank loans are two different sets of financial transactions. Further, the alleged loan principal is about 20 times higher than was the cost of the relevant average annual tuition, and I received Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid that covered the cost of my attending college.

Thus, without furnishing the relevant debt validation and without clear indication that your company actually tried to obtain and furnish the relevant debt validation, your company is liable for false advertising and breach of contract.

I need, for the record, an unambiguous statement demonstrating that you tried to obtain the requested documents from the Department of Education, but the Department of Education failed to furnish the requested documents. When the Department of Education assigns the next collection agency to this case, I will request the same from that agency. This will provide increasing evidence that the Department of Education is fully aware that debt and debt validation do not exist, yet continues to pursue the case using illegitimate means.

Thomas Eklund