Windham Professionals, Inc. Collection Agency – Second Notice on False Advertising and Breach of Contract

So, here is a challenge to the people at the Department of Education and to their debt collector business partners. Let’s get to the bottom of this alleged student loan debt case by actually addressing the problems listed in the Underlying Problems that Continue to Escalate section below. So far, the Department of Education has been doing its best to avoid actually addressing these problems. So, the problems continue to escalate.

Keep in mind, that you cannot validate debt by sending invalid, fabricated and irrelevant materials and then declaring that you have already validated the debt and any further debt validation would be redundant. You are assuming what you want to prove, and that is a form of fallacious thinking, a fallacy known as petitio principii, or begging the question.

Dear people at the Department of Education, maybe your problem is that you have not understood it yet that by using circular reasoning you are forcing yourself to run in circles as well.

So, here are some relevant questions that are closely related to the letter published below.

Is it not a fact, that the same monetary demands have been made over and over, without validating 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?

Is it not a fact, that the allegedly borrowed loan principal is unexplained and is unrealistically high?

Is it not a fact, that no legitimate documents exist that would validate that the alleged lending and borrowing transactions actually took place and that the alleged corresponding debt actually exists?

Is it not a fact, that in this case the Department of Education created consumer lending records without the corresponding transactions and documents?

Is it not a fact, that in this case the Department of Education has continuously tried to substitute internal records for legitimate documents?

Is it not a fact, that there have been continuous attempts to use fabricated documents as is listed in the Underlying Problems that Continue to Escalate section below?

As a results of the above, is it not a fact, that neither the Department of Education nor the guaranty agency has any legitimate authority to make monetary demands in this case?

Is it not a fact, that for over 4.5 years the Department of Education has forced me to work against my will, in involuntary servitude conditions, on resolving a case that only exists because it is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially and its employees professionally?

Is it not a fact, that in the process of forcing me to work on resolving this case, the Department of Education has been using document fabrication, bullying and abuse of power?

Is it not a fact, that I have the right to invoice the Department of Education for usage of my labor in involuntary servitude conditions?

Is it not a fact, that for us to have a student loan dispute, student loans must exist in the first place?

Considering the above, is it not a fact, that no student loans exist in this case, and, thus, this is not a student loan dispute, and instead it is an internal record making, usage and enforcement dispute?

Please do let me know what specifically is incorrect about any of these statements. Be specific – generalities and circular reasoning will not help you.

By the way, dear Windham Professionals, Inc. management team members, based on the available information the probability is high that your company sent me fabricated documents, thereby supporting usage of fraud. It’s your call, of course, but you may want to look into this and make sure that the documents that you distributed were indeed generated completely legitimately and are indeed what they are supposed to be. For you there is a possibility of accruing liabilities here, without any upside.

Section Underlying Problems that Continue to Escalate in the letter published below, subsection Continued Attempts to Use Fabricated Documents, parts (3) and (4) contain additional relevant information.

  • The letter published below was delivered to:
  • Christine Timmins Barry, President and Chief Executive Officer, Windham Professionals, Inc., USPS Delivery Confirmation EL262922380US
  • Chris Rezendes, Chief Sales and Marketing Officer, Windham Professionals, Inc., USPS Delivery Confirmation EL236481106US

Christine Timmins Barry

President and Chief Executive Officer

Windham Professionals, Inc.

380 Main Street

Salem, NH 03079

Dear Christine Timmins Barry:

Thank you for the letter dated 05/25/2016. Please note that this is an open letter that I may publish on StopExtortion.org and on other websites.

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 Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. sent 5 months ago 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.

So, the question at this point is – how long will this process continue, where the same demands are repeated, even though it is well established that the demands are not valid?

Further, as I stated in my previous letter, your company promised in writing to provide debt validation. As you very well know, so far you have validated that I filled in financial aid applications. That does not constitute the requested debt validation. Accordingly, as is specified below, if your company fails to provide the requested debt validation, I will hold your company liable for false advertising and breach of contract.

First a warning, that you and the rest of your company’s employees should take very seriously.

Warning Against Continued Usage of Involuntary Servitude, Harassment and Extortion

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 (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.

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.

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 over 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 over 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:

  • Neither Congress nor any other institution has ever authorized the Department of Education to create consumer lending records without existence of documents that show, that the relevant lending and borrowing transactions actually took place, and without documents that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments.
  • Similarly, neither Congress nor any other institution has ever authorized the Department of Education to operate by forcing former students to prove that unvalidated debt obligations are indeed invalid, after the Department of Education has created lending and borrowing related computer records without having any actual lending and borrowing related documents, and without documents that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments.

Underlying Problems that Continue to Escalate

This case contains several related problem areas. As long, as this case continues to be kept open without resolving the underlying problems, the problems will continue to escalate.

Continuously Repeated Unvalidated Monetary Demands

The Department of Education is in the shoes of the lender and is obligated to validate its monetary demands. This means validating 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.

Throughout the over 4.5 years long dispute, the Department of Education has repeatedly made the same monetary demands and has repeatedly failed to validate its monetary demands.

Unexplained Allegedly Borrowed Loan Principal

The alleged loan principal is about 20 times higher than was the cost of the relevant average annual tuition. I did not live on campus. Further, as far as I know, as a student I did not qualify for bank loans because I was in the U.S. on a temporary visa when I first attended college, and then on Green Card until graduation, without any credit history, co-signer or collateral. Further, initially I did not have any work experience and work history either. While I was a student my income was extremely low and did not support borrowing from a bank tens of thousands of dollars.

However, the Department of Education insists that I also borrowed $46,354.00 as principal from Fleet National Bank, while the cost of tuition to attend the state owned Rhode Island College from 1990 to 1996 ranged from $1,703 to $2,838 a year.

Thus, considering the amount of tuition, the alleged loan principal that the Department of Education has in its records is unrealistically high. Similarly, no credible explanation has been provided on where the allegedly borrowed money went to or how it was allegedly used.

I received Rhode Island College Honors Scholarship, Pell Grant and work-study financial aid that covered the cost of my attending college. The Department of Education has sent me partial copies of financial aid applications that I had filled in years ago. These financial aid applications were used for processing this financial aid.

Non-Existence of the Necessary Legitimate Documents

No lending and borrowing documents exist that would demonstrate that the alleged lending and borrowing transactions actually took place in reality.

No records or documents exist that would demonstrate that I actually received the allegedly borrowed money either directly, or indirectly, as tuition support.

Further, no documents exist that meet the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments.

Creating Consumer Lending Records Without Corresponding Transactions and Documents

The Department of Education created consumer lending records without existence of actual consumer lending transactions and without existence of the corresponding actual consumer lending documents. Neither Congress nor any other institution has ever authorized the Department of Education to operate this way.

No indemnification agreement between the guaranty agency involved and the Department of Education legitimizes such operating practices.

Continued Attempts to Substitute Internal Records for Legitimate Documents

Filling in applications and creating internal records does not create debt. Lending and borrowing creates debt. In order for a bank loan debt to exist, relevant lending and borrowing transactions must take place.

Instead of documented lending and borrowing transactions, the Department of Education’s continuous demands are based on “internal records.” These internal records were created years after I graduated from college without existence of any actual lending and borrowing transactions and documents. Instead of being based on actual lending and borrowing transactions and documents, these internal records apparently are based on guaranty agency internal records – again, without existence of any actual lending and borrowing transactions and documents.

Continued Attempts to Use Fabricated Documents

(1) I graduated from college in 1996. As part of the debt validation process, in 2012 the Department of Education sent me what they claimed to be copies of my original Notice of Loan Guarantee and Disclosure Statements. However, it turned out that these statements were generated in 2012 by entering my current information into a computer system in 2012 – more than 15 years after I graduated from college. Further, the statements contained a wrong bank’s name.

I pointed out these fraudulent aspects to the Department of Education. Afterward, the Department of Education no longer sent me copies of these fabricated documents as debt validation documents.

(2) In its previous correspondence, the Department of Education stated that its monetary demands are based on having to pay in 1997 an insurance claim to Fleet Bank. I requested documents that demonstrate that such insurance claim was actually submitted and paid. In response, the Department of Education sent couple of scrap papers – literally, totally irrelevant guaranty agency internal, handwritten notes. It is unknown, when exactly and by whom these notes were actually created. Obviously, such handwritten internal notes do not constitute proof of insurance claim being submitted and paid.

I pointed out these illegitimate aspects to the Department of Education. Afterward, the Department of Education no longer sent me copies of these irrelevant notes as debt validation documents.

(3) The Department of Education claims that it holds legally binding promissory notes. Such documents have to meet certain requirements. Instead of furnishing copies of the original documents, the Department of Education keeps sending out partial copies of my financial aid applications together with unidentified documents that could belong to anybody. Apparently, these unidentified documents are supposed to be the back ends of my two-sided (duplex) financial aid applications. There are no unique identifiers, my name or anything else whatsoever on the separate copies of the back ends that relates them reliably with the front ends of the Application and Promissory Note documents. Thus, these separate copies could be the back ends of any person’s documents.

The guaranty agency involved apparently created these documents and then passed them to the Department of Education. Neither this nor any agreement between these two entities makes the documents involved any more valid.

Even though these documents do not in any way validate that legitimate debt exists, the Department of Education keeps sending out these copies of financial aid applications. Apparently, this is so because the Department of Education is unwilling to admit honestly that no documents exist that can legitimately validate the monetary demands that the Department of Education has been making for over 4 years, while forcing me to work on this case resolving processes.

(4) The dispute addressed here started in December of 2011. As is stated above, throughout this time, the Department of Education has sent me partial copies of financial aid applications as alleged debt validation material. Now, the Department of Education is adding to these documents another set of documents that seem to have been created just recently, but were backdated to 2007.

Starting December of 2015, that is 4 (four) years after the dispute started, I have also received copies of Indemnification Agreements between the guaranty agency involved and the Department of Education, referring to “damaged promissory note or promissory note with uninitialed alterations.”

The Indemnification Agreements transfers to the Secretary of Education any rights held by the guaranty agency. However, the guaranty agency does not have any rights to make monetary demands for the same reasons that are being listed in this letter. So, there are no legitimate rights that can be transferred.

The Indemnification Agreements also state that the Secretary of Education may release and transfer back to the guaranty agency his rights. Again, because the Department of Education does not have any legitimate rights to make monetary demands in this case, there are no legitimate rights that can be transferred back to the guaranty agency.

If the Department of Education transfers any rights to the guaranty agency, then the Department of Education is liable for having to prove that it did have legitimate rights to make monetary demands in the first place. If the Department of Education transfers rights that it knows it does not have, the Department of Education is knowingly engaging in fraud. That will make a bad situation even worse.

These Indemnification Agreements are dated 3/19/07 and are signed by one guaranty agency employee and nobody else. The agreements contain also obligations that the Secretary of Education has, but nobody from the Department of Education has signed these agreements.

Previously, I have received signed statements from different sources, including Naomi Randolph, Special Assistant, Operations Services, Federal Student Aid, and the Department of Education FOIA Unit, stating that they have sent me copies of all the Department of Education student loan records and copies of all the documents that the Department of Education has regarding this case.

In March of 2014 the Department of Education FOIA Unit sent me on a DVD as PDF files copies of absolutely all of the documents that the Department of Education had in its possession regarding this case. There are no Indemnification Agreements included there.

Never before were the Indemnification Agreements part of the documents that the Department of Education or its debt collector business partners sent me. If these documents existed before, why were they omitted, while the Department of Education’s officials confirmed with their signature that they had sent me copies of all the documents that the Department of Education had regarding this case?

Thus, it seems that the Indemnification Agreements were created at a later date, relatively recently, and were backdated. The purpose of doing so seems to be to provide the Department of Education a way out from a situation that the Department of Education is unwilling and unable to handle in any other way, so that the guaranty agency can take over the involuntary servitude usage and unvalidated monetary demands making processes.

If so, this exemplifies how the documents are being created and handled regarding this case, and how the illegitimate methods are continuously being used that also involve or at least implicate high-ranking government officials.

Non-Existent Authority to Make Monetary Demands

If a valid debt would exist in this case and the Department of Education would be the legal owner of the relevant valid debt, then the Department of Education should have the original relevant valid legally binding promissory note debt instruments in its possession that pertain to this case.

However, the Department of Education does not have anything in its possession that meets the UCC requirements for legally binding promissory note debt instruments, because in this case no such documents exist.

The Department of Education does not even have the original financial aid applications in its possession that pertain to this case.

Instead, the Department of Education has in its possession copies of the front ends of my financial aid applications, together with unidentified documents that are supposed to be the back ends of my two-sided (duplex) financial aid applications, but in reality could belong to anybody.

Partial copies of financial aid applications and original legally binding promissory notes are different sets of documents. Let’s say that I throw out as garbage the partial copies of decades old financial aid applications that I have received from the Department of Education and somebody goes through the garbage – for example, an identity thief – and finds these copies. Does that make that person a legal owner of non-existent loans? No, of course not – neither any loan nor any such ownership is established. These partial copies of financial aid applications that the Department of Education holds and has sent me, are not legally binding promissory note debt instruments. These are nothing else but decades old partial copies of financial aid applications, and collecting them does not grant any kind of ownership of anything or any kind of monetary demand making authority to anybody.

Usage of Involuntary Servitude, Document Fabrication, Bullying And Abuse of Power

For over 4.5 years the Department of Education has forced me to work in involuntary servitude conditions on a case that is intended to benefit the Department of Education financially and its employees professionally. As is documented on StopExtortion.org, in the process the Department of Education has been using document fabrication, bullying and abuse of power.

Again, neither Congress nor any other institution has ever authorized the Department of Education to operate this way.

These are serious problems that have to be resolved.

Department of Education’s Outstanding and Growing Debt that Results from Usage of Involuntary Servitude

While working on this case, I have invoiced the Department of Education for usage of my labor in involuntary servitude conditions. The accumulated debt that the Department of Education owes me has not been resolved.

This process continues, which means that the accumulated debt amount that the Department of Education owes me continues to grow. For example, my having to write this response that you are reading now is part of the process that consumes my labor in involuntary servitude conditions and, as a result, increases the amount of money that the Department of Education owes me.

For as long as this case remains unresolved and open, whoever inherits this case, naturally also inherits the corresponding unpaid and continuously accruing new debt obligations. However, for as long as this case remains unresolved and open, the Department of Education will continue to be held responsible for the already committed acts of involuntary servitude usage, document fabrication, bullying and abuse of power.

Enclosed is a copy of the latest invoice.

The Nature of the Dispute

For us to have a student loan dispute, student loans must exist in the first place. That is not the case here. Thus, this is not a student loan dispute. This is an internal record making, usage and enforcement dispute that has escalated into other areas and will continue to escalate further for as long, as the case is forcefully kept open.

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.

All these aspects together form the essence of the dispute that we have.

Here is another relevant aspect. We cannot function effectively as a society when all sorts of copyright trolls and other similar entities can make fictional monetary demands that are not based on actual commercial transactions and can enforce their demands through usage of scare tactics. These monetary demands have one thing in common – they fall apart when validation is requested. At least in this case the Department of Education operates in a very similar manner. Monetary demands must be valid and must stand up to reasonable validation.

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 06/24/2016.

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.

If by the deadline stated above you fail to furnish either the requested debt validation documents or the requested written statements clearly stating that the requested documents do not exist, I will hold your company liable for false advertising and breach of contract on the grounds specified below.

The letter dated 05/03/2016 that your company sent to me lists monetary demands and states the following:

  • If you notify us in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, we 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. I have no say in this. 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.

Please note, that even if your company will send me a written response, stating explicitly for each debt validation request item, that the requested documents do not exist, your company is not providing any debt validation. However, if you will send such a response, I will consider that response to be an acceptable fulfillment of your obligations.

Otherwise, without furnishing the relevant debt validation, your company is liable for false advertising and breach of contract.

Thomas Eklund

Views: 278

Comment

You need to be a member of StopExtortion to add comments!

Join StopExtortion

FOLLOW ON TWITTER!

Link to StopExtortion.org

If you find the information on this website useful, please link to www.StopExtortion.org

Your linking to this website can help other people to find it and, thus, can benefit people.

Thank you in advance for your help!

StopExtortion.org

Events

Videos

Photos

© 2019   Created by Stop Extortion, Inc..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service