In December 2007 I requested my private loan company give me some sort of lower payment or a foreberance as I was and still am having a financial hardship. They told me that they could only offer a foreberance for 30 days only. Of course this offer was not going to help me out so I stopped making payments. Long and behold 6 months later CA Van Rue started calling me and I explained to them the situation. After they could'nt get any money from me, A new CA NCO financial is down my back. Last week, after many threatening calls I recieved from them, I told them to only contact me via us postal service. All has been quite but I am afraid that they may take me to court and try to garnish my wages. Is there a way to deal with them to keep the loan from going into a legal court action? I am years away from the SOL. Any suggestions would be helpful

The formula should be: Un-reinsured student loans = private loans = statute of limitations applies.

According to the Student Loan Ombudsman when Federally Guaranteed Student Loans lose their insured status they in effect become private student loans and the statute of limitations presumably applies. However I am being sued by a collection agency - who ignore these facts - for such a loan. I have not been able to get any Educational agency - EdFund (formerly California Student Aid Commission), SL Ombudsman, or US Dept. of Education - to verify in any way these facts. Subsequently, the collection agency has all my promissory notes, etc. and is suing as if this loan was insured with no statute of limitations. I have no precident setting case or official documentation to prove my innocence! I'm thinking this may be a case of sanctioning the collection agency. Do you have any other ideas?

According to the Student Loan Ombudsman when Federally Guaranteed Student Loans lose their insured status they in effect become private student loans and the statute of limitations presumably applies. However I am being sued by a collection agency - who ignore these facts - for such a loan. I have not been able to get any Educational agency - EdFund (formerly California Student Aid Commission), SL Ombudsman, or US Dept. of Education - to verify in any way these facts. Subsequently, the collection agency has all my promissory notes, etc. and is suing as if this loan was insured with no statute of limitations. I have no precident setting case or official documentation to prove my innocence! I'm thinking this may be a case of sanctioning the collection agency. Do you have any other ideas?

Don't expect to get your 'Economic Stimulus' from the Feds if you're student loan is in default with Fed ED. I got a letter from IRS saying it would be coming June 26, 2008, but then a few days later I got another letter from Dept. of Treasury, 'Financial Mgmt. Services' telling me they have absconded with my $300 by sending it to the Dept of Ed.

Original loan was just $11,000 and put on hiatus for the full 2 years after getting a Master's degree in '88 from too little work at too little pay. Left NY to return to Las Vegas but still could only get low life telemarketing jobs w/an MBA that paid at best a few bucks more than minimum wage. By 1995, NYS Higher Ed had taken me to court, but I never received, or was never personally served a summons, or had any prior knowledge of court case XX-X-XXXXX-X filed on 04/10/1995 by Plaintiff ‘New York Higher Education Services’, represented by plaintiff’s legal firm, Screwu and Howe, and presided over in Dept. 4 by Judge Jack Ass Joker [From BLACKSTONE].

From that point the original loan of $11K more than quadrupled immediately in 1995. From that point on with that alleged $45,000 debt from an $11K, I vowed I'd never pay such an absurd predatory charges giving the Feds over 400% usury profit. These Fascist Feds, in trying to benefit from their Student Loan corporatism, now want to collect roughly a $74,000 usury profit off this original $11,000 loan backed by NYS Higher Education - earning a 773% profit in interest and fees.

Now it doesn't really matter if I even get a decent paying job because the crappy jobs I do manage to get I just end up quiting as soon as the Feds try to garnish my wages. I refuse to let those thieving crooks at Fed ED steal any more than a reasonable interest payment for an $11K loan. Charging 773% in fees and interest over the original loan is far from reasonable - especially when these same Fed Fascists burn up $18,600 of tax payer money every minute of every day to pay for an Iraq war repeatedly proven to have been based on LIES! Just 5 minutes of NO IRAQ WAR would pay off all my debt, including their 773% of fraudulent interest and fees!

Don't expect to get your 'Economic Stimulus' from the Feds if you're student loan is in default with Fed ED. I got a letter from IRS saying it would be coming June 26, 2008, but then a few days later I got another letter from Dept. of Treasury, 'Financial Mgmt. Services' telling me they have absconded with my $300 by sending it to the Dept of Ed.

Original loan was just $11,000 and put on hiatus for the full 2 years after getting a Master's degree in '88 from too little work at too little pay. Left NY to return to Las Vegas but still could only get low life telemarketing jobs w/an MBA that paid at best a few bucks more than minimum wage. By 1995, NYS Higher Ed had taken me to court, but I never received, or was never personally served a summons, or had any prior knowledge of court case XX-X-XXXXX-X filed on 04/10/1995 by Plaintiff ‘New York Higher Education Services’, represented by plaintiff’s legal firm, Screwu and Howe, and presided over in Dept. 4 by Judge Jack Ass Joker [From BLACKSTONE].

From that point the original loan of $11K more than quadrupled immediately in 1995. From that point on with that alleged $45,000 debt from an $11K, I vowed I'd never pay such an absurd predatory charges giving the Feds over 400% usury profit. These Fascist Feds, in trying to benefit from their Student Loan corporatism, now want to collect roughly a $74,000 usury profit off this original $11,000 loan backed by NYS Higher Education - earning a 773% profit in interest and fees.

Now it doesn't really matter if I even get a decent paying job because the crappy jobs I do manage to get I just end up quiting as soon as the Feds try to garnish my wages. I refuse to let those thieving crooks at Fed ED steal any more than a reasonable interest payment for an $11K loan. Charging 773% in fees and interest over the original loan is far from reasonable - especially when these same Fed Fascists burn up $18,600 of tax payer money every minute of every day to pay for an Iraq war repeatedly proven to have been based on LIES! Just 5 minutes of NO IRAQ WAR would pay off all my debt, including their 773% of fraudulent interest and fees!

I borrowed $13,000 in private money from a university in Philadelphia. I live in Florida. Over the years I have paid at $11,000 in payments and had the balance raised from $13k to $21k to now $42k. The university sold the loans to a Philadelphia law firm. Though I see no clause that enables the lender to attach physical property, a county Sherriff showed up at my house and confiscated my only transportation, a 7yr old VW. This confiscation happened 17 years after the first default suit filed by the attorney now holding the loan paper. I have not heard from the law firm, by phone or in writing, since '96 when I sent them my last payment.

1.) I believe that they are operating illegally, the original loan note I signed said they could affect my credit - it said nothing about seizing physical property, much less my only transportation in the semi-rural area where I live - no busses.

2.) I also believe that they have violated the statute of limitations because, the only document given to me by the Sherriff was dated 2008. I haven't heard anything from them since '96.

I would love to hang this thief with a law degree from the highest, most public RICO gallows existing. If any of what I have stated can be prosecuted in a class action I would EAGERLY work with counsel to that end.

Thank you.

Under an hour ago both USAfunds and Sallie Mae sent legal threats
to Wikileaks over this document:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/USA_Funds_-_Sallie_Mae_Guarantee_Services_Agreement_2006

Summary by a Wikileaks contact with inside knowledge of the situation. Wikileaks has checked the summary for congruence with the public record. Where items are from private knowledge the view is that of the contact. Both USAfunds and Sallie Mae, sent legal threats to Wikileaks within 4 minutes of each other over this very document on June 24, 2008 (see Note).

This document pertains to the relationship between USA Funds and Sallie Mae in their Federal Family Educational Loan Program ("FFELP") participation. The FFELP allows eligible lenders to make federally guaranteed loans to borrowers on behalf of eligible students to pay for tuition and expenses arising from the students' attendance at an eligible institution. FFELP loans include Stafford, PLUS and consolidation loans. A private lender such as Sallie Mae makes a loan to an student or his parents that is insured by a guaranty agency such as USA Funds. The guaranty agency's risk is re-insured by the Department of Education (DOEd).

The Higher Education Act (HEA) regulates the activities of the lender and guaranty agency. If a borrower goes into default, the lender makes a claim to the guaranty agency for the unpaid principal and accrued interest. The lender is only eligible for the insurance payment if it complied with all regulations and statutes governing the FFELP.

After paying the claim, the guaranty agency must attempt to collect the loan from the defaulted borrower, and if unsuccessful it can make a claim to the DOEd for most of the money it paid the lender on the underlying claim. The guaranty agency is only eligible for the insurance payment if both the lender and the guaranty agency complied with all regulations and statutes governing the FFELP. While the lender holds the loan, it is entitled to collect special allowance payments from the DOEd.

While the lender holds the loan, and the student is in school, in grace or in deferment, it is entitled to collect interest payments on the loan from the DOEd. In addition, the guaranty agency is entitled to an Account Maintenance Fee (AMF) from the DOEd on all loans it guarantees. The guaranty agency has two accounts: the Agency Operating Fund (AOF) and the Federal Reserve Fund (FRF). The AMF is deposited by the DOEd into the guaranty agency's AOF and the claim payments it makes to lenders are withdrawn from its FRF. The FRF is the property of the DOEd, held in trust by the guaranty agency.

The January 11, 2005, letter from Carl Dalstrom to June McCormack indicates: (1) if the DOEd cannot afford to pay the AMF to USA Funds, USA Funds is allowed to transfer the shortfall in the AMF from its FRF to its AOF, and (2) USA Funds pays Sallie Mae the AMF it receives from the DOEd, less one basis point.

The May 2, 2006, letter from Matteo Fontana to Carl Dalstrom indicates: (1) on June 30, 2006, USA Funds can no longer make up the DOEd shortfall on the AMF by transferring money from its FRF to its AOF, (2) USA funds guarantees 20.75% of all FFELP loans, and (3) the 2006 estimate total for all outstanding FFELP loans is $367,917,511,154. This estimated total of all outstanding FFELP loans guaranteed by the DOEd does not include the amount of loans outstanding under the Direct Loan Program. The June 28, 2006, letter from Carl Dalstrom to June McCormack indicates that if the DOEd requires USA Funds to return any of its AMF, Sallie Mae must return 50% of the amount of the AMF sought by the DOEd back to USA Funds.

The second June 28, 2006, letter from Carl Dalstrom to June McCormack indicates: (1) if Sallie Mae will pay the Federal Default Fee (FDF) for all Stafford loan borrowers of USA Funds guaranteed loans, USA funds will pay, out of its AOF, the FDF for all PLUS loans guaranteed by USA Funds; (2) USA Funds will now guarantee more types of consolidation loans for which Sallie Mae is lender, and (3) USA Funds will pay Sallie Mae to market loans guaranteed by USA Funds.

The Third Restated and Amended Guarantee Services Agreement for USA Funds (agreement) is, among other things, the insurance contract between USA Funds and Sallie Mae. In the agreement: (1) Sallie Mae promises to comply with all Higher Education Act (HEA) statutes and regulations in the performance of the agreement, (2) USA Funds promises to comply with all HEA statutes and regulations in the performance of the agreement, (3) USA Funds agrees to pay Sallie Mae a $21,000,000 Research and Development fee, (4) Sallie Mae will create a written marketing plan with USA Funds, (5) Sallie Mae cannot use a guarantor other that USA Funds unless USA Funds is unable to guarantee loans originated in the borrower's state, (6) USA Funds and Sallie Mae each indemnify the other in case of a lawsuit based upon the actions or inactions of the other, (7) USA Funds's remedy against Sallie Mae for a loss of federal re-insurance based on a failure of Sallie Mae to comply with the HEA on a loan guara
nteed by USA Funds and for which Sallie Mae was the lender is limited to 3% on the outstanding amount due on the loan, (8) Sallie Mae is allowed to sign guarantee agreements on USA Funds's behalf, (9) Sallie Mae evaluates claims made to USA Funds by Sallie Mae and other lenders, and (9) Sallie Mae performs USA Funds's audit functions as required by the HEA. There are many other provisions to this agreement that require USA Funds to pay Sallie Mae money and for Sallie Mae to perform functions that the HEA requires USA Funds perform.

1. Why does USA Funds give Sallie Mae its AMF?

2. If USA Funds must return some or all of its AMF, why does it only require Sallie Mae to return 50% of the AMF to USA Funds?

3. Why does USA Funds pay the FDF on PLUS loans on behalf of the student when Sallie Mae would be willing to do so?

4. Why did USA Funds decide to consolidate more types of consolidation loans?

5. Is it legal for USA Funds to pay Sallie Mae, such as the Research and Development fee to market loans guaranteed by USA Funds?

6. Is it legal for Sallie Mae to adjust its own claims for money from the FRF made to USA Funds?

7. Is it legal for Sallie Mae to audit its own compliance with the HEA? 8. Is it legal for Sallie Mae employees to represent to borrowers that it is USA Funds?

9. Is it legal for USA Funds to pay Sallie Mae for each loan it originates with USA Funds as the guarantor?

10. Is it legal for the agreement to require 100% of Sallie Mae default claims be paid by USA Funds?

11. Was it legal for USA Funds to pay Sallie Mae a $21,000,000 fee for research and development in 2006?

12. If the agreement is illegal, and Sallie Mae and USA Funds did illegal things in performing the agreement, what is the remedy and who has a remedy?

13. If this agreement is evidence of fraud, who is damaged by the fraud?

------

From: "DAVE BOODT"
To:
Subject: Remove the posted confidential USA Funds - Sallie Mae document immediately
Privacy: yes
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:40:41 +0100

Legal - I am the general counsel for USA Funds. Posted on your web
site is a highly confidential servicing agreement between USA Funds
and Sallie Mae. This document must be removed immediately as
disclosure is harmful to both USA Funds and Sallie Mae.

See link:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/USA_Funds_-_Sallie_Mae_Guarentee_Services_Agreement_2006

It appears from the web site that you are well aware of the proprietary
nature of the document and have intentionally made public a private
contract. Be assured that we will expend sufficient legal resources
to protect the right to private contract.

I expect to be contacted immediately that the agreement has been
removed.

David B. Boodt 317-806-1220

This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally
privileged If you received this message in error or are not the
intended recipient, you should destroy the e-mail message and any
attachments or copies, and you may not retain, distribute, or use
any information contained herein Please inform us of the erroneous
delivery by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: "ERIC REICIN"
To:
Cc:
Subject: Removal of Confidential Documents
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__PartE2CBC6C9.0__="
Privacy: yes
Message-Id: <20080624204453.5BF33393B78@mail.wikileaks.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:44:53 +0100

FRE-408

Dear Counsel:

A confidential commercial agreement between Sallie Mae and USA Funds
has been posted on wikileaks. It can be found at this address
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/USA_Funds_-_Sallie_Mae_Guarentee_Services_Agreement_2006.

We would like this document and the postings removed immediately
as they contain trade secrets and other non-public information
concerning the relationship between Sallie Mae and USA Funds. Sallie
Mae (SLM Corporation) is not a government entity, it is a publicly
traded company on the NYSE. USA Funds is a non-profit organization.
It is not a government entity.

I may be reached at the above e-mail address. I am happy to speak
with your legal counsel as well.

Best Regards,

Eric D. Reicin, Esq. Senior Vice President and Deputy General
Counsel Sallie Mae, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way, V3304 Reston, VA 20190
eric.d.reicin@salliemae.com (703) 984-5528 (voice) (703) 984-6500
(fax)

This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please delete all electronic copies of the message and its
attachments, destroy any hard copies, and notify me immediately.

Under an hour ago both USAfunds and Sallie Mae sent legal threats
to Wikileaks over this document:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/USA_Funds_-_Sallie_Mae_Guarantee_Services_Agreement_2006

Summary by a Wikileaks contact with inside knowledge of the situation. Wikileaks has checked the summary for congruence with the public record. Where items are from private knowledge the view is that of the contact. Both USAfunds and Sallie Mae, sent legal threats to Wikileaks within 4 minutes of each other over this very document on June 24, 2008 (see Note).

This document pertains to the relationship between USA Funds and Sallie Mae in their Federal Family Educational Loan Program ("FFELP") participation. The FFELP allows eligible lenders to make federally guaranteed loans to borrowers on behalf of eligible students to pay for tuition and expenses arising from the students' attendance at an eligible institution. FFELP loans include Stafford, PLUS and consolidation loans. A private lender such as Sallie Mae makes a loan to an student or his parents that is insured by a guaranty agency such as USA Funds. The guaranty agency's risk is re-insured by the Department of Education (DOEd).

The Higher Education Act (HEA) regulates the activities of the lender and guaranty agency. If a borrower goes into default, the lender makes a claim to the guaranty agency for the unpaid principal and accrued interest. The lender is only eligible for the insurance payment if it complied with all regulations and statutes governing the FFELP.

After paying the claim, the guaranty agency must attempt to collect the loan from the defaulted borrower, and if unsuccessful it can make a claim to the DOEd for most of the money it paid the lender on the underlying claim. The guaranty agency is only eligible for the insurance payment if both the lender and the guaranty agency complied with all regulations and statutes governing the FFELP. While the lender holds the loan, it is entitled to collect special allowance payments from the DOEd.

While the lender holds the loan, and the student is in school, in grace or in deferment, it is entitled to collect interest payments on the loan from the DOEd. In addition, the guaranty agency is entitled to an Account Maintenance Fee (AMF) from the DOEd on all loans it guarantees. The guaranty agency has two accounts: the Agency Operating Fund (AOF) and the Federal Reserve Fund (FRF). The AMF is deposited by the DOEd into the guaranty agency's AOF and the claim payments it makes to lenders are withdrawn from its FRF. The FRF is the property of the DOEd, held in trust by the guaranty agency.

The January 11, 2005, letter from Carl Dalstrom to June McCormack indicates: (1) if the DOEd cannot afford to pay the AMF to USA Funds, USA Funds is allowed to transfer the shortfall in the AMF from its FRF to its AOF, and (2) USA Funds pays Sallie Mae the AMF it receives from the DOEd, less one basis point.

The May 2, 2006, letter from Matteo Fontana to Carl Dalstrom indicates: (1) on June 30, 2006, USA Funds can no longer make up the DOEd shortfall on the AMF by transferring money from its FRF to its AOF, (2) USA funds guarantees 20.75% of all FFELP loans, and (3) the 2006 estimate total for all outstanding FFELP loans is $367,917,511,154. This estimated total of all outstanding FFELP loans guaranteed by the DOEd does not include the amount of loans outstanding under the Direct Loan Program. The June 28, 2006, letter from Carl Dalstrom to June McCormack indicates that if the DOEd requires USA Funds to return any of its AMF, Sallie Mae must return 50% of the amount of the AMF sought by the DOEd back to USA Funds.

The second June 28, 2006, letter from Carl Dalstrom to June McCormack indicates: (1) if Sallie Mae will pay the Federal Default Fee (FDF) for all Stafford loan borrowers of USA Funds guaranteed loans, USA funds will pay, out of its AOF, the FDF for all PLUS loans guaranteed by USA Funds; (2) USA Funds will now guarantee more types of consolidation loans for which Sallie Mae is lender, and (3) USA Funds will pay Sallie Mae to market loans guaranteed by USA Funds.

The Third Restated and Amended Guarantee Services Agreement for USA Funds (agreement) is, among other things, the insurance contract between USA Funds and Sallie Mae. In the agreement: (1) Sallie Mae promises to comply with all Higher Education Act (HEA) statutes and regulations in the performance of the agreement, (2) USA Funds promises to comply with all HEA statutes and regulations in the performance of the agreement, (3) USA Funds agrees to pay Sallie Mae a $21,000,000 Research and Development fee, (4) Sallie Mae will create a written marketing plan with USA Funds, (5) Sallie Mae cannot use a guarantor other that USA Funds unless USA Funds is unable to guarantee loans originated in the borrower's state, (6) USA Funds and Sallie Mae each indemnify the other in case of a lawsuit based upon the actions or inactions of the other, (7) USA Funds's remedy against Sallie Mae for a loss of federal re-insurance based on a failure of Sallie Mae to comply with the HEA on a loan guara
nteed by USA Funds and for which Sallie Mae was the lender is limited to 3% on the outstanding amount due on the loan, (8) Sallie Mae is allowed to sign guarantee agreements on USA Funds's behalf, (9) Sallie Mae evaluates claims made to USA Funds by Sallie Mae and other lenders, and (9) Sallie Mae performs USA Funds's audit functions as required by the HEA. There are many other provisions to this agreement that require USA Funds to pay Sallie Mae money and for Sallie Mae to perform functions that the HEA requires USA Funds perform.

1. Why does USA Funds give Sallie Mae its AMF?

2. If USA Funds must return some or all of its AMF, why does it only require Sallie Mae to return 50% of the AMF to USA Funds?

3. Why does USA Funds pay the FDF on PLUS loans on behalf of the student when Sallie Mae would be willing to do so?

4. Why did USA Funds decide to consolidate more types of consolidation loans?

5. Is it legal for USA Funds to pay Sallie Mae, such as the Research and Development fee to market loans guaranteed by USA Funds?

6. Is it legal for Sallie Mae to adjust its own claims for money from the FRF made to USA Funds?

7. Is it legal for Sallie Mae to audit its own compliance with the HEA? 8. Is it legal for Sallie Mae employees to represent to borrowers that it is USA Funds?

9. Is it legal for USA Funds to pay Sallie Mae for each loan it originates with USA Funds as the guarantor?

10. Is it legal for the agreement to require 100% of Sallie Mae default claims be paid by USA Funds?

11. Was it legal for USA Funds to pay Sallie Mae a $21,000,000 fee for research and development in 2006?

12. If the agreement is illegal, and Sallie Mae and USA Funds did illegal things in performing the agreement, what is the remedy and who has a remedy?

13. If this agreement is evidence of fraud, who is damaged by the fraud?

------

From: "DAVE BOODT"
To:
Subject: Remove the posted confidential USA Funds - Sallie Mae document immediately
Privacy: yes
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:40:41 +0100

Legal - I am the general counsel for USA Funds. Posted on your web
site is a highly confidential servicing agreement between USA Funds
and Sallie Mae. This document must be removed immediately as
disclosure is harmful to both USA Funds and Sallie Mae.

See link:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/USA_Funds_-_Sallie_Mae_Guarentee_Services_Agreement_2006

It appears from the web site that you are well aware of the proprietary
nature of the document and have intentionally made public a private
contract. Be assured that we will expend sufficient legal resources
to protect the right to private contract.

I expect to be contacted immediately that the agreement has been
removed.

David B. Boodt 317-806-1220

This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally
privileged If you received this message in error or are not the
intended recipient, you should destroy the e-mail message and any
attachments or copies, and you may not retain, distribute, or use
any information contained herein Please inform us of the erroneous
delivery by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: "ERIC REICIN"
To:
Cc:
Subject: Removal of Confidential Documents
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__PartE2CBC6C9.0__="
Privacy: yes
Message-Id: <20080624204453.5BF33393B78@mail.wikileaks.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:44:53 +0100

FRE-408

Dear Counsel:

A confidential commercial agreement between Sallie Mae and USA Funds
has been posted on wikileaks. It can be found at this address
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/USA_Funds_-_Sallie_Mae_Guarentee_Services_Agreement_2006.

We would like this document and the postings removed immediately
as they contain trade secrets and other non-public information
concerning the relationship between Sallie Mae and USA Funds. Sallie
Mae (SLM Corporation) is not a government entity, it is a publicly
traded company on the NYSE. USA Funds is a non-profit organization.
It is not a government entity.

I may be reached at the above e-mail address. I am happy to speak
with your legal counsel as well.

Best Regards,

Eric D. Reicin, Esq. Senior Vice President and Deputy General
Counsel Sallie Mae, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way, V3304 Reston, VA 20190
eric.d.reicin@salliemae.com (703) 984-5528 (voice) (703) 984-6500
(fax)

This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please delete all electronic copies of the message and its
attachments, destroy any hard copies, and notify me immediately.

I am a moderator over on a self help credit repair forum, so I'm pretty in tune with credit reporting and how it works and what not.

Imagine my surprise when I find out that Sallie Mae has recently modified their accounts as they appear on my credit report to make it seem as if I'm only paying part of my monthly loan commitments - it drops my score from 665 to 558 - over one hundred points!!

I am in repayment, have been for over a year, never made any late payments or partial payments, but "somehow" there is a notation at the end of each student loan entry on my reports that states "Arrangements made with credit grantor to make partial payments"...can I call BS on that? I'm going to on Monday.

Anything I can do that I'm not thinking of at this point - I admit I am very emotional right now. I have a draft of a BBB complaint that I'm sending out on Monday (depending on the answer I get form the phone drone when i call), as well as drafing a letter to the highest person at Salliemae I can find. What am I missing?

http://student-loan.gihub.com

A friend of mine was granted a student loan in 1993. This loan was taken out for an adult education program in Detroit (National Technical Institute),that was eventually closed down. One day she went to school and the doors were pad lock. The Federal Government had shut it down due to fraudulent activity by the owner of the school.

All who who attended this program is stuck with this loan. Some had just begun classes, and some had been going to the school for a while. It was a 3 month program that offered GED, Phelibotimist certificates after completion. The school had been established around 3 years.

My question is she and others are stuck with this loan on their credit. How can she and others have this debt taken off?

Please send answers to dproof2059@yahoo.com

Thank you

ddail

Repayment began 11/99
Original loan amount ~35,000.
Amount repaid (inception to date) >63,000
Balance remaining ~41,000

I will spare the long and morbid injustice to concentrate on my most recent issue. I defaulted. I "rehabilitated." Loan transferred back to original lender via a nebulous two-month processing period. I was told that even though DOE would still be collecting my money, I had to re-establish an electronic debit account with initial lender. My first payment, was to be due 2/21/08. I submitted completed documentation during the first week of January, 2008 (On the day my loan arrived back at orig. lender). Last week I received a letter confirming successful establishment of electronic debit account, and the first withdrawal was scheduled for 4/21/08. The letter proceeded that if a certain box was checked (and it was) then my account was delinquent. I called the lender. The man said that my account was current and seemed content to end the conversation at that point. I asked why I received this letter. He chuckled (chuckled!) and said that I would also be receiving a late payment notice, but I should disregard these notices because, like he said before, my account was current. Again I questioned; how could I receive two notices stating delinquency while he assured me that my account was made current?

Long story short: some "administrative glitch" caused a delay in processing my electronic debit information and the ever-so-kind-DOE granted me a five month forbearance. I would be thus excused from repayment until April.

My question is this: Is it okay for the lender to place a loan in forbearance without the borrower's approval, or at least without said borrower acknowledging the forbearance?

Last year I paid more than 7000 in interest. If I go along with this forbearance, not making a payment until April, as the DOE wishes, I will be forced to capitalize another 3000 onto the principle of my loan. Being wise to this game, I tried to make a payment over the phone. The man said that he was not equipped to take payments over the phone, that I would have to make the payment online. I thanked him for his time and tried to log on. I found that my login was no longer valid. A casualty of default? I re-registered to find that I cannot access my account until after my ssn was verified (1-3 business days).

I wish I could say that I didn't understand why DOE was making repayment difficult. However with each passing day and month I hear my very hard-earned money being sucked into the DOE's pockets. I have paid the initial loan amount nearly twice and there is still no end in sight. I can't help but think that this is some grand scam.

Would anyone know if there is a SOL on Private Student Loans. These 2 Loans I took out in 1999, with Wells Fargo are Private For profit Loans. Not backed by the goverment or non-profit co. I quit paying on them in 2003, filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy on 10-2005 and my BK was discharged in 5-2006. I have never heard a word from them since my BK but am wondering if some day they will pop up. I know they can't be discharged in my BK but am wondering about if they would have a SOL. I also know that if they would have been backed by a non-profit or gov then they do not have a SOL. Thanks

Doea anyone have any information on whether these new collection laws were challenged as unconstitutional as violations of the ex post facto laws?? When I took out my loans these laws were not in effect.

Another topic here talks about addresing the cause of student loan problems. One problem that I have experienced but have not seen mentioned is the lack of avenues for individuals attending nonprofit postsecondary programs, particularly colleges and universities, to have any remedies for false advertising by these institutions. The main problem is a lack of government oversight.

Because many nonprofits are religious, the governmment has traditionally kept out of their affairs. Nonprofit schools can be religious or non-religious. Non-religious programs are likewise exempted from government oversight of their advertising which would normally be done by the Federal Trade Commission. Accomodation is made for this by the US Dept of Education who makes sure programs are overseen by accreditors who should be ensuring that they operate well. Unfortunately, the reality is that since the US Dept of Education started the laissez faire policy of allowing illegitimate subjects (i.e. astrology, chiropractic) to receive federal student aid its approch to regulation has been completely hands off (laissez faire) and these programs are running amoke with false and misleading advertising.

These program depend on false advertising for their survival. They are so blatant about it that despite public exposure they continue the practices. For example, in 2003 two chiropractic educators published an article in the Journal of Chiropractic Education showing that most chiropractic programs were using making questionable claims exaggerating the usefulness of chiropractic care. One year later, Barrett re-surveyed the programs and found that 83% of programs were still using false and misleading statements. (http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/webclaims.html)

What Needs To Be Done?

Clearly many non-profit universities are using lack of oversight to engage in deceptive business practices. New law needs to be written ending this practice and mandating that the Federal Trade Commission start regulating all non-profit postsecondary programs to ensure that the information they send prospective students is accurate. A new requirement for financial aid eligibility should compliance with the FTC in this respect and FTC should actively seek out complaints from students. Putting this policy into effect would effectively end these practices and shut many of the offenders down due to lowered student enrollments.

What needs to be done is to lobby congress to enact this legislation.

How come there are no forms on this site for contacting, volunteering, joining plaintiffs in a suit, etc.? At every place that says "Use this form...", there is only blank space. What gives?

I am the owner/moderator of the yahoo group, Student Loan Justice. We are part of the StudentLoanJustice.org PAC headed by Alan Collinge.

Please join our nationwide fight against The Bastards.

This list has a lot of traffic, averaging about 650 messages a month. Most of it is pretty useful.

Join here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentLoanJustice/join

There are also state chapters for about half the states (volunteer leaders are still needed for the other states). We are planning a coordinated nationwide event in November and need people to help bring legislative awareness to this issue.

Thanks for supporting SLJ as well as student loan slave!!

RaNDoMLeiGH

I noticed a couple of things that need improvement on the site - for instance, I tried to submit my suggestions via your form under "contact" but there was no form, nor was there one under "volunteer".

I think that this is a great site but people won't be able to find it without some general SEO. I'm no pro, but I'd be happy to help:)

Just some ideas - Keep up the good work:)

Does anyone on this list have knowledge of class action suits based on consumer protection laws, right to privacy (a/k/a invading savings accounts), age discrimination (offset SSI and SS)?