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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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)
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:
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.
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:
The letter dated 06/28/2016 that your company sent to me lists monetary demands and states the following:
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.
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
© 2021 Created by Stop Extortion, Inc..
Powered by
You need to be a member of StopExtortion to add comments!
Join StopExtortion