I requested student loan debt validation from Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., one of Department of Education’s business partners. In response I did not receive any of the requested documents, but I did receive other people’s private information together with partial copies of my financial aid applications. The interesting aspect of it is, that in 4 years the Department of Education has not been able to furnish any credible evidence that would show that their monetary demands are valid. Thus, the demands are supposedly valid by the virtue of Department of Education and its business partners handling all the financial transactions and paperwork accurately. However, the incident described here points in a different direction – in the direction of sloppy and thoughtless work.
Further, there is another closely related aspect to this. The Department of Education and its business partners create new documents in a peculiar way, by simply putting two otherwise unrelated pieces of paper next to each other. In the normal, everyday world, creating documents this way would be unacceptable. In the world ruled by the Department of Education, it is fully acceptable. Further, in the world ruled by the Department of Education, nobody ever has to prove that the documents created this way actually are valid.
Can the rest of the world operate the same way, and create “new and improved” documents this way, that serve specific purpose? If the Department of Education and its business partners do this, it must be legal and acceptable, right? So, can I take the other people’s private information and the partial copies of my financial aid applications, both of which were sent to me as part of my information, put them next to each other and call the outcome “my new and improved documents?” That’s what the Department of Education and its business partners do.
In my response below to Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. I address this document creating process as well.
Efraim Roa, CEO
Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc.
169 Myers Corners Road, Suite 110
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Dear Efraim Roa,
Thank you for your letter dated 12/30/2015. Please note that this is an open letter that I may publish on StopExtortion.org and on other websites.
As you already know, you did not send me any of the requested documents. Similarly, you 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.
You did manage to surprise me, though, by sending me other people’s personal information. I do not know or have ever heard of any of these people. I will address this below as well.
First a warning, that you and the rest of your company’s employees should take very seriously.
The alleged loan principal is about 20 times higher than was the cost of the relevant average annual tuition. The Department of Education has been completely unable to furnish any documents that would show that I ever borrowed and received the alleged student loans either directly, or indirectly, as tuition support. Similarly, the Department of Education has been completely unable to furnish any credible explanation on where this money allegedly went to or how it was allegedly used.
As I have stated before, you must validate that:
You and your company’s employees are thereby warned, that unless you validate the debt in question, every contacting instance by any of your company’s employees will be considered an intentional act of harassment, that may also qualify as an act of extortion due to the threats made by the Department of Education and its business partners. This includes instances, where your company employees send me unwanted paperwork to fill in, so that I would start making payments on non-existent bank loans.
Further, every such contacting instance will be considered part of a deliberate usage of involuntary servitude by the Department of Education employees, for the purpose of monetary and professional gain.
I requested debt validation first time in December of 2011 after receiving a collection letter. The Department of Education employees are fully aware, that throughout this dispute, for 4 (four) years they have not been able to validate the accuracy of their monetary demands.
In order to prevail in this dispute, and to benefit from this dispute both financially and professionally, the Department of Education employees have been forcing me to work on resolving this case for 4 (four) years, apparently with the objective to exhaust me, so that I would give up and pay them, even though no bank loans actually exist.
In the process, the Department of Education employees use companies such as yours, to do their dirty work for them.
Please note, that excuses such as “we just followed the orders” and “we just followed the rules” will not work, because:
Accordingly, and also based on the existing evidence, it should be clear to the Department of Education employees, that the longer they prolong this case, the worse it will get for them, because the Department of Education has been managed so, that the employees operate in a manner that is likely to qualify as abuse of power, and may also qualify as violation of other laws and statutes.
Further, the longer the Department of Education employees prolong this case, the more resources they will meaninglessly waste in the process, without gaining anything positive in return.
Now you have included your company in the same crowd.
In order for a bank loan debt to exist, relevant lending and borrowing transactions must take place.
We do not have any conclusive evidence that demonstrates, that the alleged lending and borrowing transactions actually took place in reality.
Thus, because we do not have evidence of the existence of the alleged bank loans, this is not a student loan dispute. This is an internal record making, usage and enforcement dispute, which may also escalate into the areas listed above.
Throughout this dispute, the Department of Education has failed to validate that its record making processes are backed by real life transactions, and that it has the authority to use unvalidated internal records for forcing an individual to work endlessly on a case that is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially and its employees professionally.
We will not reach any agreement that is based on unvalidated demands and is maliciously enforced through a continuous usage of involuntary servitude. We can only reach an agreement based on financial aid that I actually received: Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid.
Please note, that I am not in any way obligated to pay back any of this money. However, in order to help to settle this dispute, I offer to make a one-time payment of $10,000 (ten thousand dollars), given, that the Department of Education representatives send me the requested signed and notarized agreement that closes this case.
Because I received most of the financial aid from the college that I attended (in the form of Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship), it will make sense that most of this $10,000 will go back to the college as well.
This offer is valid for 30 days, until 02/18/2016, and if not accepted in writing by the Department of Education representatives and received by both parties by 02/18/2016, is null and void thereafter.
If the Department of Education will not accept this offer, I will have to continue to work on this case resolution process. I will focus on continuing to gather evidence that demonstrates, that the Department of Education is managed so, that the employees purposefully and intentionally use involuntary servitude for the sake of monetary and professional gain. Similarly, as has been stated previously, in an increasing scale I will continue to inform the general public and different individuals and institutions about the Department of Education’s operating practices.
This case is being enforced by the Department of Education on invalid and possibly also on illegal grounds. Therefore, sooner or later I will get this case closed anyway. Having the relevant information available to the general public will, hopefully, help to contribute to creating a more humane version of the Department of Education, that produces much more actual value for the intended target markets.
Please note, that due to the previous threats made by the Department of Education and its business partners, I do have to continue to work on this case for as long as this case remains open, including the 30 day period referred to above.
In the package dated 12/30/2015 that you sent me, was also private information on the following 10 individuals:
I did send to Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. the 10 persons names whose private information had been sent to me, but I will not publish these names online.
I do not know or have ever heard of any of these people. However, the essence of this act is closely related to the case that is being addressed here.
The Department of Education has repeatedly sent me copies of the front ends of the two-sided Application and Promissory Note financial aid applications, 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.
In accordance with the Department of Education, simply putting two otherwise unrelated documents next to each other makes them a third document, so that the otherwise unrelated parts now legitimately belong together.
I disagree with such reasoning, and I believe that most of the people would disagree with it as well. Further, this incident, where you sent me other people’s private information, provides further proof that indicates that there are good reasons to disagree with the Department of Education’s reasoning. Putting other people’s documents next to mine does not create new documents that somehow now belong together.
However, by applying the Department of Education’s reasoning, you sent me copies of my personal information, and included other people’s information in the same package as well. By this act you formed new documents that all contain my private information. Of course, I can do whatever I want with this information, because, due to your actions, it’s all mine now – isn’t this right?
Further, included in the package was a copy of my letter to Mr. Efraim Roa.
Using Department of Education’s reasoning, can we now conclude, that Mr. Efraim Roa personally sent me, or ordered to send me, other people’s private information, so that I could use it any way I want – isn’t this right? If so, Mr. Roa, why did you do it?
If we cannot make the above conclusions, then what makes putting two otherwise unrelated documents next to each other a third document, so that the otherwise unrelated parts now legitimately belong together, as the Department of Education has insisted for years?
Further, please note, that because the documents that you sent me are closely related to this dispute, these documents are now part of the evidence. Accordingly, I cannot return these documents to you. I must retain them in case we will have to initiate legal proceedings (because of continuous and intentional usage of involuntary servitude and harassment for monetary and professional gain). The latter option most definitely is on the table.
Your company should retain copies of the documents that it sends out and otherwise be fully aware of the content of the correspondence it sends out. Similarly, your company should operate with 100% accuracy regarding the correctness of the documents that are being handled.
After all, the Department of Education’s case is largely based on an implied statement, that the Department of Education and its business partners never make record making and record usage related mistakes while a student is in college, and after a student graduates from college.
Accordingly, I do not see any reason to send you any further information on the documents that you sent me, or for you to request such information.
Below is a comparison of the debt validation documents that I requested in my letter dated 12/28/2015, and what you sent me in response in the correspondence dated 12/30/2015.
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.
2) I requested:
Copies of original documents that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, 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.