Consumer complaint received 06-12-2017 about Debt collection (Federal student loan debt) with ECMC Group, Inc. (CA).
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt is not yours

Complaint: On XXXX XXXX XXXX I sent via certified mail a notarized affidavit to ECMC ( attachment of affidavit is attached to this complaint ). As of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, I have not received a response from ECMC addressing all of my concerns nor answering all of my questions in my affidavit. A maxim of commercial law states that an affidavit that is not rebutted point by point stands as truth in law. ECMC has failed to respond to my affidavit. ECMC did send a response that was received in late XXXX XXXX but dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. In this correspondence ECMC evaded all of my questions and concerns in regards to the alleged debt and alleged loan, except one. They attempted to address my concerns over the authenticity of the promissory note through an employee named XXXX XXXX from the Research Resolution Department by citing Rule 1003 of the Federal Rules of Evidence where it is stated that duplicates of promissory notes are admissible unless certain criteria are met. I have researched this Federal Rules of Evidence and I am challenging the authenticity of the copy of the promissory note which may possible be forged especially with today 's technology and software programs. If ECMC claims to have the original authentic promissory note, please provide a signed affidavit by an authorized representative of ECMC stating that they have the original wet ink signature document. Also, this attempt by XXXX XXXX of ECMC to address and answer one of my several questions and statements posed, is not sufficient. XXXX XXXX completely evaded my other questions and statements and did n't address the promissory note issue at all, but instead brought up an off subject matter that did not address the actual subject matter. I challenged the authenticity of the photocopy not if photocopies are admissible or not. Also, XXXX XXXX of ECMC needs to address all of my other questions and concerns. I have copy and pasted the text from the original affidavit and attached it to this complaint. There are eight (  8 ) itemized questions that need to be answered and addressed completely and not evaded. XXXX XXXX of ECMC only attempted to answer question # 5 out of the 8 itemized questions and statements and completely evaded questions # 1, 2, 3,4,6,7 and 8. <P/>Text from affidavit below : XXXX XXXX, XXXX ECMC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX Dear ECMC, This letter is in regards to an item/account being reported to the credit bureau ( s ). I have not received any correspondence from your company attempting to collect a debt. I have not  been given the opportunity to address this alleged debt with your company before you began reporting to the credit bureau ( s ). Please cease reporting this item/account ( alleged debt ) to the credit bureaus until the alleged debt can be verified. This is not a refusal to discharge any debt that I may lawfully owe ; In fact I agree to discharge any debt that I may lawfully owe, once the alleged debt has been verified. What is being requested as validation and verification of the alleged debt is listed below. 1. Verification of the debt, which includes the actual accounting 2. Verification of your ( ECMC ) claim against me ( XXXX XXXX ) ; that is a signed invoice 3. The contract binding both parties ( XXXX XXXX and ECMC ) Upon receipt of the above requested items, the proper actions can be negotiated between me ( XXXX XXXX ) and your company ( ECMC ) to discharge the debt. Until the debt can be verified, as mentioned previously in this correspondence, please cease reporting this alleged debt to the credit bureau ( s ). Thank you, in advance, for your prompt attention to this matter. The above text is from my initial correspondence sent to ECMC on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, but the wrong address was listed on the credit report as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MN XXXX, so the original letter was returned to sender. After filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I now have the correct address, so Im resending the text from the original correspondence and also addressing some additional issues arising from ECMCs response to the CFPB ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ) complaint. In the CFPB response from ECMC, ECMC claims that on XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX unsubsidized and subsidized loans were disbursed in the total amount of {$6600.00}. This is why I requested in my initial correspondence, the actual accounting for the alleged debt. What is being requested in regards to the actual accounting is verifiable evidence and records that reflect that ECMC or any other party ( financial institution ) actually loaned their own pre-existing money or assets ( including money or assets the Bank may have sourced from another institution ). In the CFPB response from ECMC, a copy of what was referred to by ECMC as the Master Promissory Note was also provided in the CFPB response. This is a copy of an alleged original document and may possibly be a forgery. Please provide the original wet ink signature document, so that I may perform my own investigation into the authenticity of the document. Also, until the debt can be verified please refrain from using you or your loans when addressing me ( XXXX XXXX ) ; this debt has not been lawfully verified, so that can be construed as defamation. It was also mentioned in the ECMC CFPB response that payments totaling in the amount of {$6100.00} were made during a duration totaling 76 months, if youre unable to verify the debt and that an actual loan was provided ; the total amount of payments should be returned to the party on record that made those payments. ECMC also claims that on XXXX XXXX, XXXX a default claim was paid in the total amount of {$3000.00}. Please provide evidence and the accounting of how this was performed. ECMC also claims that a Notice of Default ( NOD ) was sent on XXXX XXXX, XXXX and another notice on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. None of these notices have been received by me ( XXXX XXXX ). Please provide the evidence that ECMC actually sent these so-called notices ; that is tracking information from the postal services used and a signed affidavit by an authorized representative of ECMC. ECMC cited several codes and statutes in their CFPB response that they claim justify their actions of reporting this item/account to the credit bureau ( s ). Those codes and statutes apply to debts that have been properly and lawfully verified. This debt has not been properly and lawfully verified, so please discontinue reporting this alleged debt to the credit bureau ( s ). Please answer the following questions below and provide the requested documents within 10 days of receipt of this correspondence. 1. Can you provide the actual accounting that reflects that ECMC or any other party ( financial institution ) actually loaned their own pre-existing money or assets ( including money or assets the Bank may have sourced from another institution )? 2. Can you provide verification of your ( ECMC ) claim against me ( XXXX XXXX ) ; that is a signed invoice? 3. Do you have and can you provide the original contract binding both parties ( XXXX XXXX and ECMC or any other party )? 4. Can you provide sufficient evidence i.e. tracking information and a signed affidavit by an authorized representative of ECMC that so-called Notices of Default were sent on XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX? 5. Do you have the original wet ink signature Master Promissory Note? 6. If the answer is yes to the above question # 5 ; was that Master Promissory Note used as a monetized loan instrument, creating a credit on account through bookkeeping entries that were then used to fund the alleged loan? 7. If the answer is yes to the above question # 6 ; the payments mentioned in the CFPB response from ECMC should be returned to the party that made those payments totaling {$6100.00}, since the Master Promissory Note was used as a monetized loan instrument and would have funded the entirety of alleged loan and no pre-existing money or assets were used by the so-called lender. The {$6100.00} worth of payments would be considered an excess amount collected and that can not be justified by ECMC or the alleged lender. 8. Would the above statement in regards to the payments totaling {$6100.00} be considered as a true assessment or not? For any of the above questions that are answered positively with a yes, please provide any documentation and evidence, signed by an authorized representative of ECMC. As mentioned in my initial correspondence, this is not a refusal to discharge any debt that may lawfully be owed, upon verification of the debt. If ECMC disregards and violates the law, further lawful and legal action will be pursued. If the debt can not be verified within the timeframe ( 10 days ) provided, this matter is closed, so please cease reporting to the credit bureau ( s ). Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation