Consumer complaint received 2023-04-28
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: MD
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Complaint:
NOTICE OF DEFAMATION, FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT & RELATED DAMAGES CIVIL SUIT TO NELNET, NELNET , INC., NELNET BANK, NELNET BUSINESS SERVICES, NATIONAL EDUCATION LOAN NETWORK , INC. & ALL SUBSIDIARIES In the State of Maryland, Defamation of character falls into two categories : libel and slander. Libel is a written, including signs or pictures, defamation. Slander is oral, involves speech. " A statement that is merely unflattering, annoying, embarrassing, or that hurts only the plaintiffs feeling is not considered defamatory. '' R. Sack, Libel, Slander and Related Problems ( 5th. edition, 2018 ) ( Vol. 1 ).

To prevail on a defamation claim, a plaintiff must establish the following : 1. That the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person ; 2. That the statement was false ; 3. That the defendant was legally at fault in making the statement, and 4. That the plaintiff thereby suffered harm.

" A defamatory statement is one which tends to expose a person to public scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of, or associating with, that person. '' Hosmane v Seley-Radtke , 227 Md. App. 11, 20-21 ( 2016 ) Maryland recognizes the distinction between defamation per se and defamation per quod. The determination of whether an alleged defamatory statement is per se or per quod is a matter of law. Determining whether the defamatory statement is per se or per quod is intertwined with the issue of fault. Shapiro v. Massengill, 105 Md. App. 743, 773 ( 1995 ) If the statement is defamatory per se, the plaintiff must prove actual damages if the defendant was merely negligent in making a false statement. Shapiro 105 Md. App. at 774. Damages are presumed, however, when a plaintiff can demonstrate actual malice, by clear and convincing evidence, even in the absence of proof of harm. Samuels v. Tschechtelin, 135 Md. App. 483, 549-550 ( 2000 ). Additionally, a court may take judicial notice if conduct is so egregious and/or injurious in nature. In such an instance, damages are self-evident. M & S Furniture v. De Bartolo Corp., 249 Md. 540, 544, ( 1968 ). For example, a statement which falsely charges a person with the commission of a crime is a case in which the statement is so egregious and injurious in nature, damages are self-evident. If the statement is per quod, then the jury must decide whether the statement carries a defamatory meaning. Shapiro 105 Md. App. at 773. That is, actual damages must be alleged and proved by the plaintiff.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Accordingly, convincing evidence of falsity is required. Other privileges may be asserted in defense of an allegation of defamation, including, but not limited to, opinion or fair comment privileges. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 ( 1964 ) In determining fault, public officials must prove by clear and convincing evidence that statements were made with actual malice, i.e., knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard of whether false or not. In contrast, private individuals use a negligent standard, i.e., failing to act with due care considering the circumstances. Hosmane v Seley-Radtke , 227 Md. App. 11, 21 ( 2016 ) If the defamatory words are actionable per se, the law implies or presumes general damages, but if the words are actionable per quod, the plaintiff has the burden of proving damages.

Compensatory Damages are recoverable. With this type of damages, the injured party may recover only as much as will fairly compensate for the injury sustained. 
Compensatory damages may be general or special damages.

Punitive damages are recoverable where fraud, malice, evil intent or oppression has been proven.

NELNET is being negligent and dismissive in its response to my consumer complaint. Pursuant to the FCRA, the Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Agencies Act, the 5th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Maryland Bill of Rights, Maryland Code ( MD Code ) 5-105 - Assault, libel, or slander ; 8-301. Identity fraud ; 8-303. Government identification document ; 8-304. Report ; and 8-522. Use of simulated documents to induce payment, I demand that NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX, and PHEAA provide the following certifying documentation validating the TRUTH and the ACTUAL AMOUNT the disputed debt : 1 ) Copies of ALL five ( 5 ) 30-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation.

2 ) Copies of ALL 60-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 
3 ) Copies of ALL 229 90-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 
4 ) The Original PROMISSORY NOTE for ALL Student Loan Accounts, with my Original Signature and/or the IP Address of the computer that was used to sign any documents electronically. 
5 ) Disclosure of the Date, Time, Bank, Bank Address, Bank Routing Account Number, and Bank Account Number of the School /College/University that received all of the disputed {$190000.00} of Installment Accounts on my behalf along with any confirmation or transaction numbers associated with any bank transfers and/or direct deposits into all banks and bank accounts which documents that the funds were even disbursed from the Creditor to the Consumer in the first place. 
6 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with all Federal and State Notice , Service, Reporting and/or Timing requirements associated with both the FCRA and the Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

7 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein.

8 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 605B. Block of information resulting from identity theft [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein.

9 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 607. Compliance procedures [ 15 U.S.C. 1681e ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein.

10 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 609. Disclosures to consumers [ 15 U.S.C. 1681g ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein.

11 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [ 15 U.S.C. 1681i ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein.

12 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [ 15 U.S.C. 1681n ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein.

13 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [ 15 U.S.C. 1681o ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein.

14 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 618. Jurisdiction of courts ; limitation of actions [ 15 U.S.C. 1681p ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein.

15 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [ 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein.

If this information is not provided within the next 15 days I plan to file a Civil Suit in the Federal District Courts of Maryland against NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA 30 Counts EACH ( representative of the number of instances that information has been INACCURATELY reported regarding Student Loans on EACH Credit Report ) of Defamation, Libel, Identity Theft and Fraud for EVERY false Credit Report from XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and ALL other Credit Reporting Agencies that has falsely reported INACCURATELY on my credit profile using the following calculations : XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. 
XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. 
XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. 
XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. 
XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. 
XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. 
XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation