Product: Debt collection

XX/XX/XXXX received letter from claimed U. S. XXXX XXXX XXXX   impersonator named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It used " Borrower ID No. XXXX for {$70000.00} dated XX/XX/XXXX, a year after my Chapter XXXX no-asset bankruptcy. More importantly, its predecessor, Windham Professionals and others defaulted in the adversary proceeding. The U. S. Attorney General at XXXX in court said it was {$50000.00} as a claim - not {$70000.00}. Even then, he had no documents, the debt was in dispute and the U. S. Attorney at XXXX filed an improper pleading after asking for an extension to answer the Complaint. Since neither filed a Proof of Claim to verify the chain-of-title debt or to explain how the guarantor woukd have already paid the government, thus owing nothing to the federal government ; the credit report after that XX/XX/XXXX hearing stated those alleged federal debts were " included in the Chapter XXXX discharge '' and were not collectible due to no proof. So my trial is XX/XX/XXXX, and I will now ask the judge to address this " zombie debt '' for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Act regarding furnishing false information on my credit report given this never-ending nonsense. And also to address the new false furnishing on my credit report by this XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The " fresh start '' provision of the Bankruptcy Law afforded ample opportunity for the creditors to " put up or shut up. '' They falsely claimed that it is my burden to prove " undue hardship '' before they prove the debt is real. Moreover, the reverse is required. The government or its collectors must show chain-of-title proof prior to any proof on my part. They failed to do that. Now, the judicial admission that the debt was included is in keeping with the XX/XX/XXXX " Dear Colleague '' letter by the XXXX XXXX XXXX guiding the creditors on legal costs relative to claims and other particulars. Also, XX/XX/XXXX is the deadkine for the Federal Register to receive comments related to " undue hardship '' all of which will be addressed at trial XX/XX/XXXX. I will file two motions against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.. The first is a violation of the Chapter XXXX discharge that was furnished by the predecessor as inclusive of all federal student loans it held. And a motion in the trial case to enjoin this company in the trial. This company is committing fraud. More specifically, it is not entitled to that amount of {$20000.00} more on a one year time frame. That is usary. Also, it is using the U. S. Mail and committing mail fraud in defrauding me. Lastly, its Chief Compliance Officer will get a subpoena to supply the chain-of-title documemts to enjoin their predeccesor back into the case for assigning this debt after it defaulted and otherwise neglected to file a Proof Of Claim. Incidentally, the XXXX XXXX XXXX   was on the Matrix of Creditors and also failed to file a Proof Of Claim. In the beginning, a servicer failed to follow the federal regulations. The XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to enforce its own regulations. This means they knowingly failed me and then forced bankruptcy. Now, a full year after the bankruptcy ended and the adversary proceeding began, I am going to file this letter with the court to get closure once and for all. There is a 57 % default rate on Income-Based Repayment recertification due to lack of work or lack of taxable income for which some rogue servicers wilfully trigger defaults. The XXXX XXXX XXXX makes it worse by offering a new IBR plan where it was denied at the beginning of the rogue servicer actions. They can't have it both ways. The XXXX got paid by their guarantor. So who has a valid claim? No one. All either defaulted or lied to got out of the case or otherise ignored the summons and complaint and the lead bankruptcy case completely. Despite that, it was either aware or directed after the XX/XX/XXXX hearing with the lawyer for the XXXX that it was futile. No doubt, Windham Professionals fraudulently sold the abandoned debt to its affiliate to clean up its books or to dupe another creditor or to mislead me into thinking this debt was still valid. See you in court!