Consumer complaint received 2015-12-19
Company: EOS Holdings, Inc.
State: PA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Non-federal student loan
Issue: False statements or representation
Sub-issue: Impersonated an attorney or official

Complaint:
I, XXXX XXXX XXXX have been threatened with a collection enforcement that is illegal. I have completed an extensive investigation into a series of student loans procured on my behalf by XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. These loans were never signed off as to be guaranteed payment by The United States Department of Education by me personally. They were procured and only guaranteed by XXXX XXXX, consolidated inro a massive securitized trust closed XX/XX/XXXX under the heading XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; Issuer XXXX XXXX XXXX, Depositor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Servicer ; Floating Rate Student Loan-Backed Securities. The essential elements to show proof that XXXX XXXX was not only reimbursed every dollar of my student loans is shown in the attachments I have forwarded as part of my complaints. 
It is important to understand that at no time in the student loan process is there an attachment to the U. S. Department of Education. In order of XXXX XXXX to procure loans with XXXX Department of Education guarantees, the U.S. Department of Education would have to register with the Department of State in the Commonwealth of Education. 
Without an attachment to federal guarantees, XXXX XXXX, XXXX FUNDS and any collection agency entity can not be attached to ( Public Law 102-164 : 20 U.S.C., 1095a et seq. ) There must be an attachment for any enforcement of collection to the U.S. Department of Education on student loan ownership or guarantees. If the XXXX Department of Education was the guarantor of these loans in question, all that XXXX XXXX would have to do is file a claim with this federal agency and be reimbursed in full. That is not the criteria of this matter, since XXXX XXXX abused the student loan process by consolidating over XXXX XXXX dollars in a securitization governed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. XXXX XXXX was in a position to borrow over XXXX XXXX dollars through the Federal Reserve with the aforementioned trust. 
The collection threat of a wage withholding by EOS CCA, a collection agency that is now the XXXX such agency to claim a position in this matter. The EOS CCA has no position to withhold wages against XXXX XXXX legally. There is no connection to a federal department on guarantee such as the U.S. Department of Education. There is only one remedy on collection in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that is by lawsuit by summary judgment. That four year timeline has expired in XX/XX/XXXX, and it can not be retracted. Neither XXXX XXXX, which is also XXXX XXXX disguising itself by name to give the illusion that it is tied to the U.S. Department of Education, and it uses XXXX as well, nor EOS CCA have any legal position to threated an unenforceable collection process. 
The collection process can not be set in a U.S. Department of Education guarantee status to enforce a collection in Pennsylvania. I have a pending federal lawsuit that will be filed XX/XX/XXXX, and EOS CCA will be listed as a defendant. The originator of my student loans is running its own scam with the American citizens, raising XXXX dollars at extremely low interest rate loans, and a securitized trust can not be attached to any government agency such as the U.S. Department of Education. The American public must be aware of this type of ruse being enforced against them through disguised collection agencies giving the impression that a federal agency is part of it. 
XXXX XXXX is actually XXXX XXXX, which validates that the U.S. Department of Education is not a guarantor of any loans procured between myself and XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. The only remedy for XXXX XXXX was by a lawsuit for judgment, and that timeline has lapsed.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation