Product: Student loan

On XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet received a registered security instrument for {$7700.00}. The payment was tendered by UCC 3-603. The Code is clear under ( b ) that if the tender is refused, there is discharge to the extent of the amount of the tender, or, as stipulated in UCC 3-309, I am entitled to enforce the lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument. UCC 3-505 explicitly instructs that a qualified third party must stamp and return the payment if it was dishonored. Nelnet has egregiously violated the law by failing to credit the account, return the document with lawful reason for refusal, or indicate where the document has gone. 

Furthermore, the letter was transparent in that I informed Nelnet of a Billing Error and Dispute by stating that the loan that originated in XXXX was for {$7000.00} less a {$1000.00} loan origination fee. The loan has received payments of {$110.00} every month for over XXXX  years. Yet, the balance still erroneously reflects almost {$8000.00} due. I requested immediate attention to the matter. 

The communication also demanded, as per my legal right, a Validation and Verification of the loan and an accounting history. Because the loan originated with an entirely different company and it is clear that there is an extreme issue with the transfer of information, I also questioned Nelnets right to enforce and demanded evidence that they were a holder in due course and the Person Entitled to Enforce. This request to receive this information was given a timely ( XXXX ) days to respond referencing The Family Education Rights Act, UCC and CFRs. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet responded to a different address than the requested response address in my correspondence and included a letter from a fictitious person signing by XXXX  name only. The letter included what was called a Master Promissory Note. However, the promissory note contained misspellings to my name, an inaccurate employer name, and gave no loan data as required in the Family Education Rights Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Truth In Lending Act, UCC, and other statutes. No loan amount, no interest terms, no repayment terms, and above all, no signature. The letter threatened legal action against my request for basic information I am lawfully entitled, and was denied. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed by Certified mail, another demand for the information which I had previously requested extending an additional XXXX  days to comply. Failure to adequately respond after ( XXXX ) days imposed a {$1000.00} per day fine. This correspondence reasserted my lawful demands to address the billing error, provide an accounting, and Validate/Verify the loan. I also addressed the issues and lack of legality to the Master Promissory Note mailed to me. This letter was ignored. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed by certified mail, a XXXX  letter addressing the payment I had tendered, the billing error, and again requested validation/verification and an accounting history. I also demanded a legitimate Promissory Note which disclosed the loan terms and bared my signature. This time, I extended an additional ( XXXX ) days to provide me with this information, after which I increased the daily fine to {$3000.00}. To be sure I exhausted all efforts, I uploaded all three letters into the online system. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email acknowledging receipt of my Validation of Debt and was asked to allow XXXX  days from the email to be provided with this information. This is unacceptable, as I have already given more than XXXX  days for the Validation of Debt. 

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and abundantly pointed out within the Administrative Remedy Demand, is clear that a debt collector must, if requested, provide a verification of the alleged debt, i.e validate the debt. Per the FDCPA, the debt collector is mandated to cease all collection activity until verification is provided. Verification is defined in XXXX XXXX XXXX as : confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments of statements of party. For a debt to be valid it must be verified. 

Furthermore, the FDCPA, 15 USC 1666b, and 13 CFR 1026.13 are explicitly clear that ( C ) ( 2 ) when notice is received you shall comply with appropriate resolution within XXXX billing cycles and no later than XXXX  days and that ( d ) until resolved ( XXXX ) can not auto deduct payment. Nelnet has failed to resolve within XXXX days or XXXX billing cycles and has continued to auto-deduct payments monthly during this billing dispute as recently as XX/XX/XXXX Nelnet was informed of allegations of a licensed securities investigator who has conducted a preliminary review utilizing the XXXX XXXX and who is completing for testimony, a full forensic audit and in-depth analysis of their securitization process, specifically focused on their securities offering according to the published Prospectus and chain of title analysis and assignment research, bond flow chart, secondary market XXXX  and XXXX  and the secondary markets those bonds are exchanged on, as it appears that Nelnet is drawing down additional bonds against collateral through private placements, engaging in rehypothecation practices and double collateralization. They did not dispute.