The burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies. Innocent until proven guilty.
This is one of the founding principles of modern democracies.
The same principles apply to debt. In this country neither an individual, nor a company or organization has the legal right to demand payments on a disputed and unvalidated debt.
Having to pay a disputed debt that has not been legally validated is a punishment that nobody deserves.
However, there are people at the U.S. Department of Education who wish, that they would have the right to turn other people into debtors simply by stating that the person owes the Department of Education money, without having to provide legally valid documents and to follow debt validation regulations.
These people at the Department of Education want to live by their own rules. As my experience shows, if they want to violate laws and commonly accepted rules, they do so. They do so, because they believe that they can, and they believe that they can do so because of the special debt collection rights and status that the Department of Education has.
Who is in charge of administering and managing these violations? Mr. Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education. Below is another open letter that I sent to him.
If you have a student loan dispute with the Department of Education, don’t be discouraged by the apparent enormity of the resources that the Department of Education has on its side. Request debt validation – but so, that you get copies of the original documents and records that actually are relevant. The same applies to making FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. People at the Department of Education issue cleverly worded statements, and may send you material that does not constitute debt validation, while implying that they have sent you the needed and requested documents.
Nevertheless, even the Department of Education must follow laws and rules, and cannot go on by making unvalidated monetary demands forever. I will post additional material on this website that will help people to challenge the Department of Education in instances, where the Department of Education fails to follow laws and rules, as it does in my case.
Further, while being big, powerful and resolute on the surface, at least in my case the Department of Education’s debt collection practices are rather shallow once you dig deeper. The same deficient paperwork is being pushed around again and again, as if presenting it more times would render it into legally binding debt instruments. Attempts are made to disregard grants that were issued, nonexistent loans are being created and then supported with “internal records,” and instead of issuing copies of the original documents, generalizations and statements are made, accompanied with wishful thinking that perhaps the alleged borrower will buy this as a valid proof of otherwise nonexistent debt.
There may be other people who face, or have faced, similar problems. I will start looking around soon. The more such cases I will find, the more reason there is to bring down this tower of indifference that the Department of Education has became. Unless Mr. Duncan and his team of people who are in charge of the biggest debt collection hub in this country, the Department of Education, agree voluntarily to manage their operations by following the relevant laws and rules, we also need to bring them to justice for the harm done by ignoring their legal obligations. It will not be easy, and it will probably take years of work, but there doesn’t seem to be any other viable alternative.
The laws and rules that are relevant here and the Department of Education must follow are common law, commercial law, in particular contract law, Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), labor laws, and criminal law, in particular 18 U.S.C. § 1001, making false statements. In the upcoming articles I will post more information on how the Department of Education has been attempting to break these laws and rules in my case, and how other people can identify instances where the Department of Education may be attempting to break these laws and rules in the process of making monetary demands, and for the sake of monetary gain.
Stay tuned, there will be more to follow.
A copy of the letter published below was delivered to the following people and institutions:
Mr. Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue S.W.
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Mr. Duncan,
Thank you for your letter dated 07/01/13 that your assistant sent to me on your behalf regarding your demands for payments for unvalidated student loan debt. Please note that this is an open letter that I will publish on the Internet, on StopExtortion.org so that it is accessible to the general public and to other institutions.
We have been disputing two issues, your employment of me in involuntary servitude conditions, and an alleged student loan validation issue. I am addressing both issues below first briefly, and then in more detail.
You can choose one of these two ways to validate your right to make monetary demands.
However, if you are unable to validate the debt in writing within 30 days of receipt of this letter in at least one of the above two ways, you 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.
30 days is a reasonable period of time in this case, because I have requested debt validation since December of 2011, that is, for over a year and a half. Despite of your efforts you have failed to validate the existence of this debt.
I am providing what I believe to be valid ways for reaching a conclusion to this case. If you dispute the validity of my above request and suggested ways of handling this case, please specify your reasons for your objections.
No matter how we will proceed further, as long as you insist on making monetary demands, you will have to validate your right to make such demands, and you will have to stop making unvalidated demands. Neither circular arguments, nor extortion-like demands will move this case further toward a satisfactory conclusion. Using reason and being willing to find constructive solutions can help both of us to find a conclusion to this case.
Please note, that all the correspondence that is related to either of the issues listed above must be handled in writing. We both need records that we can rely on.
Further, until you have not validated your demands, you do not have the right to request that I must contact a specific agency in order to resolve an unvalidated debt case. It is unlikely, that communication with additional parts of your network can be constructive, while I am assumed to be a borrower, even though no debt has been validated.
As I have informed you before, throughout the alleged student loan validation dispute I will have to invoice you for my labor and time that you are forcing me to spend under the threat of financial harm, causing me to work against my will on a case that is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially.
Mr. Duncan, as I have stated before, for over a year and a half you have made unvalidated demands that have been accompanied by threats. You have not validated your monetary demands. Despite of that, you keep prolonging this case and keep me actively involved in it. As is described below, operating in this manner is financially beneficial to you.
By using the powers granted to the Department of Education that you are leading, you, as the leader of this institution, have created a situation where you rendered me into involuntary servitude without providing any compensation. This has created your debt to me. Accordingly, I have invoiced you for my time and efforts and will continue to do so as long as you force me to participate in this case by making unvalidated monetary demands.
I have informed you of this before. I addressed the same topic in my letter dated 10/06/12 where I did inform you that I will invoice you, and you did not object to my doing so. Further, I addressed the same topics in my letters dated 04/27/13 and 06/15/13. I also stated that if you dispute in writing the validity of this debt or any portion thereof within thirty (30) days of receiving the relevant notice, I will provide additional information on the transactions that lead to creating this debt.
In my letter dated 06/15/13, I listed in broad terms the transactions that led to creating this debt. Continuing from where I left off in that letter, below are some of the principles that I consider to be relevant to this case.
Working for you in involuntary servitude conditions. By threatening to cause me significant financial harm, you have been forcing me to work on a case that is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially.
I have been working on this case against my will. I have much better, more productive and much more pleasant uses for my time. I have lost an entire year’s worth of career development opportunities, and had to move my professional development related exam into next year. Further, involuntary participation in this case has also caused and continues to cause me significant emotional harm.
So, my working on this case for you has not been similar to at-will contract work or employment. You, however, do have the ability to terminate this case. You have chosen not to terminate this case, even though you clearly have not been able to validate the debt.
You are trying to increase your revenue by using the powers granted to you, without validating your demands. This debt validation case has been going on for over a year and a half. It could have been resolved within a month or two, if you would use contemporary debt validation standards that are verifiably and objectively applied without discrimination, and would drop the cases that are not validated.
Instead, by using the exceptional debt collection powers granted to you, you have turned what should be a debt validation process, into a process that helps you to reduce expenses and increase potential revenue streams. You do so by employing student loan applicant in the debt validation processes, without any intent of compensating the student loan applicant for the time and efforts exerted. Without validating that any debt exists, you demand that the student loan applicant must participate in the process and must prove to your satisfaction that the debt does not exist. You make such demands, without specifying what laws grant you the right to make these demands without proving that you have the right to make monetary demands in the first place.
This operating policy helps you to reduce your expenses, and to increase your revenues.
Debt validation, where you actually prove existence of lending and borrowing transactions that create debt and the validity of the relevant documents, would be more expensive for you.
Further, dropping the cases that you do not validate would mean losing these potential revenue streams that you can forcefully obtain from people through working with your debt collector-business partners.
My role in the process. I have been working on this case in self defense. This is the role that you assigned to me in the process of repeatedly making unvalidated monetary demands for a prolonged period of time.
People may work in different roles, some of which help to generate revenue for the employer, and others that do not. The nature of the role assigned to a person is usually not a factor that determines whether or not the person deserves compensation.
Additional information. Mr. Duncan, if you need additional debt validation related information regarding your debt to me, please inform me of your relevant request in writing.
If you need additional information on any of the legal aspects that are related to your debt, whether it is 18 USC § 1589 - Forced labor, or contract or other employment laws, I advise you to consult with your attorney.
Please note, that the debt owed carries interest in accordance with the terms listed on the relevant invoices.
Mr. Duncan, you insist that I owe you student loans, even though we have valid documents that show that my education was paid with grants, and we do not have valid documents that show that I received student loans either directly or indirectly, as tuition support. So far you have only furnished partial copies of financial aid applications and have stated that you have internal documents that support your demands.
In order to validate your right to make monetary demands, you need either to furnish copies of the valid relevant documents, or you need to specify the laws that conclusively grant you the right to make monetary demands without furnishing copies of the valid relevant documents.
Below is the summary of the current state of this issue.
In each area, please provide specific answers by referring to specific laws and by providing exact copies of the actually relevant original documents and proof of specific transactions that took place. Otherwise, we will keep addressing the same areas and questions over and over again.
Mr. Duncan, the origin on the documents that you have been using in this case is dubious, to say the least.
Accordingly, until you have specified the laws that render the incomplete unvalidated documents into legally binding debt instruments, or have provided copies of the needed original documents that add up to legally binding promissory notes and lending and borrowing transaction documents, please refrain from referring to the partial copies of student loan applications as promissory notes.
Similarly, until you have validated your monetary demands, please refrain from referring to me as student loan borrower and a debtor. Even after a year and a half of debt validation, you have not demonstrated that I borrowed and owe any student loans. Thus, you have not earned any right to use language that directly implies borrowing and debt.
The financial aid applications that I signed in the first half of 1990s as a student contain parts that are labeled as promissory notes. When I signed these documents decades ago, I had recently arrived from a completely different socio-economic environment, the Soviet Union. I wanted to go to college and I filled in financial aid applications as I was instructed to do. If I would have known that years later I have to deal with so much fabrication that support unvalidated extortionist demands, of course, I would not have signed anything.
The Department of Education claims that these partial copies of financial applications are legally binding promissory note debt instruments, and that I owe the money that I applied for as financial aid, even though the same partial copies show that I received grants that paid for my education.
However, as before, the Department of Education makes unsubstantiated claims.
Mr. Duncan, unfortunately, the same pattern continues, where you state that something is so, and then you expect it to be so because you say so. However, when we dispute your monetary demands, you must prove the validity of every aspect of your demands, every step of the way. As I have stated before, please keep this in mind, so that we do not have to address the same topics over and over again.
You made the following statement:
By stating that by signing the Application and Promissory Note documents I agreed to repay the loan amounts advanced, plus interest and any other charges that may become due, you are deliberately making a false statement for the purpose of monetary gain.
I signed what I believed to be financial aid applications, and to the best of my knowledge these applications were actually used for processing grants, which I did receive as a result of filling in these applications. As far as I know, and as far as the existing documents and sources of information show, the amounts of the grants that I received exceeded the cost of tuition and fees for every school year that I attended the state owned Rhode Island College in the first half of 1990s.
You yourself acknowledged my receipt of grants. Further, you have not shown that the loan amounts in question were advanced prior to my signing these applications, or after my signing these applications. That is, you have not proved and validated that my alleged student loans and the resulting debt existed in the past or exist now.
The actual student loan application promissory notes are two paragraphs long text that refer to loan application parts (Paragraphs) and to other documents. Here’s a copy of a promissory note that I signed:
Thus, the amount borrowed may be either:
Based on the above Application and Promissory Note alone,
Once again, we do know that in my case these Application and Promissory Note documents were used for processing grants, and that I did receive grants. That is, we do know that the college that processed these documents used them for processing grants.
The Application and Promissory Note document does use the word “borrower.” However, people at the Department of Education with whom I have communicated call me a borrower even though they have not validated this claim. Thus, people at the Department of Education seem to use the word “borrower” whenever it suits them, whether they have validated their right to use this word or not.
Further, the promissory note does not state that the applicant has actually borrowed any money or will necessarily borrow any money by signing the Promissory Note. The Promissory Note is a promise to pay back the loan amount, plus interest and any other charges, which are disclosed in another part of the document (Paragraph VI) and in other documents in the case the loan actually materializes.
That is, the Application and Promissory Note documents state that “By signing this Promissory Note I, the borrower, acknowledge that I have received an exact copy of this note.” The Application and Promissory Note documents DO NOT state that by signing this Promissory Note I acknowledge that I have received a loan.
That is, the Application and Promissory Note documents that I signed in the first half of 1990s do not state with certainty that lending and borrowing took place before signing the documents, or will take place with certainty some time after signing the promissory note.
Further, please note that the Promissory Notes refer to other documents and to Paragraph VI. This Paragraph VI apparently is on the reverse side of the Application and Promissory Note document. Because I have not received exact copies of Application and Promissory Note documents, I do not know with certainty what Paragraph VI contains. Similarly, I have not received copies of any other documents that would exist if lending and borrowing transactions actually did take place.
Labels do not make legally binding debt instruments. Being in agreement with the applicable laws renders documents into legally binding debt instruments.
Mr. Duncan, you seem to be under an impression that if you have partial copies of financial aid applications that contain portions labeled Promissory Note, then these partial copies of financial aid applications on their own, without any other documents, automatically become legally binding debt instruments, entitling you to demand money from the financial aid applicant.
In order to qualify as a legally binding promissory note, a document must among other things contain the following information, none of which is part of the Application and Promissory Note that I signed as a student:
Thus, the Application and Promissory Note financial aid applications that I signed in the first half of 1990-s are lacking crucially important aspects and information. Apparently, for lending and borrowing purposes these financial aid applications were meant to be part of a set of documents, and were not meant to function independently.
So far I have not received the exact copies of the original Application and Promissory Note documents. Instead, I have received one-sided copies of front ends of the original two-sided documents, that are put together with separate copies of back ends of documents that may equally well belong to other people.
That is, without having the original documents that clearly state that (a) debt exists and (b) the guaranty agency is the legal owner of the relevant debt, what precisely makes the Department of Education the legal owner of this unvalidated debt?
You can validate your right to make monetary demands by furnishing exact copies of the relevant original documents listed below.
Please note, that if you want to call me a student loan borrower, then I am entitled to the exact copies of all the original Promissory Notes, the exact copies of all the original Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements and to the exact copies of any original agreements that I signed in the lending and borrowing processes.
Similarly, I request exact copies of transactions that show that the guaranty agency made insurance payments on my behalf to Fleet National Bank regarding the alleged student loan debt.
Similarly, I request exact copies of transactions that show that my alleged loans have been legitimately signed over to the guaranty agency, which then forwarded the loans to the Department of Education.
At this point I have not received copies of these true original documents. This shows, once again, that there were no lending and borrowing transactions. If lending and borrowing transactions took place, there must be documents that show this to be true.
We already had an incident where the guaranty agency that is involved created student loan borrowing related Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement legal documents after I graduated from college. As I stated above, I consider manufacturing such documents at will to be an act that is equivalent to forgery.
Therefore, please have each document notary certified, stating that
Decades ago as a student I may have received copies of the financial aid applications that included the promissory note portions of the applications. Because my education was paid with grants, I had no reason to keep the copies of the financial aid applications after I graduated. However you must have all the relevant documents, if you claim that lending and borrowing took place and I owe you student loans. If you are making such claims and such documents existed in the first place, you obviously had good reasons to keep and maintain the original documents.
However, if the relevant documents were never produced in the first place, then, of course, you do not have them. This also means that you do not have the possession of any legally binding promissory notes.
Thus, as a proof that you are holding legally binding debt instruments, and not merely partially filled copies of student financial aid applications, please furnish exact copies of the relevant original documents as is requested above.
Until you send me copies of all the relevant documents, you are not holding promissory notes, you are holding copies of student loan applications. Accordingly, please refrain from referring to incomplete student loan applications that are not accompanied by necessary support documents as promissory notes.
Previously, you have made the following statement:
This statement implies that the Department of Education does have the original two-sided (duplex) Application and Promissory Note documents. So, please explain, why have you been refusing to send me the requested two-sided (duplex) copies of the original Application and Promissory Note documents?
If you do not have the original Application and Promissory Note documents, then the above statement clearly is misleading, and you should explain why are you making such misleading statements. Of course, you are making such statement for the purpose of monetary gain. However, expected monetary gain does not grant you the right to make misleading statement regarding legal documents.
Similarly, if you do not have the original Application and Promissory Note documents and other valid documents that demonstrate lending and borrowing, you should explain why you have been pursuing collection of unvalidated debt by making an assumption that a financial aid applicant is a borrower, even though you do not have the documents to back this claim? After all, you proceed by using threats and the extraordinary debt collection powers granted to the Department of Education. Does this not constitute extortion and abuse of power in your opinion?
Even more importantly, now, when you hopefully are starting to realize that you do not have a valid base for making monetary demands, why are you still prolonging this case, instead of being willing to find a feasible solution to it?
Please note, that making a statement like “You have been provided with correct copies of the front and back sides of your promissory notes” is NOT in any way a substitute for actually sending me the requested exact copies of the original documents.
By making statements instead of furnishing exact copies of the original documents as requested, you are simply wasting time. You necessitate my making the same request again and again.
This has been going on for a long time. Of course, as a result you shouldn’t be disagreeable when I request compensation for all the time and labor that I have been forced to spend in this process. This process was initiated by you, was designed by you and is managed by you. You are also responsible for the relevant compensation.
As is stated above, you have furnished partial, one-sided copies of original two-sided Application and Promissory Note documents.
Mr. Duncan, if you want to continue to make monetary demands without validating both that the relevant lending and borrowing transactions have taken place and that you are the legal owner of the resulting debt, please list the specific laws that render the partial one-sided student loan applications into binding legal debt instruments, and give you the right to make monetary demands without validating that the relevant lending and borrowing transactions took place.
You also made the following statement:
This statement applies to student loans and debt that actually does exist.
Is the above statement still true in your opinion, even if the student loans do not exist?
Please answer this and other questions listed here directly, otherwise I will have to keep repeating these questions until you will answer them. This way we will have at least some hope that going forward you will think through your statements, before you make them. Further, if we address your statements and the (lack of) validity of your demands and the resulting issues, we can finally move this case toward its conclusion.
Can nonexistent student loans default as well, so that you can enforce their repayment?
You have not validated the existence of my student loans. That is, you have not validated that the lender lent and I borrowed money. Similarly, you have not validated that you hold legally binding promissory notes.
By making the above statement, you once again fail to use the principles of logic correctly. You are making an assumption that you are dealing with defaulted student loans without providing conclusive proof that this is so, and then you proceed by trying to build your case on your assumptions. (Check out Begging the question and other relevant fallacies of logic.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Or, perhaps it is your opinion, that the government has the right to enforce the repayment of both existing and nonexistent defaulted student loans?
Is that what you meant, when you sent to me fabricated Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements that were created over a decade after I graduated from college?
Is that what you meant when you sent me copies of promissory notes that are for some unexplained reason split up so, that one side which bears my signature is paired up with a separate copy of the other side that comes from an unidentifiable source?
Is that what you meant when you sent me guaranty agency’s worksheets as if these internal documents were proof that a bank had submitted insurance claims that were consequently also paid by the guaranty agency?
Mr. Duncan, please list the specific laws that you are referring to that in your opinion apply to this specific case and give you the right to make these specific monetary demands that you have been making under the given circumstances.
Until you have provided references to specific laws that provide you the legal right to enforce repayment of alleged defaulted student loans without providing proof that you hold any legally valid promissory notes, and that I as a former student financial aid applicant received in addition to receiving grants also the student loans that you demand from me, please stop making false claims! Without actual legal right to make monetary demands, you are engaging in extortion.
The burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies. Innocent until proven guilty.
This is one of the founding principles of modern democracies. Only dictators, tyrants and other such elements violate it.
You want to turn this principle upside down. You do so, using the extraordinary debt collection powers granted to you, that no other, regular financial institution has. In the process you are trying to twist and turn statements around, so that you can support your demands.
You continue to insist that I owe you money unless I prove to your satisfaction that I do not owe you money. Further, you continue to insist that you have the right to demand payments for an unvalidated debt.
This problem is at the core of our dispute. As long as you keep violating the above innocent until proven guilty principle, and keep denying your obligation to validate the debt in order to make monetary demands, it is highly unlikely that we can reach any kind of mutually satisfactory conclusion to this dispute.
In your letter dated 07/01/13 you stated that I should provide further proof that my education was paid with grants. Mr. Duncan, it is not my obligation to obtain statements from the college that I attended so that I can prove to you that my education was paid with grants. Several decades after I went to school, the college may not have the needed records. After all, what need is there for a college to maintain for decades records of providing grants? Further, the Department of Education under your leadership does not use any uniform, publicly accessible debt validation standards that are in agreement with the contemporary debt validation requirements and are verifiably and objectively applied without discrimination. Thus, you can always come up with additional requirements and I may never be able to prove everything to your satisfaction.
Most importantly, as part of the debt validation process, without you furnishing documents that validate the alleged debt, you do not have any legal right to demand that I must prove that I do not owe you money.
Instead, it is your obligation to validate your monetary demands.
As far as I know, the U.S. does not have any laws that grant a company or organization the right to demand debt payments from an individual without existence of valid relevant documents that prove the existence of debt. As far as I know, even the U.S. Department of Education does not have such rights.
If you want to prove me wrong, you must specify the laws that grant you the relevant rights. Usage of circular and fallacious arguments will not do you any good here.
You also failed to respond to my questions, and to show that your demands have a valid and legal base. So, I will ask the relevant questions again, adding new questions as needed. I will repeat the unanswered questions until you answer each one of them. Because you want to perpetuate this case, sooner or later you will have to answer them.
I will list the questions numerically. Please answer the questions using the same numbering format, so that I can match your responses to the questions asked.
1.1. The “Application and Promissory Note” documents, that were part of the financial aid applications that I submitted in the past, are two-sided documents.
Why are copies of these two-sided documents split into two separate sheets of paper, so that one contains the front end, and the other, separate sheet of paper, the back end?
1.2. The back ends of the “Application and Promissory Note” documents do not contain any identifying information at all that would relate these back ends copies to specific front end parts of the same loan applications.
Question: Because these are all individual sheets of paper, how can you assert reliably and validly which documents actually belong together?
1.3. Obviously, people who handle documents professionally had to realize that they are potentially causing problems by splitting a two sided Application and Promissory Note document into two separate copies and sheets of paper which do not contain information that relates the two sheets of paper. As professionals, they must have realized that their doing so can lead to putting together wrong sheets of paper as one document either accidentally or intentionally.
Given, that these two-sided documents were intentionally split into two separate sheets of paper, the reason for doing so might be that this way it was easier for the agency that maintained these records to mix and match them, and to create needed outcomes as a result. For example, this technique may have been part of a process that helped to balance the books in case of discrepancies, so that certain applications were selected in order to create fictional assets.
Question: How do you know with certainty, that the agency that maintained my paper based records has not mixed front ends and back ends from different persons student loan applications?
1.4. Do you or any agency the Department of Education works with or has worked with hold two-sided original documents named Application and Promissory Note that I signed in the past?
1.4.1. If you or any agency the Department of Education works with or has worked with hold two-sided original documents named Application and Promissory Note that I signed in the past, please send me two-sided copies of these original 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. That would be another instance of document fabrication, equivalent to forgery.
1.4.2. If you or any agency the Department of Education works with or has worked with hold two-sided original documents named Application and Promissory Note that I signed in the past, but you refuse to send me two-sided copies of these documents, please explain why you refuse to send me these two-sided copies.
1.4.3. If neither you nor any agency that the Department of Education works with or has worked with hold two-sided original documents named Application and Promissory Note that I signed in the past, please state so.
Until you send me two-sided copies of the two-sided Application and Promissory Note financial aid applications, I maintain that the separate copies of the back ends of Application and Promissory Note documents do not belong to me. As we have seen, the guaranty agency makes errors, and erroneously may have related copies of the back ends from somebody else’s documents with front ends of my student loan applications.
It may very well be that my financial aid applications did enter the guaranty agency, but either none or most of them never went any further than that, because Fleet National Bank did not approve them.
1.5. In your letter, dated 04/04/13, you stated that:
However, the stamps in the back of the loan applications read AFSA Data Corporation, with Fleet National Bk separately hand written below the stamp.
AFSA Data Corporation services student loans on behalf of financial institutions, colleges and universities, and the Federal Government. AFSA Data Corporation may have handled student loans for Fleet National Bank. However, AFSA Data Corporation and Fleet National Bank are two different companies.
Question: Given, that these copies that you sent me were stamped by AFSA Data Corporation and not by Fleet National Bank, why do you make statements that are not true?
It seems, that you are now desperately trying to tie me to loans from Fleet National Bank. In the process, the same pattern of behavior continues, where people working for you are trying to make up evidence to support your claims.
1.6. In the past, I filled in and signed the Application and Promissory Note as part of the financial aid application filling process. Would it have been possible for me to apply for student loans without signing the Promissory Note area of the loan application?
1.7. The Application and Promissory Note financial aid documents that I signed in the past lack the information that is necessary for qualifying them as legally binding promissory notes. Please explain, what makes these financial aid application parts legally binding promissory notes in your opinion?
1.8.1. As I stated above, in accordance with the generally accepted conventions and definitions, I believe that debt is created when a creditor has agreed to lend a sum of assets to a debtor, the debtor has accepted the sum of assets and the repayment conditions, and the debt is evidenced by a note which specifies, among other things, the principal amount, interest rate, and the date or dates of repayment.
Do you dispute this definition of debt?
If you dispute the above definition of debt, please specify which portion or portions of it you dispute and why you dispute this portion or these portions of the above definition of debt.
1.8.2. In accordance with the generally accepted conventions and definitions, I believe that without borrowing and lending, there is no student loan debt, and student loan borrowing and lending must be documented by using generally accepted requirements.
Do you dispute the validity of the above statements labeled 1.8.2.?
2.1. I attended college several decades ago. You sent me copies of Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement documents that were recently created by a guaranty agency. This guaranty agency creates documents that imply borrowing and lending, even though the agency does not have any documents showing that in reality borrowing and lending took place.
Later you found it regretful that the guaranty agency had made an error by creating such documents, listing Bank of America as a lender, and stated that these documents do not indicate that I have any outstanding student loan obligations to either Bank of America or to Fleet National Bank.
When documents, such as Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement, are created without existence of signed documents that prove that borrowing and lending have taken place, the process is equivalent to forgery.
2.1.1. Do you dispute, that these Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement documents that you sent me are not based on the actual loan contracts that I have signed in the past?
2.1.2. If you do claim, that the Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement documents that you sent me are based on the actual loan contracts that I have signed in the past, please send me copies of these loan contracts.
2.1.3. If you do not claim that these Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statement documents that you sent me are based on the actual loan contracts that I have signed in the past, please state so clearly and explicitly.
2.1.4. If there are no loan contracts that I have signed in the past, please state so clearly and explicitly.
2.2. You claim that in the past the guaranty agency made insurance payments of my behalf to Fleet National Bank. How do you know, that the guaranty agency did not make these payments in error? If the guaranty agency operates without having copies of the actual loan contracts, and if we do not even have two-sided original financial aid applications, what proof do you have, that the guaranty agency was supposed to make these payments?
2.3. You claim that in the past the guaranty agency made insurance payments of my behalf to Fleet National Bank. The only supporting documents are guaranty agency internal documents that simply list dates and dollar amounts and do not contain any references to insurance claim numbers or loan numbers.
If we do not have any documents that demonstrate that Fleet National Bank submitted one or more insurance claims in this particular case, and we do not have any documents that demonstrate that relevant insurance payments were made by the guaranty agency to Fleet National Bank, then how do you know that any such payments were actually made?
3.1. Are you suggesting, that if I as a student filled in loan applications, but did not receive the loans, I still owe the money that I applied for?
3.2. Are you suggesting that in accordance with the laws governing student loans and borrowing, a guaranty agency records serve as a legal substitute for a loan contract? If so, please specify which law and which specific part of that law states this.
3.3. Are you suggesting that in accordance with the laws governing student loans and borrowing, a guaranty agency records serve as a legal substitute for a proof of loan distribution to the borrower? If so, please specify which law and which specific part of that law states this.
3.4. Given that I received student loans in the past, which documents did I have to sign that would indicate that I actually received the loans that I applied for?
3.5. Which specific documents would I have had to sign that would indicate that the money that I borrowed was used to pay for tuition?
3.6. Which specific documents would I have had to sign that would indicate that the money was disbursed to me to cover any other expenses but the tuition?
3.7. Do you dispute, that we have records that show that the amount of financial aid allocated to me exceeds the cost of tuition that I had to pay?
3.8. Are you claiming that I received student loans for covering living expenses?
3.9. If you claim that I received money other than grants for covering the living expenses, then please show, which loans, or portions of the loans that I actually received were allocated for covering the living expenses.
3.10. If you claim that I received money other than grants for covering the living expenses, then please furnish documents that show how much money and when was dispersed to me as loans (and not as grants).
3.11. If you claim that I received money other than grants for covering the living expenses, then please furnish copies of the relevant original signed loan contracts that contain the loan amounts, interest rates agreed on, due dates, and information on when and at what frequencies any money has to be paid to the lender.
4.1. Mr. Duncan, what debt validation standards does the Department of Education follow?
4.2. Are these debt validation standards applied consistently to all student loan cases that are disputed?
4.3. Are these debt validation standards publicly accessible over the Internet?
5.1. Mr. Duncan, what standards did the Department of Education implement for creating Application and Promissory Note financial aid applications and other financial aid and lending and borrowing related documents (“lending related documents”) that the schools such as Rhode Island College used in the first half of 1990s?
5.2. What standards does the Department of Education implement for creating the lending related documents that the schools are using now?
5.3. What measures did the Department of Education implement for administering its lending related document usage in the first half of 1990s?
5.4. What measures does the Department of Education implement now for administering its lending related document usage?
5.5. What standards and administrative measures did the Department of Education use in the first half of 1990s for ensuring that these portions of the documents that are labeled as Promissory Note, are indeed legally binding debt instruments that demonstrate lending and borrowing in accordance with the accepted conventions, and are not mere labels on financial aid applications, that a financial aid applicant may fill in as part of the application?
5.6. What standards and administrative measures does the Department of Education use now for ensuring that these portions of the documents that are labeled as Promissory Note, are indeed legally binding debt instruments that demonstrate lending and borrowing in accordance with the accepted conventions, and are not mere labels on financial aid applications, that a financial aid applicant may fill in as part of the application?
5.7. Are these documentation standards that the Department of Education followed in the first half of 1990s for creating lending related documents also applied consistently to all disputed student loan cases from that period of time?
5.8. Are the past lending related document creating and usage administration standards, that the Department of Education followed in the first half of 1990s, publicly accessible over the Internet?
5.9. Are the lending related document creating and usage administration standards, that the Department of Education follows now, publicly accessible over the Internet?
6.1. Mr. Duncan, you stated the following:
You also stated the following:
Again, you are making statements, without explaining how you reached these conclusions. Please explain in detail, how did you arrive at the conclusion that you have provided sufficient documentation to support the validity of the debt, while I have not provided sufficient evidence to show that the costs of attendance at the school were satisfied by grants?
Thank you in advance for answering my questions,