Free Speech

DEIA Report
cc: Re-printed from NAAS Subscriber Reports
Bcc: Domestic & Intl. Affiliates
Reply to:NAAS EAS/N2 Form GEC 002
Subject: Fraud of the College Scholarsip Fraud Prevention Act 

Marilee JonesSallie MaeJohn RyanLawrence BurtNACACDallas Martin

*Consent and Indemnification Statement*
Accessing this page constitutes implied consent to all NAAS EAS/N2 Rules. Absolutely no part of this report, either partially or in its entirety, may be used in advertising, selling or for any commercial purpose or downloaded into any computer system for subsequent storage, editing, personal re-prints, or editing, or manipulation of any type. Viewing, reading, or electronically accessing this report by any means constitutes an agreement by viewer with The Companies (as defined per NAAS EAS/N2 Rules) to completely indemnify the same from and against all liability that may arise out of the re-publication and general distribution of this NEWS report. Viewer further agrees to hold The Companies (as defined per NAAS EAS/N2 Rules), the Publisher, and all persons (collectively, jointly, and severally) that have assisted in the investigation, editing, distribution, and publication of this series, harmless from any loss, damage, claim of damage, liability or expense arising out of or resulting from any aspect of this web presentation in general and this specific publication in particular. The viewpoints and fair comment discussed represent the independent opinions of the Publisher, and authors, and do not ---in any way, shape, form or fashion ---- necessarily reflect or represent or are indicative of the viewpoint(s) or opinion of site owner, or any officer, director, or employee of the same. By accessing this report from a general hypertext link, viewer expressly agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the report, fully consents to all NAAS EAS/N2 Rules, and has established that he/she or it (in the case that the Reader is a non-natural person) has an interest in the subject matter expressed and the contents herein. For context of the full legal disclaimer, please see the legal disclaimer and Publisher's notes below.
*Non-reproduction Policy*

NEWS, Commentary & Analysis
In April of 1999, and again in November of 1999, this Publisher published a series of Media Reports regarding U.S. Senate Bill S1455. The November 1999 report, in particular, discussed the seedy relationships that seemed to exist between various professional members of certain prominent non-profit organizations and student-loan providers. The report also discussed the circuitous route of how U.S. Senate Bill S1455 became enacted into law, and the elaborate scheme to promote legislation of the Bill.

Amongst other things, both reports discussed the murky relationships that seemed to exist between certain non-profit orgnizations, members of these organizations, and their chief advertisers, and how a discredited government informant was used in conjunction with many of these perons to promote legislation of U.S. Senate Bill S1455.

The reports were directed at users of the NAAS website, donors of financial aid funds, content providers of financial aid-related services, scholarship search services, and sponsors of merit and competition based scholarships. However, then, as now, the message remains relevant to the concerns of all persons and businessess whom do not want their tax dollars being used to endorse, subsidize, recommend, or promote unsavory groups and individuals or unethical relationships.

Electronic tracking records indicate that the published reports were read by the general public, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Postal Service, Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Justice, representatives of the FTC, Better Business Bureaus, IRS employees, and many other government agencies and persons.

Despite these facts, and forewarnings, and despite multiple Cho-like warning signs that the proposed legislation was bereft with material omissions, used phony statistics from government informants and unethical non-profit orginzations with a vested interest in the Bill, and despite evidence that these persons used lies, deceit, fabrications, and concealed material facts to bait legislators to support passage of the Bill, the proposed legislation was enacted into law as The College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) of 2000.

In hindsight, independent observers may now reach the conclusion that U.S. Senate Bill S1455 was certainly a party 'gift' to members of certain non-profit organizations, finnancial-aid professionals connected to certain non-profit organizations, student-loan providers, and certain others. With passage of U.S. Senate Bill S1455, the members-only "party" to steal, deceive, misrepresent, and over-charge students and their naive parents was assured to continue without intervention.

The chief U.S. Congressional sponsors of U.S. Senate Bill S1455 had ties to the same non-profit orgnizations that would later be identified with a known a federal informant identifed in U.S. Department of Justice files as a key partner in promotion of the Bill. The federal informant was recruited in conjuction with other "partners" of a covert campaign to mislead the general public of the extent of certain types of purported financial-aid fraud while conveniently ignoring routine abuses in the $85 billion dollar student-loan industry.

With assistance from unethical non-profit organizations and their equally unethical and/or corrupt members, federal goverment employees (some of which had professional ties to convicted traitor Robert Phillip Hanssen), the budding government informant was provided the phony title of "Financial-aid Expert" to lend support to his self-created theories and credibility.

As an added measure, it was decided by representatives of the U.S. Dept. of Justice, the U.S. Dept. of Education, and certain other federal agencies, that their informant would also needs a "legitimate sponsor." Thus, the federal informant hastily created a for-profit shell corporation that was simply an alter-ego extension of himself.

A prominent non-profit association of colleges, univerties, and post-secondary institutions, accepted the recommendations of the federal government. This organization willingly, deliberately, and wantonly agreed to serve as the "exclusive" sponsor of the federal informant's hastily created shell corporation.

It should be noted that the federal informant did not have a single day of experience as an "expert" in the areas he sought to critic and give "advice" about.

With "exclusive sponsorship" from the non-profit organization came many benefits. The informant was allowed to use the non-profit seal of the organization as part of marketing package and on his for-profit website. When the informant was threatened with lawsuits by competitors for alleged deceptive and unfair business practices, or by persons who felt defamed by his inflammatory and misleading articles, attorneys who were also members of and chief advertisers in the membership directory of his chief sponsor sprang to his defense. Whether or not this intrinsic benefit and indirect income was reported on the federal tax forms of this informant is unclear. However, it is estimated that if a private person were to be independently charged for the same services, then the expenses woould be close to $100,000.00

While their professional colleague served as an "exclusive sponsor" of the shell corporation owned by the federal informant, members of a particular alphabet-related non-profit organization were directed to parrot, promote, and distribute the Socialist dogma of the informant on an electronic list-serve bulletin board operated by the same organization.

These unethical members challenged their colleagues to promote the politcal beliefs of the informant, to engage in a form a censorship against and to report any organization that assessed legitimate fees for the administration of of merit awards, even organizations that charged small amounts of $1 or $2 for one-time handling fees.

These members would cajole other members to investigate organizations that departed from the Socialist criteria of the federal informant whose key Lenin-like maxim was and remains "Never pay money to get money" or, "Never pay more than the cost of a postage stamp." I guess its time for Merrill Lynch, Smith & Barney, J.P. Morgan, Charles Schwab, Las Vegas Casinos, and many other financial powerhouses of mainsteam American capitalistic culture to throw in the towel too. With his theories, Wall Street should presumably be re-named Vladamir Lenin Avenue or Karl Marx Road.

If based in California, the informant would draft "criteria" that would attack California companies. If based in Nevada, the informant would draft "criteria" that would attack Nevada corporations. If based in Florida, attack Florida companies.

With respect to Nevada, in 1996, and each year thereafter until his company was sold, the federal informant published a series of misleading and deceptive statements about corporate entities in Nevada, and targeted Nevada corporations in general although he offered no indendent data, facts or sources to substantiate his personal theories.

The corrupt federal informant would routinely change his "criteria about what was or was not a "financial-aid scam" or his "warnings" dependent upon not what prevailing federal law says but his own personal beliefs, the identity of his target, and the perceived location of the target. Members of certain unethical non-profit organizations adopted his subtle messages, and re-fashioned their literature accordingly.

Federal Informant Dupes U.S. Senators
Student-loan fraud ignored
In 1999, a duped U.S. Senator from Michigan drafted a poorly written piece of legislation that specifically ignored student-loan fraud committed by student-loan companies, ignored financial-aid fraud by lenders at big banks, and ignored financial-aid fraud by members of the same organization linked to the sponsorship of the federal informant. Instead, the legislation targeted companies that seemingly fit the fictitious profile of companies targeted by the East-coast based federal informant.

Following up on the recommended rhetoric of this federal informant, another Michigan Senator soon began unwarranted attacks on the incorporation procedures of Nevada companies as if the many poor, impoverished, illiterate, and unemployed residents of Michigan would somehow be better off regarding legislation specific to Nevada.

There is no mystery with regards to which non-profit organizations these two Senators are associated with, and the origins of their unsubstantiated "concerns".

Unfortunately, many Americans now believe that corruption, juiced legislation, and perversity is rampant in the U.S. Congress. We are all aware of the personal corruption that have consumed many of our legislators and government agencies over the years. The national media has detailed the foibles and downfall of our congressional representatives:

  1. U.S. Senator Larry Craig, Republican from Idaho. Despite being married to a woman, and having children, Craig was caught soliciting a perverted homosexual act in a public restroom. After a public uproar of his act, he announced his resignation effective resignation effective September 30, 2007;
  2. U.S. Senator Mark Foley, Republican from Florida. Virtually every major newspaper in Florida had been writing articles on the congressman's inept attempts to hide his perverse homosexual desires and attraction to the same gender. He resigned his congressional seat after sexually explicit e-mails surfaced connecting the congressman with a former male page.
  3. Former Rep. John Ford, Democrat from Tennessee. John Ford was sentenced to 66 months in prison in August 2007 for his April 2007 conviction of accepting $55,000 in bribes. Ford, a Democratic state senator for 31 years, was one of 12 lawmakers or aides charged in the sweeping statewide investigation, 11 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted in trial.
  4. Former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Republican from Califonia. In March of 2006, Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and four months in federal prison for taking $2.4 million in bribes from at least three defense contractors. The sentence is the highest ever for a former member of Congress, prosecutor Jason Forge said. He should have been sentenced to 10 years in prison, but U.S. District Judge Larry Burns went soft on Cunningham for such immaterial reasons as Cunningham's military service, age and health, Forge said.
  5. U.S. Attorney General Gonzales. Republican from Texas. The first Hispanic Attorney General in the history of the United States, and an affirmative action appointee, resigned over possible allegations of perjury, the public perception that he is incompetent, and dishonest. Under his leadership, political pundits have written that Americans have been subject to the most invasive,oppressive, and expansive curtailment of civil liberties that at any other time in history.

As if to address a common problem, magazine publisher Larry Flynt has taken out a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post asking: "Have you had a sexual encounter with a current member of the United States Congress or a high-ranking government official?"

The ad continues to offer US$1 million for documented evidence of the affair, as well as showing a toll-free number and an email address.

U.S. Attorney General Investigation Confirms Original Suspicions
Not until several years later, in 2007, did at least one seemingly decent and law-respecting U.S. Attorney General begin to sniff the dirt around the marbled entry way of certain prestigious post-secondary schools. This corrosive scent eventually led to NASFAA, alumni groups, and many other members of NASFAA.

It did not take long for the scent of corruption to populate the folders and binders of some N.Y. law enforcement personnel. Finally, at least one person or group of persons began to at least investigate and explore possible reasons why the same non-profit organizations that were so vociferous in support of The College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act of 2000 were also rather silent in regards to ethics and rules amongst their own members regarding student-loan fraud, identity-theft, privacy of student information, and several other issues that NACAC and NASFAA SHOULD be interested in.

This Publisher reported his suspicions about the pairing of a corrupt government informant with a prominent non-profit organization, and this Publisher knew and reported the fact that it is routine for nefarious relationships to exist between various financial-aid counselors, financial-aid admissions' counselors, universities, and student-loan providers, student-loan underwriters, and that the bulk of these persons held memberships in the same organizations that were the chief proponents of the Act. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you agree?

After legal questions arose about the appropriateness of a non-profit business entering into an "exclusive sponsorship" with a for-profit business run by an alleged informant (who had only incorporated his own business just a few weeks ago), the partnership fizzled. Still, when this Publisher exposed details of their various financial arrangements with preferred scholarship search services, and student lenders, the business created by the informant was later sold to another scholarship search service that was also a member of the same non-profit organization that served as the sponsor of the informant.

This shifting and convenyance of assets was merely public posturing since the informant retained a key influential position with the new owner, and virtually no material changes were made to his website.

Shortly thereafter, the same business that consumed the business created by the informant was bought by a subsidiary of a publicly traded firm, Monster, Inc (NASDAQ: MNST], which provided the informant a lucrative position despite his purported training as a scientist and mathematician at Carnegie Mellon University.

Despite all these carefully arranged and timed transfers of ownership, and suspicious asset manuevers, the foot-print of the informant/businessman remains with the original business as if no change of ownership ever occurred.

Part I.
NASFAA and NACAC members account for bulk of all financial-aid fraud in America
The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (a/k/a/ NASFAA), and an alphabet-related group called National Association for College Admission Counseling (a/k/a/ NACAC) boast what is believed to be the largest collective membership of financial-aid counselors, financial-aid admissions' counselors, universities, colleges, student-loan providers, student-loan underwriters, and student-loan originaters in the financial-aid industry.

In a nutshell, NASFAA is a non-profit association of institutions, colleges, universities, and individuals, agencies, and students who, according to literature produced by NASFAA, are "interested in promoting the effective administration of student financial aid." Virtually every college and university, and post-secondary institution, in the United States of America is a member of or some how associated with NASFAA. With respect to legislative action, the organization represents the interests of financial-aid administrators during the legislative process, and reports to the membership on actions taken by Congress, and the organization has maintained a contract to perform services for the U.S. Dept. of Education.

A substantial amount of revenue for NASFAA is generated by annual fees paid by its members, advertisements and sponsorship fees paid by affluent members such as Sallie Mae, Nellie Mae, and various companies involved in student loans, and financial-aid. See section entitled NASFAA Money-Trail.

NACAC is an alphabet-related organization that fosters cooperation with NASFAA on many endeavors. The National Association for College Admission Counseling works primarily with counseling and enrollment professionals at the high-school level. The group claims to help all students realize their full educational potential, with particular emphasis on the transition to postsecondary education.

Despite facts, and what some may believe suggestions to the contrary, NACAC claims "it is committed to promoting high professional standards that foster ethical and social responsibility." According to literature provided by the organization, NACAC was founded in 1937. It is an organization of more than 10,000 professionals, many of which are high-school guidance counselors who work with college-level financial-aid professionals.

Both NACAC and NASFAA sport impressive and "official-looking" websites. Prior to his being discovered as a traitorous spy, it should be noted that Robert Phillip Hanssen also sported impressive credentials, and was known to even attend the same church as FBI director Louis Freeh.

Both NASFAA and NACAC have links to an assortment of sponsorships, advertisements, a Board of Directors, and state and regional offices. For good or bad, the polices, decisions, and conduct of both NASFAA and NASFAA influence thousands if not millions of students and financial-aid professionals across America.

Indeed, public documentation produced annually by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the U.S. Dept. of Education show that the most common types of financial-aid fraud are committed by persons in-the-know: the guidance counselors; parents; university financial-aid officers; admissions' counselors; and, employees of companies/agencies that have relationships with colleges and universities.

Persons in-the-know are the primary members of NASFAA and NACAC. These persons are capable of best falsifying transcripts, forging or encouraging fraudulent letters of recommendation, falsifying FAFSA documents, undereporting of parental income, and steering students to fraudulent loan providers, censoring and steering students away from low cost application-fee merit-based scholarship sponsors and towards high cost crooked loan providers that are members of NASFAA/NACAC, and commingling marketing affairs with corrupt financial-aid officers and executives of student-loan companies.

Part II.
Financial-aid fraud schemes by NASFAA/NACAC Member colleagues
Consider these facts involving persons in-the-know:

Example #1: (MIT Dean of Admissions Marilee Jones)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology dean of admissions Marilee Jones has been a featured guest speaker of NACAC events. She is known for urging stressed-out students to stop trying to be perfect. when confronted with overwhelming evidence that suggests she faked her credentials, she admitted she fabricated her own academic credentials. After nearly three decades at MIT, a member school of NASFAA, she now readily admits:

  1. Marilee Jones DOES NOT even have an undergraduate degree;
  2. Marilee Jones DOES NOT have the courage to be an honest person to correct false resume she presented 28 years ago;
  3. Marilee Jones HAS CLAIMED degrees from Rensselaer Polytechnic, Albany Medical and Union College but in reality no record exists of this liar having earned degrees at those places;

Mariliee Jones is an over-weight, slow-footed, big-headed, over-indulging, and disgusting con-artist who failed to deliver honest and ethical services to students. This monstrosity of a specimen failed to disclose to students her real background, and she withheld material facts. She used the U.S. mails to perpertuate her scheme, and she used her credentials and association with MIT to enhance her credibility.

Marilee Jones was never arrested or charged with a crime because the Act conveniently does not address this type of fraud.

Example #2: (Director of Financial Aid Magda Jules)
On Wednesday, August 31, 2005, a federal grand jury returned a ten-count indictment against Magda Jules, 42, of Phoenix, AZ. The indictment alleges that Jules used her position as Director of Financial Aid for Long Technical College in Phoenix to access student loan accounts. With that access, she was able to increase the amount of the student loans so that loan proceeds checks were sent to students at Long.

According to the indictment, Jules was greedy and intercepted the loan proceeds checks, forged the student's name, made the checks payable to herself, and then negotiated the checks, converting the proceeds. The indictment alleges that the loans of 30 different students were involved and that Jules received approximately $40,000 of federally insured funds as a result of the scheme. The federal indictment, CASE NUMBER # CR-05-00894, charges Jules with violating Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1341, Mail Fraud and Title 20, U.S. Code Section 1097(a), Student Aid Fraud. A conviction for Mail Fraud carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine or both. A conviction for Student Aid Fraud carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a $20,000 fine or both.

Example #3: (President, Delores Cross of Morris Brown College)
In May of 2006, DOLORES EVELYN CROSS, 69, of Chicago, Illinois, and PARVESH SINGH, 64, of Valparaiso, Indiana, pleaded guilty to charges relating to a financial aid fraud scheme at Morris Brown College, a private, non-profit college in Atlanta, GA. Both pleaded guilty before United States District Judge Julie Carnes.

"The federal financial aid crimes committed by Morris Brown College's former President, Delores Cross, and financial aid director, Parvesh Singh, almost destroyed an important institution of higher education in Atlanta," United States Attorney David E. Nahmias said after the plea hearings. "Morris Brown is a historic college that has educated thousands of students and has particularly provided opportunities to disadvantaged and minority students. The defendants'criminal conduct hurt the college'sstudents, faculty, staff, and alumni, and even students who never enrolled but had their good credit impaired. It is important to note, however, that the current staff and administration of Morris Brown have been fully cooperative and supportive in this case. The strength that Morris Brown College has shown throughout this ordeal is an indication of its ability to survive this criminal activityfrom within, and to remain a vital and proud institution of higher learning in Atlanta."

Department of Education Inspector General John P. Higgins, Jr., said of the case, "It is particularly disturbing that the fraud was carried out by the highest, most trusted officials of the school. I am proud of the work of OIG Special Agents in bringing these individuals to justice. I also would like to thank the professionals from the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Department of Education Program Offices who worked tirelessly with the OIG special agents on this investigation. We will continue to work with others in law enforcement to see that federal student aid dollars benefit students and parents as intended. "

According to the U.S. Attorney investigating the case, and the information presented in court, defendant Cross served as president of Morris Brown College from November 1998 through February 2002. Before she became president of Morris Brown, Dr. Cross had a lengthy career in higher education, including significant experience in the administration of federal financial aid programs. Dr. Cross had served for 8 years as the head of a New York state guaranty agency that processed federal student loans, and she had served as president of Chicago State University before joining Morris Brown.

Dr. Cross and Parvesh Singh first met and developed a professional relationship in New York in the late 1980s. In 1995, when Dr. Cross was president of Chicago State, she hired Singh for the position of Financial Aid Director. In 1998, when Dr. Cross became president of Morris Brown, she immediately hired Singh as a consultant for financial aid. In August 1999, Cross hired Singh as the permanent Director of Financial Aid and also Dean of Enrollment Management at Morris Brown College. By placing Singh in these dual roles, Dr. Cross gave him authority over student enrollment and student accounts, as well as financial-aid.

In summary, both of these two rampaging thieves were involved in a complicated scheme that involved inflated student enrollment figures, the theft and misdirection of federal student loan funds, which nearly bankrupted the school.

When all was said and done, the two scheming, sinning, and thieving humans were merely slapped on the wrist by a soft judge. Although both pleaded guilty before United States District Judge Julie Carnes on May 1, 2006, and despite evidence that the crimes committed caused grave financial damage to the integrity and finances of the school, both CROSS and her male co-defendant received a sentence of 5 years probation; no jail time.

The non-punishment sent a message to financial-aid directors across the country that crime committed by highly educated, politically connected, and affluent persons against persons perceived to be unimportant will be tolerated and do not merit serious punishment.

Example #4: (Financial Aid "Preparers" and Parents Among 26 Charged in
Separate Cases Alleging $2.6 Million in Student Aid Fraud)

On March 16th of 2001, Scott R. Lassar, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Lorraine Lewis, the Education Department Inspector General, announced that 26 defendants were charged in 23 separate criminal cases with fraudulently obtaining a total of more than $2.6 million from the U.S. Department of Education in the form of grants, work-study and loans, The defendants included two former City Colleges financial aid advisors, a financial aid consultant and five other so-called "preparers," who assisted parents in filling out false financial aid forms, as well as 18 parents who allegedly falsified income information to fraudulently obtain education grants and other forms of assistance which their children were ineligible to receive. At the same time, Mr. Lassar announced that the U.S. Attorney's Office has filed more than 100 civil cases alleging similar fraud and obtained judgments totaling $825,676 in 96 cases over more than a year. Hundreds of additional civil lawsuits are expected, he said.

The criminal cases include charging the defendants with mail fraud and education fraud. Mr. Lassar announced the charges with Christopher J. Fox, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Midwest Regional Office of the Education Department's Office of Inspector General, which investigated the cases.

Mr. Lassar called the probe "the largest such investigation that's been conducted in this country involving fraud in education grants."

All of the charges allege fraud in the major student aid programs administered by the Education Department, including Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and Federal Work Study Program, which provide need-based aid to eligible students for higher education.

As in the preceding examples, none of the individuals were prosecuted under the Act.

Unverifiable Claims/Non-Existent NACAC Membership Directory
Unlike the secretive nature of NACAC, NASFAA does publish a general membership directory that may be purchased by the general public. Exactly what NACAC may be attempting to hide or may be ashamed of with regards to their membership base is not clear. Speculation is that certain members of their membership base have been reported upon in the past by this Publisher, and the disclosure of their membership ties to NACAC, or other organizations, may invite questions of integrity and fair-dealing; one NACAC officer agreed to speak to a New York-based reporter in furtherance of a scheme by representaives of a suspected N.Y. crime family to smear the history, integrity, and superior ethics of National Academy of American Scholars.

Without viewing the collective printed membership roster of NACAC in a single volume, it is virtually impossible to ascertain the membership of certain persons into NACAC, and what groups of persons donate money to NACAC.

Part III.
Request for NACAC Membership Directory Denied
This Publisher has called the offices of NACAC and asked for a copy of its printed, single-volume membership directory. NACAC claimed the directory was available for purchase only by members. Yet, this organization is tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue Service How is it possible for an American organization to conceal from the general public a general membership directory yet rely upon our tax dollars to subsidize their existence? Why should we, as consumers, be forced to pay a de facto "membership tax", complete a membership application, qualify for membership, wait for approval, merely to the to receive a printed copy of a membership directory?

The purpose of the request by this Publisher for a copy of the NACAC membership was multifold.

  1. This Publisher wanted to verify the boasts and claims made by NACAC that it is "an organization of more than 10,000 professionals from around the world."
  2. This Publisher wanted to verify the list of advertisers in the NACAC membership directory, and determine if those advertisers also appear in the NASFAA membership; and, if so, is the advertising content the same'
  3. This Publisher wanted to get a printed version of the NACAC membership directory because it is possible to easily change or block the web content of a form-entry single-line membership directory based upon numerous factors;
  4. This Publisher wanted to get a printed version of the NACAC membership directory to ascertain if NACAC was in compliance with its published Statement of Principles and Good Practice.
  5. This Publisher wanted to get a printed version of the membership directory to ascertain if NACAC was accepting advertising or membership revenue from groups or persons previously investigated by this Publisher, and whether or not such membership -if it existed -- influenced a NACAC officer to speak to a New York-based reporter regarding NAAS.
  6. This Publisher wanted to get a printed version of the NACAC membership directory to ascertain if NACAC was accepting advertising or membership revenue from groups or persons identified by U.S. State Department as possible terrorists. Remember, NACAC claims or implies that its membership base is world-wide, and provides ¶public categories of countries that are known to be havens of terrorism.
  7. Etc., etc.

Part IV.
Iran, Afghanistan, Russia , Amongst NACAC Member locations
Locations tied to Terrorism
In reviewing the Membership Directory of its website, and scrolling down the countries where NACAC members are purportedly based, one gets the impression that NACAC members are indeed based all around the world. After all, the categories of countries for NACAC members are printed neatly in alphabetical order ranging from faraway places like ¶Afghanistan, Aland Islands, Albania Algeria, American Samoa, Bosnia and Herzegovina(a former republic of the U.S.S.R.), Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Croatia, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Gambia,Ghana,Haiti, Islamic Republic of ¶Iran, ¶Korea, Russian Federation, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, ¶Venezuela, Viet Nam, ¶Yemen, Zambia. Many of these countries are havens for drugs, terrorists, and anti-American sentiment.

It is understandable why NACAC would decline general access to or even produce a comprehensive single volume, paper-backed membership directory for purchase by the general public. Nenetheles, it is common knowledge that guidance counselers, admissions counselors, and financial-aid professionals are the bread & butter public members of NACAC, and that sponsors (whomever they may be, and wherever they may reside) provide a greater source of revenue.

The current tacky method for persons to ascertain whether or not arrested, suspicious, or charged persons are members of NACAC is to input the person's first and last name into a Membership section of their website and await for whatever output the web page provides. However, it is possible to alter the code and delete evidence of membership too, and therefore deprive the public of knowing whether or not a particular person was or is a member.

After criticism of the NASFAA membership directory, and its close ties to the SAT industry, an attempt to examine the NACAC membership directory was met with evasiness. As expected of any person with suspect motives, NACAC simply took steps to keep its membership directory out of public view. Despite being a non-profit organization that is allowed to solicit donations from the general public, and which receives certain federal tax exemptions at the expense of tax-payers who do pay federal tax, NACAC limits the distribution and sale of its national membersip directory to "only members."

What is NACAC afraid of? Do members not want their names to be associated with NACAC? On the other hand, if one is proud to be a member of NACAC then wouldn't they want the world to know?

Given the fact that numerous federal laws, and Internal Revenue Codes, require that non-profit organizations make their tax-exempt Form 990 Income statements available for public review, an associated legal question is this: Is there any federal case authority for the I.R.S. to require that non-profit organizations also are required to make their membership lists available to the public for purchase? We believe the answer is yes?

Assuming a non-profot organization has nothing to hide, and can substantiate the cast of characters it associates with, WHY NOT MAKE THE MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY AVAILABLE????????

Also, by instituting a laborious and error prone software search for members one-by-one, NACAC appears to have set up a convenient obstacle to deprive members of the inquiring public and law enforcement investigators of concrete facts they may need to investigate legitmate concerns.

Part V.
NASFAA Sponsorship of Financial-Aid Information Page
A partnership of Suspicion
In or about June of 1996, NASFAA announced sponsorship of a controversial website designed and operated by an alleged undergraduate Math/Computer Science student purportedly attending Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). In fact, subsequent evidence and published statements by the United States Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission revealed that this same alleged CMU student had been secretly feeding scripted data to scores of law enforcment agencies, ranging from the United States Postal Inspection Service to the FBI, and FTC, during his stay at CMU.

The snitch data was compiled against numerous Americans, particularly on persons that were competitors to financial-aid related businesses he was associated with, or persons who publicly critized his sponsor NASFAA, or persons who commented upon the undisclosed business liasons that NASFAA may be engaged in.

Emphatically, NASFAA announced that it was the "exclusive" and "proud" sponsor of the website to be later known as the The Financial Aid Information Page (a/k/a/ FinAid Page). FinAid Page has also been known to alternatively been referred to by the following names, "FinAid", "The Financial Aid Information Page", "NASFAA Page", or the "web site of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators."

For example, in a post-dated publication dated June 21, 1999, by Newsweek, Inc., and Kaplan Educational Centers, the publication states that the "Web site of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators(NASFAA)" is identical to the web site of FinAid Page. Also, according to the 1997 NASFAA National Membership Directory, NASFAA stated the "NASFAA public web site" as being indexed directly underneath the web site owned by the same federal informant that NASFAA had entered into a partnership with.

In fact, NASFAA and FinAid Page, were often mentioned in the same paragraph by numerous media sources.

Leading up to this announcement, however, it should be noted that this seemingly non-profit, consumer-oriented website, received numerous positive media reveiws from seemingly independent media sources. Just as an addict praises his drug-supplier, suspicious editors and newspaper publishers unconcerned about their integrity gushed praise after praise for the website which would later be identified as being operated as a for-profit venture and run by a federal informant that praised Socialist principles.

For example, the May/June 1996 issue, page 88, of Yahoo! Internet Life boasted that the Financial Aid Information Page was one of only "two websites" that were identified as being "The Best" and were named as four star sites. Thother website was the comprehensive Student Guide website run by the U.S. Department of Education.

The Spring 1996 issue of I-way, which became available on newsstands February 26, 1996, offered that the Financial Aid Information Page was one of the 25 best websites on the Internet that discussed Consumer/Personal Resources and Finance.

The Financial Aid Information Page was named one of the Top 100 Web Sites by PC Magazine in the February 6, 1996 issue. Their review says "When ... you can't dig the tuition out of your porcelain piggy bank, the Financial Aid Information home page may be your savior..."

The October 1995 issue, pages 130-137) of Money Magazine, written by suspicious Derek Gordon, "And don't miss the Financial Aid Information Page recently created by [BLOCKED-OUT], a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and co-author of the Prentice Hall Guide to Scholarships and Fellowships for Math and Science Students. His site provides an excellent general introduction to the aid chase plus a number of electronic extras...."

Various other magazines, many of which are now defunct and rejected by capitalistic American, also praised by the Socialist website ran by the alleged CMU student. These magazines included Computer Life (August 17, 1995); NetGuide Magazine (August 1995 issue, pages 76-78, 86-88); Internet World (April 1995 issue, pages 110-111); Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine (October 1994 issue, page 34); etc.

Suspicious and carefully planted newspaper reviews of The Financial Aid Information Page appeared in these newspapers: The New York Times (August 12, 1996); The Richmond Times Dispatch (July 8, 1996, Metro Business, Page D-19); USA Today (April 17, 1996, Life, Page 4-D); Chicago Tribune (April 11, 1996, News, Page 1); The Detroit News (July 17, 1996, Cyberia); Cleveland Plain Dealer (March 18, 1996, Personal Finance, Pade 2D); Chicago Tribune (January 4, 1996, Page 3) ; Fort Wayne News-Sentinel (April 6, 1996); Knoxville News-Sentinel (March 31, 1996); Sun-Sentinel (March 31, 1996, Lifestyle, Page 1E); and, of course, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (March 24, 1996).

Besides magazines and newspapers, many NASFAA institutional members exhorted readers to use the FinAid Page, and many times webmasters and content writers of the websites associated with these universities quoted, preached, and heralded the Socialist rhetoric of the alleged CMU student as if they were his political campaign workers, or personal servants.

The June 1996 announcement of a sponsorship deal by NASFAA, an influential non-profit group with mutiple lobbying ties to the U.S. Congress raised considerable concern in certain education and legal circles. Not only was the apparent relationship quite questionable, but consider the timig.

Part VI.
Suspicious creation of company that was Exclusively sponsored by NASFAA
According to the Pennsylvania Dept. of Corporations, the alleged CMU student and federal informant did not create entity number 2703423 (FinAid Page, Inc.) as a for-profit corporation until on July 9, 1996, yet he was soliciting advertising dollars earlier from servers (the original location where the FinAid Page was hosted) operated by Carnegie Mellon University. In less than 30 days after it was created, this alleged CMU student was able to successfully enter and win a no-bid contract with perhaps the most influential of non-profit association of American colleges and post-secondary institutions.

Barely 60 days later, on September 13, 1996, according to Illinois Secretary of State officer George H. Ryan, an entity by the name of ", L.L.C." (a/k/a "FastWEB") suddenly commenced transacting business in Ilinois. The company appeared was advertised as a featured and preferred scholarship search-service provider.

FastWEB charges fees to institutions for access to its scholarship-search services database. In its beginning, student users of the service were required to submit detailed information. Unless the student specifically opted out, detailed student information was shared with other NASFAA/NACAC members for solicitation purposes.

The bulk of the users of the FastWEB service have been members od NACAC and NASFAA. In facr, FastWEB has been listed as a "Constituent Member of NASFAA" in NASFAA literature.

In addition to the federal informant, FastWeb was a direct beneficiary of the unusual sponsorship by NASFAA of the FinAid Page. Virtually every reporter, NACAC/NASFAA member, or government employee, who parroted FinAid page, would refer users also to FastWeb. FastWeb has also been prominently mentioned or depicted on websites associated with schools and colleges that are also members of either NASFAA and/or NACAC.

From 1996 until 2001, Leon Heller served as CEO of FastWeb. The timing of his departure raised eyebrows. Nonetheless, in 2007, he again went to the cookie jar. He solicited NACAC members for a NASFAA Seal of Approval for his new business venture.

Evidence suggests that NASFAA agreed to sponsor the federal informat as individual, but the individual person had no formal business entity while operating out of his student apartment. Therefore, the dumb and poorly educated CMU student hastily created a shell corporation that essentially was nothing but a cheap alter-ego extension of himself, and his crappy personality.

Following the announcement by NASFAA, the alleged CMU undergrad "announced an agreement under which NASFAA will sponsor FinAid for at least the next two years." (this statement appears to suggest that NASFAA and FinAid anticipated a long term relationship). In the same press release, the alleged CMU undergrad stated that he is "owner of FinAid." At the same time, he announced that he "helped NASFAA set up its public World Wide Web site."

Given the resources and monies of NASFAA, and its anticipated use of professionals, why would such an organization entrust such major responsibilities to just a CMU undergrad?

As a sign of its hasty creation, and an apparent effort to control the money, finances, and advertising of the business, the Carnegie Mellon University "student" reserved for himself the most significant titles of the corporation, i.e., President, Secretary, and Treasury.

In public and to the news media, many persons may have been under the impression that the alleged student and/or his business was endorsed or sponsored by Carnegie Mellon University because the "student" advertised his office and principal contact address as:

School of Computer Science
Wean Hall 8104
Carnegie Mellon University(CMU)
5000 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh PA 15213-3891
Website:  http://www.cs.cmu/~finaid/finaid.html

In reality, evidence from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Corporations suggests that the actual business address was not at a CMU location but was really at "2010 Wendover Street, #1, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. This location was NOT a sprawling office complex, or a Class A commercial building, but was nothing but a residential apartment dwelling that housed numerous Carnegie Mellon University students. The name of the apartment complex was the "Wendover Apartments", in the Squirrel Hill area near Schenley Park.

Part VII.
Universities/NASFAA Members Suspected of Having Parroted the FinAid Page
Tuition dollars/Membership Fees used to spread Political Rhetoric
As part of the scheme to promote passage of the Act, this Publisher reported in 1999 that numerous members of NASFAA were recruited to unify behind the government informant and alleged CMU student. Just as parties were recruited to mislead the public leading up to the Iraq war, their roles were to mislead students and parents, omit references to secret kickbacks received by financial-aid counselors from student-loan companies, refuse to disclose illicit arrangements between schools/financial-aid counselors and student-loan companies, parrot, and promote both the FinAid Page, and the Socialist theories of the CMU student. Namely, mislead and lie to the public and students by rallying around the chief maxim of the informant: "Legitimate companies do not charge processing fees; Do not pay money to get money; Application, processing fees, and handling fees are illegal" and, insinuating that legitimate companies that do in fact charge such fees are doing so illegally.
  1. Montana State University, based in Bozeman, Montana.
    In or about the month of May 1999, the the Financial Aid Department of Montana State University-Bozeman, posted on its web site so-called criteria regarding "Scholarship Search Scams" that was nearly identical, or an exact re-production of the same criteria originally posted by the alleged CMU student. When viewing the page in May of 1999, it was last updated September 17, 1998. Aside from not updating their web pages on a regular and consistent basis, the page had numerous spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. For example, it says "win you(sic) fair share" periods are not at the end of all sentences, etc.

    As if it were a possessed robotic monkey, employees of Montana State University-Bozeman appear to cite verbatim, even without the use of quotation marks or even specific references to the FinAid Page, information produced by the alleged CMU student. In fact, Montana State University-Bozeman claims that the information has "copyrigh" protection by the school. What is worse, the information appeared under the headline "The Latest From the Office of Financial Aid Services".

    One hopes that if this school does offer any type of journalism class then: (a) the students will be taught how to spell; (b) the students will be better trained than the Financial Aid Department appears to be; and, (c) the students will be taught what plagiarism means. At press time, the Publisher was in the process of contacting the U.S. Copyright Office for proof of the copyright claims made by this school.

  2. Michigan Technological University, based in Houghton, Michigan.
    According to an article "submitted by Minnesota Association of Financial Aid Administrators", and posted by Michigan Tech on it's web site on Friday, January 26, 1996, students are referred to the "The Financial Aid Information Page" at "http://www.cs.cmu/~finaid/finaid.html". The page cites numerous references about the alleged CMU student, his web site, and even portions of his since abandoned so-called criteria. Michigan Tech also quotes the alleged CMU student extensively throughout its web site.

  3. Marquette University, based in Milwaukee, WI.
    In or about May of 1999, this Publisher was directed to and viewed a web page produced by Marquette University. According to its webmaster, the web page was last updated as of "December 22, 1998." Marquette University referred students to the web page of the alleged CMU student, and provided a direct link to the site. Like Montana State University-Bozeman, this school also appeared to enroll less intelligent employees.

  4. University of Oregon, based in Eugene, Oregon.
    According to a web page that was apparently posted on or about June 03, 1996, but just re-printed in May of 1999 by the Publisher, University of Oregon, and Judy Saling of the Financial Aid Department also refers students to the "The Financial Aid Information Page" at "http://www.cs.cmu/~finaid/finaid.html". In an ironic twist, the University Oregon reportedly quotes the alleged CMU student extensively, and even questions the legitimacy of any type of fee associated with a merit scholarship.

    This Publisher reported that perhaps Judy Saling was either incompetent, a hypocrite, or just a plain dirty liar. For example, it was reported at the time that the Oregon State Scholarship Commission charges a $1 fee for information about *EACH* of the multiple awards it sponsors despite the fact that many of the awards are demographic-specific, according to information researched and compiled by Student Financial Services. By the apparent beliefs or written scripts provided to Ms. Saling, wouldn't the Oregon State Scholarship Commission be a scam?

  5. University of Cincinnati, based in Cincinnati OH.
    The state of Cincinnati has always been a public supporter, friend, and partner of sorts to the FinAid Page and its government-informant creator. While researching the 1999 report, this school had a direct hyperlink to the FinAid page web site, and claimed that it was providing a service to readers as an excuse for citing the page. What was not prominently disclosed is the fact that its Associate Director of financial aid, Ms. Ann Sexton, is listed in a NASFAA Membership Directory.

    On or about September 5, 1996, the then Attorney General of Ohio figuratively jumped in bed with the alleged CMU student also. She used Ohio tax dollars to post this unnecessary statement on the Ohio Attorney General's webiste:" There are several free, legitimate scholarship search services operated on the Internet......helpful resources are the FTC and Mark Kantrowitz's financial aid information page at"

    Apparently, it either never occured to the brain of Ohio Attorney General that the web page she recommended was in fact a for-profit business enterprise; and, had an unusual business arrangement with a non-profit association; or, she simply was not interested in disclosing those facts to the general public in an effort to falsely boost the credibility of the informant.

    Neither did this career law enforcement officer ever wonder aloud about how was it possible for a Carnegie Mellon University undergrsd student, or student at any other college or university, to be operating a national for-profit enterprise USING computer servers owned by the campus, AND be sponsored by a prominent non-profit associatiom, AND yet have zero years of expertise?

  6. Roeper School, based in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
    On December 7th, 0f 2005, Patrick J. O'Connor, Ph.D., Director of College Counseling, placed a psuedo-advertisement on an electronic list-serve operated by NACAC. Most, if not all, of these companies and organizations were also members of NASFAA/NACAC. In support of the philosophy of the federal informant that many NACAC members praise, this Irish decendant stated: "It’s good to know the conventional wisdom about never paying for a scholarship has survived.."

    He went on to encourage his fellow NACAC members to view the hyperlinks he has assembled. These links provided connections to FastWeb, The College Board, Sallie Mae, and puppet author Anna Leider.

    A significant number of the persons and groups recommended by Patrick J. O'Connor have been known to parrot of provide material support for the Socialist ideology of the same federal informant linked to NASFAA.

    Interestingly, many of them have been in the news as either defendants in lawsuits, or subjects of law enforcement probes related to financial-aid schemes.

    No matter how well edcated a person may be [Patrick J. O'Connor ALLEGEDLY has a Ph.D], God-given common sense will trump any person with a cheap degree.

    Despite his Ph.D why didn't smart Patrick J. O'Connor foretell, as this Publisher did in 1999, that many companies and organizations linked to and/or members of NASFAA and NACAC were involved in a national scheme to defraud and bilk students?

As forced affirmative action hiring of women and protected groups have criss-crossed the American landscape, seeped into the judicial hallrooms over the past 20 years, and into the nation's boardrooms, we have witnessed a gradual decline in general standards, the lack of discipline of children, youth gangs, and accountability. Consequently, quality of service, competence, and standards have been declining in many areas.

Witness the surge of products made in China, and other third-world countries with deplorable quality assurance standards.

Made in Chine, means Made to be Inferior. A substantial number of female executives, and incompent male supervisors, for example, in the toy industry, made the decision to manufacture toys in China, and ship these defective products to American children.

Part VIII.
Prostitution of NASFAA and Carnegie Mellon University
In a sign of hypocrisy and possible deceptive advertising, the businessman marketed his business to the general public as "free" and that he was an "objective" reporter. Subsequent investigations and data provided by Jupitor Communications determined that the alleged CMU student was soliciting prospective advertisers for monies, seeking to boost the 'hit' counts of his websites, and that he held an "advisory" position at a for-profit scholarship search service (FastWeb) that was prominently featured on the website of his business.

Moreover, in or about July of 1996, this Publisher had contacted the Dept. of Corporations in Harrisburg, PA, at 1-717-787-1057 to inquire about the registration status of the informant's original corporation. They remarked that "FinAid Page, Inc." is indeed a registered "FOR-PROFIT" corporation.

Using the "exclusive" sponsorship from a prominent non-profit organization as an umbrella of credibility and respect, and to drum up support for his self-enriching theory of "rampant" scholarship-related fraud, the serpentine businessman exhorted financial-aid book publishers, members of NASFAA, members of NACAC, and consumers to take notice of his self-serving statistics, theories, and so-called "scam" guidelines.

In provocative fashion, the suspicious CMU businessman with barely a single year in business, with no experience as a sponsor, administrator, or executive of any scholarship foundation or non-profit financial-aid organization, who failed to provide substantiation of any of his theories and statements, who was allowed to freely prostitute the resources, image, and likeness, of his alma mater:

  1. Created and published a series of "guidelines" and warning signs that he alleged should be considered as evidence of a potential scholarship-related scam;

  2. Marketed and created real-looking "Reliability Reports" that mimicked official Reliability Reports coming from a local Better Business Bureau office, but in fact said reports were not official;

  3. Used the prestige and appearance of a CMU "office address" to receive and place phone calls to the national media, who subsequently quoted and referred millions of readers to his businesses;

  4. Used the NASFAA non-profit logo, NASFAA symbols, NASFAA trade dress on his for-profit website to further lull consumers into accepting his "credibility"

  5. Gained access to the numerous financial aid counselors associated with NASFAA, and a related organization called National Association of College Admissions Counselors (a/k/a/ NACAC), and exhorted these persons to accept his radical political ideology and make-shift guidelines;

  6. Routinely fed unsubstantiated statistics and questionable data to the mainstream media;

  7. Posed as a "Financial Aid Expert" in media stories depite not being registered with the Securities Exchange Commission as a certified "Financial Expert" and not being certified by any U.S. Court as an "expert" in ANY endeavor, much less the specific subject of financial-aid;

  8. Was frequently referred to as a "Financial Aid Expert" or simply "expert" by corrupt and unethical journalists and reporters who coincidentally also covered stories associated with NACAC and/or NASFAA;

  9. ETC;

Part IX.
Attorneys General Report on Suspicious partnerships
Potential for Deception and Deceit
In April of 1999, on the heels of a report by this Publisher, the California Attorney General's (CAG) office published a timely, preliminary, report detailing the illicit, unethical, and dirty relationships that oftentimes exist between non-proft businesses who "partner up" with for-profit businessess. Appropriately, the report was entitled "PUBLIC TRUST, PROFIT AND THE POTENTIAL FOR PUBLIC DECEPTION". What a fitting title. Although the report probably should have been first published in June of 1996, the public nonetheless was thankful that it was ultimately published. The CAG report concludes that:
"the use of partnerships between commercial entities and nonprofit organizations to market commercial products using the names and logos of the nonprofit organizations is a growing trend that raises significant legal and policy concerns. "

At the time, the report was based upon a general consensus of at least 16 Attorneys General from different states and received input from numerous respectable non-profit organizations. Since that time, certainly more persons have opened their eyes to the fact that any time a non-profit organization enters into profit-sharing venture or exlcusive partnership with a for-profit entity, red flags will appear.

Based upon their review to date, the Attorneys General believe that commercial-nonprofit product advertisements often communicate the false and misleading messages that the products have been endorsed by the nonprofit partner in the commercial-nonprofit relationship and that such products are superior to other competing products.

In the case of NASFAA and FinAid Page, Inc., the products appear to be the scholarship search services and student-loan providers listed on the FinAid page, along with the theories featured on the web page. It these recommended student-loan providers that would later become the focus of a wide-ranging investigation into the ethics and integrity of NASFAA, and its members.

Questions for the Reader
Is it just a coincidence that the alleged CMU student was seeking advertising revenue at around the same time that NASFAA agreed to sponsor the page? 'Hits' on web pages translate into advertising dollars.
Is it just a coincidence that NASFAA, an organzation headed by a man called Dallas Martin, allowed FinAid Page, Inc. to display the NASFAA logo on the FinAid Page, Inc. web site?
Is it just a coincidence that so many seemingly respectable media outlets have cited the page in reference material as sponsored by NASFAA?
Is it just a concidence that the universities who choose to provide hyper-links to FinAid Page also have financial-aid counselors/administrators with ties to NASFAA?
Did NASFAA disclose the full extent of its sponsorship of the page, and how much income did NASFAA make, if any?

According to the CAG report, such joint advertising campaigns using a respected nonprofit's name and logo often fail to provide important information consumers need in order to make informed choices, including the facts that the commercial sponsor has paid the nonprofit organization for use of its name and logo and, as is often the case, that the relationship between the corporate sponsor and the nonprofit is exclusive in nature.

Both the commercial sponsor and the nonprofit organization engaged in advertising a commercial product through use of the nonprofit's name or logo must satisfy all applicable legal standards, including compliance with consumer laws prohibiting false advertising, unfair and/or deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud, says the multi-state report authored by the CAG.

Advertisements for commercial products must not misrepresent that the nonprofit organization has endorsed the advertised product. If such an advertisement uses a nonprofit organization's name or logo, and the nonprofit has not in fact endorsed the advertised product, the advertisement must clearly and conspicuously disclose that the nonprofit organization has not endorsed or recommended the product.

In the case of FinAid Page, Inc., and NASFAA, NASFAA stated that it "proudly" endorsed the FinAid Page and did not --- to the best of this Publisher's knowledge and belief --- specifically state that it did not endorse the products and services advertised on the FinAid Page, Inc. website. In this sense, it appears that the public was misled, and publishers such as NEWSWEEK, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, etc, generated millions of new 'HITS' for the FinAid Page web site.

Whether or not NASFAA is a corrupt , illegitimate, or legitimate tax-exempt organization who should have its tax-exempt status revoked is not a question that this Publisher is qualified to answer. That question should be answered by the proper authorities.

Soon after the California report appeared, and after questions arose about the appropriateness of NASFAA's relationship to a controversial web page that some perceived as an endorsement of Marxism, NASFAA officials finally got the message and terminated the sponsorship. However, the damage from misinformation and deceit had already been done.

Part X.
Project $Scholar$Scam Announcement
Student-Loan Industry Ignored by Design
On the heels of the infamous NASFAA and FinAid Page announcement of their suspicious partnership, the FTC soon announced a campaign called $ProjectScholarship Scam. The project was launched by the FTC in September of 1996. Remember, the crime of Identy-theft was raging like wild fires across the entire United States and had the ability to affect literally all Americans. Also, student-loan fraud and mortgage fraud were rampant at the time.

The subject matter of so-called "scholarship-fraud", meanwhile, affected less than 1% of the entire population. Legitimate and actual crimes such as Identity-theft and Mortgage scams were deliberately ignored, and did not receive specific attention until years later.

ProjectScholarship Scam allows the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Education to enter into "partnerships" with private and public sources that engage in a wide "variety media, including websites,booklets, brochures, publishers, and authors of financial-aid books."

One of the many partnerships was the creation of the NASFAA/FinAid Page cooperative agreement, the use of fabricated titles ("Financial Aid Expert", "Expert" for the alleged CMU student, and the use of corrupt financial-aid book authors who were instructed to deliberately print false, misleading, deceptive, and untrue statements. The tactics were similar to the false pre-war rhetoric leading up to the Iraq war. In this case, no persons were killed but certain sectors of the financial-aid industry were smeared by design.

Many of these "partnerships" were outright fraudulent and deprived students and parents of honest information, and essentially steered these students to fraudulent student-loan companies that were members of NASFAA and/or NACAC. Instead of respecting federal laws and sticking to verifiable facts, parrots, pigeons, and mules were used as "journalistic" sources without disclosing their commissions, without disclosing their sources of information, without writing a balanced viewpoint, and without disclosing the details and their arrangement or benefits as a "partner" to the federal government.

If one were to look at the writings of, say, Dr. Cheri Westmoreland, Samuel Freidman, Shannon Turlington, or certain members of NACAC, and compare their statements to actual facts one could get the impression that these authors or writers were not indepenent professionals but merely parrots or pigeons. It is a known fact that a substantial number of financial-aid book authors and members of NACAC and NASFAA were recruited as part of Project $Scholar$Scam.

In virtually all cases, the recuited authors, writers, and reporters, used rigged news content, omitted material facts regarding secretive financial arrangments amongst NASFAA members, and implied it is illegal to assess fees for merit services rendered.

Companies that went so far as "charging more than a postage stamp" for services rendered or that departed even 1 millimeter from the self-created Marxist criteria developed by the partner of NASFAA and his associated array of parrots, pigeons, and journalistic whores, were immediately targeted, and placed under the "possible prosecution" category.

The alleged CMU student discreetly convinced various government officials and affiliates of his sponsor to re-write financial-aid books and re-fashion them such that they contained snippets of his political theories. Using his sponsorship by NASFAA, it was relatively easy to recruit other figures, which in turn allowed this snake to place his theories alongside locations of published financial-aid books.

For example, consider the suspicious cast of characters who appear as financial-aid administrators in the How to Pay for College Book by SalleMae, and Gen & Kelly Tanabe. Virtually all of the characters who praised the book are associated with NASFAA, and/or NACAC. Years would pass before the N.Y. Attorney General and others would catch up to the scheming ways of Sallae Mae.

According to statistics from the Federal Trade Commission, the percentage of scholarship-related complaints versus total fraud complaints have ranged from 0.25 (1993-1995) to 0.19 in year 2003. For those persons not adept at statistics, put another way, fraud OUTSIDE of scholarship-related areas constituted a hefty 99.81%. A majority of this high percentage contains complaints for Identity-theft.

To date, it is important to note that not a single person has been convicted specifically under the The College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act. Nor has a single one of the alleged 900 to 1,000 "scholarship scams" alleged to be in existence ever been prosecuted under the personal theories developed and published by the federal informants and their parrots. None of the most sensational statistics of the alleged CMU student have yet to be independently verified.

U.S. Dept. of Justice files confirm that the wide-ranging campaign of national deceit that Project$Scholar$scam utilzed reached its zenith when NASFAA entered into the special financial arrangement with the CMU government-connected informant and agreed to serve as the "exclusive sponsor" of his for-profit financial-aid business.

Years after its passage, scores of NASFAA and NACAC members have been implicated in various financial-aid crimes and student-loan schemes that vary across the board. The common thread is that the NASFAA and/or NACAC member takes advantage of naive students while profitting handsomely from other NACAC/NASFAA at the expense of both student and parent.

Since many NASFAA and NACAC members helped craft the The College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act, it should be no surprise to even the dumbest idiot in Congress that voted for the Act that not a single provision applies to the sort of schemes now being investigated by the New York Attorney General.

Part XI.
Use of False and Unsubstantiated Statements Fuel Desire for Federal legislation.
The tactics used by the informant were consistent with dishonesty, mispresentation, and the pre-war rhetoric used to justify the Iraq war. According to confimred deaths by the U.S Department of Defense, ovr 3700 Americans have been confirmed killed in Iraq, as of September 1st, 2007. Over 110 persons have committed suicide.

After thousands of American deaths, injuries, murders, court-martials, maimed bodies, false and misleading news articles by corrupt print journalists, political pundits from both major political parties, and a general consensus of Americans --- as expressed through polls --- now firmly believe that the country America invaded did not have the weapons of mass destruction as reported, and that the country did not pose a credible threat to Americans.

Like a Nazi field marshall peering over the balcony to the German masses, the self-serving NASFAA partner, and CMU undergrad used his artificial university office to seek attention to himself. While under the suspicious sponsorship of NASFAA, he used his Carnegie Mellon University Wean-Hall "office" to deliver a series of political announcements, to promote his own self-serving theories, and alleged alarming statistics on the purported trend and expansive nature of "scholarship-related" fraud.

The carefully scripted remarkes were instrumental in diverting attention away from rampant student-loan fraud, and the undisclosed relationships that existed between his chief sponsor and their financial-backers.

Let's consider these facts:

  1. In September of 1996, for example, the Associated Press quoted the informant by name as saying that an "Estimated 300,000 students and parents fall victim to 100 to 200 fraudulent scholarship-search services" The article was repeated through out major metropolitan newspapers. Not a single element of the speech addressed Identity-theft despite then police statitics evidencing the rise of such crimes;

  2. In September of 1996, for example, the Los Angeles times reported another fanciful boast by the informant/CMU businessman in which he claimed: "Every year, several hundred thousand students and parents are defrauded by scholarship scams. The victims of these scams lose $100 million dollars annually." The article was repeated through out major metropolitan newspapers. Not a single element of the speech addressed Identity-theft despite then police statitics evidencing the rise of such crimes;

  3. While promoting his Hammer & Sickle views before the U.S. Senate, for example, the CMU businessman and alleged student wildly claimed that "there are 900 to 1,000 scholarship scams of all types still in operation, with new scams being created every year." The speech was referenced through out major metropolitan newspapers. Not a single element of the speech addressed Identity-theft despite then police statistics evidencing the rise of such crimes.

Despite its prestigious position as the nation's premier organzation of financial-aid officeres that boasts many of the most prestigious colleges and unversities, banks, and institutions, NASFAA not only shared a bed with a Marxist-sounding federal informant, it glowingly remarked that it was the "proud" sponsor of The Financial Aid Information Page. Whether it was "proud" because of a potentially lucrative business deal that sought to spin the spotlight away from its own practices and apparent non-disclosed financial arrangements, or was NASFAA "proud" to sponsor the socialist theories of an attention-seeking, arrogant, immature, tale-spinning, self-consuming, and poorly educated Carnegie Mellon University student is a question for readers of this report.

What is not a question mark is the conduct of NASFAA, and its controversial and long-standing President, Dallas Martin. The N.Y. Attorney General infact sent NASFAA a letter in early 2007 in which it assailed the practices of NASFAA, and its members.

As if to cement its ties or preempt questions about the credibility and legitimacy of its sponsorship of a for-profit financial-aid web page, and its association with a person who publicly hawks Marxist theories, NASFAA allowed the alleged CMU student to use its non-profit logo on his business website for marketing material, and subsequently awarded the alleged student something called the "Meritorious Achievement Award" in 1996. According to NASFAA, the " award is presented to an individual who has made an important contribution to the Association or to the profession that the Association wishes to recognize." It is unclear to this Publisher what type of other persons received this "award" and whether or not other past recipients also shared the same political beliefs of the federal informant.

Part XII.
Marxist and Deceptive Speech before the U.S. Senate
¶ While under the sponsorship of NASFAA, the alleged CMU student boldly posted false, cheaply written, poorly-researched, look-a-like, so-called "Reliability Reports" on several businesses and persons, some of whom threatened him with legal action. The suspicious and fabricated "Reliability Reports" attacked legitimate capitalistic business practices, recklessly attacked California and Nevada-based businesses for no subtantiated reasons, while featring a preferred list of advertisers of student loan companies and preferred scholarship search service companies.

The Financial-Aid Informantion Page was certainly a form of advertising, and it omitted disclosures. Leading up to debate about the passage of the Act, the webiste conspicuously omitted references to:

  1. Fraud by financial aid consultants;
  2. Fraud by financial aid administrators employed at institutions that were also members of NASFAA;
  3. Fraud by financial aid administrators and college counselors that are members of National Association for College Admission Counseling (a/k/a/ NACAC) an organization related to NASFAA; ;
  4. Fraud by financial aid seminar leaders;
  5. FAFSA/Student-loan fraud;
  6. Fraud by financial aid book publishers;
  7. Fraud and deception by the makers and publishers of standardized tests;
  8. Fraud by college/university financial aid administrators colluding with parents and their respective sons and daughters.

¶ Using his internal connections with NASFAA, and his associations with several federal law-enforcement agencies, the Hebrew-speaking, alleged CMU student (instead of Dallas Martin, the President of NASFAA) was allowed to give a speech before the U.S. Senate in furtherance of his effort to get the Act passed. In what should have been a respectable speech before the U.S. Senate about purported incidents of financial-aid fraud and its effects on students, the alleged CMU student startled the audience and instead gave a speech that would have surely made Karl Marx very proud.

The NASFAA partner trumpted his Socialist themes as if the country he were speaking in was the United Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) instead of the U.S.A. Communist rhetoric was heard. The brash informant even proposed that his Communist-sounding website be linked to the FTCina further effort to legitimize his political theories. Also discussed was typical NAZI stuff: curtailment of civil liberties; prohibit merit-based processing fees, and burden legitimate practices with additional federal legislation.

Virtually every possible competitor (real or imagined) to the SAT industry and student-loan providers were generaly attacked.

Like obedient puppets on a string, many NACAC members with latent or suppreseed urges to support Marxist thought, applauded the informant and quotes verbatim his theories on an NACAC e-list serve.

Given this decidely Red atmosphere, surely something was omitted from the speech by the NASFAA partner. The Red Puppet, as he was known in some European government circles, conveniently omitted, amongst others things:

  1. References and case studies about fraud by financial aid consultants;
  2. References and case studies about fraud by financial aid administrators;
  3. References and case studies about fraud by persons conducting financial aid seminars;
  4. References and case studies about fraud by tax-preparers;
  5. References and case studies about fraud by student-loan providers;
  6. References and case studies about fraud by financial aid book publishers;
  7. References and case studies about fraud by college/university financial aid administrators and directors colluding with parents and their respective sons and daughters.
  8. Illicit partnerships between tax-exempt groups and financial aid consumer advocates;
  9. Fraud and deception in the making, marketing, and promotion of standardized tests and its role and influence in the financial aid process;
  10. The fact that he was hustling for advertising dollars while publicly claiming to be for "free" and "objective"
  11. Statistics, documents, and evidence that substantiated his claims;
  12. etc.

¶ Instead of focusing upon actual fraud, the informant focused on perceived fraud, or legal business practices that violated his self-created der Fuhrer ways of conducting business. He used fabricated, phony, and omitted statments a carrot to lure and out-smart legislators.

Part XIII.
NASFAA Terminates Constroversial Partnership
¶ After questions concerning the appropriateness of a business relationship between a non-profit organization with a for-profit entity were raised, and after an investigation revealed that the so-called "free" and "objective" FinAid Page was really hustling for advertising dollars on the sly, and after California Attorney General BILL LOCKYER's office put out a public report called "PUBLIC TRUST, PROFIT AND THE POTENTIAL FOR PUBLIC DECEPTION" that targeted the "use of partnerships between commercial entities and nonprofit organizations to market commercial products using the names and logos of the nonprofit organizations....", NASFAA finally terminated its sponsorship of the FinAid Page. However, public perception remained that something was not quite right.

¶ Evidenced soon surfaced that NASFAA maybe associated with a highly suspicious and new organization called "National Scholarship Providers Association", an organization which has been linked to the same alleged student that enjoyed pecuniary gain from his relationship with NASFAA. NSPA was reputedly funded by one or several current members of NASFAA. Numerous suspicions abound about the intent and purpose of NSPA, and whether or not it is a mere puppet organization whose long terms goals are to press U.S. legislators to implement radical and extremist regulatory views that disfavor students and protect persons and organizations linked to suspicious non-profit, tax-exempt groups.

Part XIV.
Convenient Omissions of U.S.Senate Bill S1455
Protection of NASFAA/NACAC members
Despite the fact that the two groups (NASFAA, and NACAC) colleectively represent over 80% of all admission counselors, guidance counselors, and college institutions in America,and the fact that statistics from the Department of Justice report that crime committed by employed financial-aid counselors is the primary means in which financial-aid crimes are committed or initiated, does it not seem odd that Senate Bill S1455 did not bother to address such key facts?

Specifically, how is it possible to discuss or pass a federal law aimed at purported financial-aid fraud that does not incorporate financial-aid counselors or student loans? It is not surprising that the main proponents of the Act were members of, and persons assocated with NASFAA, NACAC, the SAT cottage industry, and the $85 billion dollar student-loan industry. After-all, sky-high tuitions have benefitted these groups, along with outrageous fees earned from student loans.

Given the fact that both NASFAA and NACAC boast political connections to the U.S. Congress, and the prosecutorial agencies that normally prosecute acts of financial-aid fraud, it is also no coincidence that neither the proposed U.S. Senate Bill S1455 or the actual College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act addresed any of the issues above, or the illicit financial arrangements and unethical liasons between financial-aid counselors, admissions' counselors and student loan providers.

Instead, what are NACAC and NASFAA members trained to look for --certainly not corrupt financial-aid counselors that have unethical relationships with student loan providers? NACAC have their sights on the little guy; the organizations charging $5 or $10 for a merit-based award, or charging a mere $1 handling fee. The evidence is self-apparent that honest, ethical, and legitimate organizations that assess legitimate processing fees or administrative fees (the same sort of fees assessed by The College board, a prominent member of NASFAA) are excoriated on e-lists operated by NACAC. NACAC members that steal from students or their parents, or who steer students to high-coast loan providers are praised by their colleagues, and were never meant to be targeted by U.S. Senate Bill S1455.

Part XV.
NACAC Members Parrot Socialist Ideology
Despite disturbing questions abput his background, qualifications, and experience, and integrity, the federal informant had no problem in gaining the trust and admiration of many NACAC members. They would probably drink hus saliva if requested to do so. He has had no problem in finding willing guidance counselors, teachers,and other members of NACAC to quote his Socialist theories.

A substantial platform and arena of distribution of his ideas has been an e-list serve associated with NACAC. NACAC has an electronic list-serve which mirrors an electronic chat center. Teachers, educators, and guidance counselors, and other members of NACAC, use the list-serve on many occasions to promote the ideology of the informant associated with NASFAA. ¶ NASFAA is also closely associated with NACAC. The link between the alleged student and NACAC is that the NACAC electronic list-serve serves as squawk box whereby members of NACAC repeat, paraphrase, quote, and worship the political words of the alleged CMU student.

Influential members of NACAC and NASFAA were used to discredit routine, widely accepted, perfectly legitimate business practices associated with merit-based award sponsors, and scholarship search services. Their apparent goal was to target the routine practice of assessing processing fees for merit-based competition in general and to assail the policies of specific organizations in particular. Hundreds of seemingly legitimate businesses were attacked for no other reason than simply charging a fee for processing of merit-based award.

The practices of assessing processing fees for merit-based awards has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. What no court has, however, backed, is the deceitful practice of omittig material information to clients while pocketing undisclosed commissions.

Corrupt financial-aid book authors, print journalists, and various member institutions of NACAC, and NASFAA, and many others connected to these two organizations, have either been active participants to the scheme or at least assisted in some way, form, or fashion.

Like willing and unethical hypocrites, none of these NACAC members sought to investigate the apparently false credentials or eating habits of their overweight colleague Marilee Jones, or to disclose what they must have known: Fraud in the student-loans and amongst NASFAA/NACAC members is far more common than these organizations are willing to publicize.

Organizations such as NAAS that choose to print facts and details, and that disclose the names and identities of parrots and pigeons, are smeared and targeted by corrupt newspaper reporters with ties to targets of NAAS Media Reports.

It should also be noted that evidence during the magistrate process and pre-sentencing phase of convicted spy Robert Phillip Hanssen confirmed that several of the colleagues of Hanssen were also instrumental in recruiting the same federal informant who would later be associated with NASFAA. Mr. Hanssen resided not far from the offices of NACAC, and he waa known to be soft with respect to American virtues while deferring to his latent Socialist passions.

Unfortunately, dishonest financial-aid admissions' officers, guidance counselors, and consultants, and loan companies that are associated with and/or members of certain prominent non-profit organizations have honed their skills to be in tune with the common types of fraud. They have combined their student lists to take advantage of the purses and wallets of students and their parents.

While lambasting merit-based scholarship sponsors that assess processing and/or handlings fees as small as $5.00, and while cajoling federal agencies to target companies that even assess a mere $1 handling fee, student loan companies and the politically connected non-profit organizations they are members of have fleeced students and parents out of thoudands of dollars and have overcharged these students for simple student-loans.

Part XVI.
Issues Not Prominently Discussed or Debated by NACAC members
NACAC members and book publishers recruited as part of the Project have been instrumental in communicating to one another the theories floated by the CMU student. The number one theory is the unsubstantiated and false statment that is illegal to assess a processing fee. Meanwhile, more important issues are often ignored. For example, teachers, educators, and guidance counselors, and other members of NACAC, avoid real issues such as:
  1. Legislation of tougher laws to curb teacher molestation of students;
  2. Increasing the standards that is required to become a teacher or guidance counselor;
  3. Addressing the constant increases in tuition in public and private institutions;
  4. Addressing ways and means as to improve the performance of schools that have failed the Federal No Child Left Behind Act;
  5. Debating the merits, costs, and necessity of standardized testing;
  6. The issue of whether or not the federal government should draft a fair, and free, standardized test instead of allowing 1 or 2 companies to continue a John D. Rockefeller-type monopoly;
  7. Etc.

Does NACAC maintain a listing of teachers or of its members that have been charged, arrested, or convicted? Of course not. Does the organization maintain a listing of its advertisers that have caught up in the student-loan scandal? Hell no!

Part XVII.
N.Y. Attorney General Investigation into Student Loan Fraud
As chickens have come home to roost, it has become quite clear that various types of fraud and unethical conduct is quite commonplace amongst NASFAA and NACAC members, claims the Attorney General of New York. The state of New York is now investigating various aspects of a common scheme that has been occuring for many years in the student-loan industry. The primary victims of the scheme are students, and the chief instigators are members of the same prominent non-profit organization, NASFAA, that gleefully backed passage of U.S. Senate Bill S1455, and aligned itself with a self-serving, arrongant, and conniving federal informant who used his devilish intellect to outsmart numerous others.

"I am angered and saddened to say that our investigation has revealed an unholy alliance between lenders and many trusted institutions of higher education,"the New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently told lawmakers. He testified about his findings in front of a congressional committee in April of 2007.

Cuomo says his investigation started when a lender complained that his company could not get ahead in the student-loan market because they weren’t willing to offer loan incentives; i.e., a competing lender rejected the notion that his company should be a prostitute for interests connected to NASFAA/NACAC, or NASFAA-member schools or financial aid officers associated with NASFAA or NACAC.

The investigation started with schools that are members of NASFAA/NACAC. Sixty private, public and for-profit schools were asked for information about their preferred lenders lists, how their relationships with lenders worked, and what students were told. Two months later, hundreds of schools associated with and/or members of NACAC or NASFAA got letters warning them to end their deceptive conflicts of interest in their financial aid offices.

What the New York Attorney General has not done is issue arrest warrants for Dallas Martin, or Joyce Smith, or David Hawkins, key players in NASFAA and NACAC, respectively. Nor has the Attorney General arrested financial-aid officers that are members of NASFAA.

It therefore remains to be seen if the current action is a dog & pony show with no teeth, or will serious deterrence result?

The only thing that the New York Attorney General has done is to have law-breaking and corrupt members of NASFAA sign some silly, unnecessary, and ineffectice Code of Conduct (a list of acceptable practices, ethical conduct and no-nos for the student loan business). Gee, I wonder if bank robbers, rapists, child molesters, killers, bombers, hijackers, and others are also eligible to sign a one-page Code of Conduct if they forswear further criminal activity?

Neither Dallas Martin, or Joyce Smith, or David Hawkins, or the privileged members of NASFAA are above the law. If these scum humans caused as much $1.00 or "the cost of a postage stamp" in additional fees to any student then they should be subject to the law that they advocated passage of?

Anything short of criminal prosecution is a travesty. It is quite clear that numerous member financial-aid officers and admissions' counselors that are associated with NASFAA and/or NACAC simply do not pass the smell test?

Detroit, MI, is the greatest financial and educational disaster in the entire U.S. of America. The economy of Michigan is in shambles, people are leaving the state in droves in search of employment elsewhere, crime is out of control, the public school system in Michigan and its "results" resembles the "success" in Iraq. The state has the greatest per capita illiteracy rate in America, a substantial number of poor African-Americans, poor Caucasions, and less fortunate others. Many of these people feel abandoned by their government leaders.

Yet, two Senators from that state have been the chief sponsors of legislation that is not specifically designed to help Michigan interets, but rather the interests of NASFAA/NACAC. These two groups boast politically powerful members who can use their lobbying ties to influence legislation. The chief sponsor of U.S. Senate Bill S1455 was a Senator from Michigan. The chief sponsor of legislation aimed at undermining Nevada incorporation laws ( a topic first broached by the same federal informant connected to NASFAA) was also a Senator from Michigan. When you add one plus one, the outcome is generally two, but when deceit is involved expect something different.

¶ If one is to believe data published by the FTC, and its agency partners, in year 2003 scholarship-related complaints constituted only a fraction of "Total Fraud Complaints. According to data published by the FTC, the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of Justice, from 1993 through year 2003, inclusive, the statistical mean of the percentage of scholarship-related complaints stayed steady at about 0.441% From 2003 to 2006, actual scholarship-related complaints have decreased even further.

Typically, less than one-half of one (1) percent of total fraud complaints are scholarship-related, Yet, the College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act was somehow passed. Mortgage Fraud and Identity-theft have no similar counter-part, nor marketing effort to educate consumers.

As evidenced by the necessity of an Annual Report to U.S. Congress, federal agencies are on an annual spending binge to justify the use of tax-payer money to support a law that has heretofore only benefitted cerain members and advertisers of NASFAA/NACAC, the organization that sponsored the CMU businessman.

U.S. Senate Bill S1455 was specifically designed and tailored to exclude the common types of financial-aid fraud involving members of NACAC, and NACAC. In fact, financial-aid counselors that were members of NASFAA knew how to craft their illicit arrangements with student-loan providers inorder to skirt penalties associated with the Illegal-Act. The Illegal-Act encouraged fraudulent activity amongst NASFAA and NACAC members, deliberately ignored unethical relationships between members of NASFAA/NACAC with student-loan underwriters, and made no enhanced criminal penalties for corrupt financial-aid counselors that are members of NACAC. The United States Postal Service, DOJ, FTC, U.S. Dept. of Education, and various federal agencies concurred with the plan.

¶ The College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act of 2000 was supposedly enacted to benefit students and to combat "fraudulent scholarship and financial aid schemes.". The Act established stricter sentencing guidelines for criminal financial aid fraud. On the surface, the Act is a good measure. A closer inspection, however, reveals the foot-prints of potential deceit. It is an Act which specifically targets businesses or individuals "marketing financial aid assistance services to consumers". By convenience, and/or by design, the Act, however, provides no penalties whatsover for fraudulent financial aid administrators; fraudulent financial aid consultants; fraudulent tax-preparers or accountants who aid and abet crooked students and parents; and, crooked financial aid directors employed at universities and colleges that aid, abet, and assist parents, and students in fraudulently securing financial aid despite evidence produced and published by various government sources that the vast majority of financial aid fraud occurs in these groups.

Coincidentally, many of these type of persons, professions, and institutions represent a good bulk of the NASFAA membership base. In other words, paying members of NASFAA, or employees of institutions of NASFAA, are apparently free to loot, steal, and to deceive students without being subject to The College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act of 2000. Is it any wonder why NASFAA and its alphabet-concoction of related organizations and members "sponsored" the alleged student and that the student was festured in numeorus newspapers and magazines by unethical journalists?

While the crime of identity-theft was in an advanced stage of soaring through the financial stratosphere and ensnaring numerous victims to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, leaving many victims shattered and out of house and home, and in some cases even falsely arrested, falsely accused, and a detroyed credit record, the little known businessman associated with Carnegie Mellon University and NASFAA begin to implement his shrewd plan. Using his suspicious political and religious connections, the Hebrew-speaking, alleged CMU student began touting political principles scented with the foul stench of Marxism.

The little that we do know about this government informsnt is that his make-shift offices were advertised as being at Carnegie Mellon University. Whether or not he was a dressed-up and fitted government mole/police informant that was spying on CMU students or a legitimate student attending classes and earning a legitimate university degree is an entirely different question this Publisher cannot answer?

A Freedom of Information Act request sent to government agencies the CMU bunsinessman was known to be associated was not responded to satisfactorily, and was evasive.

Domestic Electronic Analysts files compare the alleged CMU student to suspected spy Lawrence Franklin, convicted liar, thief, and criminal traitor, Jonathan Jay Pollard, and disgraced FBI agent Robert Phillip Hannsen. Besides a religous connection, the non-Christian CMU businessman shares certain other characteristics. He also has plenty of high-level U.S. government connections:

  1. The Federal Trade Commission (he appeared at a news conference hosted by the FTC);

  2. Former Attorney General Betty Montgomery once referenced his business page on an official government website;

  3. The U.S. Department of Justice (he consulted with and shared information with officials about competitors to his businesses, and implementation of his political beliefs);

  4. The United States Postal Service (U.S. Postal Inspection reports parrot his beliefs);

  5. The U.S. Departmment of Education (he entered into a sponsorship deal with a major contractor of the U.S. Dept.of Education despite having no experience as an "expert");

  6. Etc. The list of suspicions is too long to re-print.

Foreign and domestic governments have alleged, and recruited members of the media have claimed that the CMU businessman was just a typical "student of Carnegie Mellon University". However, what typical student can:

  1. Set-up shop with multiple government agencies?

  2. Bypass proper legislative and bidding procedures?

  3. Publicize his political beliefs on a computer server on the website of a major university without being required to register as a political lobbyist or party?

  4. Use equipment, office-space, resources, and tools of a university to enrich himself, his alter ego companies, and still be praised by the University?

  5. Have government employees and major non-profit organizations parrot and adopt his overt Socialist philosophies?

  6. etc.

The methodology used in Project$Scholar$scam is not entirely dissimilar to the pre-war rhetoric used to justify the Iraq war. After thousands of American deaths, injuries, maimed bodies, false and misleading news articles by corrupt print journalists, it has been determined that the country America invaded did not have the weapons of mass destruction as reported, and that the country did not pose a credible threat to Americans, belatedly claims scores of congresspersons, and news editors. Now, most Americans realize basic facts that they should have realized several years ago before lives were lost.

Fabrications and material omissions of Project$Scholar$scam led to the passage of The College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act. In a nutshell, the Act deliberately and by wanton calculated design omitted the type of circumstances and schemes being currently investigated by the New York Attorney General's office. The Act, which itself is clearly fraudulent, also deliberately ignores the most common schemes of financial-aid fraud; the fraud committed by financial-aid administrators; fraud committed by student loan officers employed at schools and universities connected to NASFAA/NACAC; fraud committed by loan companies; undisclosed revenue-sharing agreements; kick-backs to financial-aid administrators; falsified FAFSA documents, etc.

Instead, the The College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act calls upon the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the United States Postal Inspection Service, and other federal agencies to keep a tight lid and "gatekeeper" status on financial-aid sponsors of small programs while the big players of actual fraud walk out the back door on the way to the bank.

The federal informant linked to NASFAA has not been found wanting for employment or new sponsorship. Shortly after his stint with NASFAA, the bookish, Hebrew-speaking, informant:

  1. Was awarded a lucrative position with a subsidiary of Monster, Inc (NASDAQ: MNST];
  2. Was provided money and benefits;
  3. Participated in the sale of his alter-ego financial aid company to Monster, Inc;
  4. Concealed his full name, his complete history, his status as a federal informant, and his past association with NASFAA, FastWeb, LLC, etc., and re-prostituted the same dismissed and unsubstantiated rhetoric on a website associated with Monster, Inc; e.g., see

A central element in the scheme to support the passage of the College Scholarship Prevebntion Act was the use of corrupt and/or unethical financial-aid book authors, and branches of the Better Business Bureau. The plan, in a sense, was similar to the pre-war rhetoric leading up to the failed Iraq war. Corrupt reporters and newspaper editors were recruited to sale the bogus idea of weapons of mass destrction when in fact no such wepaons existed.

The end result is more than 3,000 American lives have been wasted, the U.S. military is stretched to its maximum capacity, America's credentials have been adversely affected, and our enemies have been emboldned, claim political pundits. In stead of fightingfor noble and legitimate cause based upon facts and truth, political analysts claim that our men and women are being recruited as human fodder and fed to the killing machines.

By passing incomplete and deceptve federal legislation linked to a government informant, and using fabricated statitics to support its passage, it is the opnion of this Publisher that students and parents are deprived of honest sevices.

..... End of Report....

Rate this story: Excellent Good Fair Bad Average

Publishers note:
The information contained herein has been obtained and compiled from sources deemed to be reliable. However, as in the case of all legitimate journalistic reporting, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information presented herein nor the credibility of the sources used. Consequently, The Companies, and Publishers, etc., et al., jointly and severally, makes no warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the information herein nor assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or damages resulting from the use of the information contained in this report pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 230, subdivision (e), part 3, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of California, as well as other affirmative defenses and doctrines not explicitly mentioned herein. However, to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information cited hereinabove is believed to be factual and accurate, and is offered without recourse to The Companies, etc., et al., the staff, officers, directors, et al. and any affiliates of the same subsequently mentioned in this web presentation. Furthermore, this report is not intended to recommend or deprecate any of the subjects cited or referenced herein and said report is furnished solely to assist the reader in exercising his/her own authoritative discernment. After first publishing this report, or immediately preceding the release of the content hereon, the companies with an asterisk (*) trailing their name are believed to have either ceased operations and/or ceased using a brand name(s) confusingly similar to NAAS. After two years of compliance with NAAS EAS/N2 Rules or after having received written assurances of intended compliance, such companies may be removed from this list. By accessing this report from a general hypertext link, it is the reasonable belief of the Publisher that the statements which form the subject matter of the report are to persons also interested therein and that such persons hereby agree and expressly consent to all applicable NAAS EAS/N2 Rules. Absolutely no part of this report, either partially or in its entirety, may be used in advertising, selling or for commercial purpose or downloaded into any computer system for subsequent storage, personal re-prints, videotaped, or manipulation of any type. Any re-prints or re-broadcasts not authorized by The Companies, or an authorized agent, assignee, or representative of the same, are deemed as non-official representations, and effective forthwith, are immediately disclaimed as being non-representative of Publisher. The captions or subtitles of this report are employed solely for convenience and are not to be used as an aid in interpretation or speculation. Neither this report, nor any reports related thereto, nor any tangential reports, claims to offer legal advice or legal opinions. This report is not a legal opinion. For legal opinions, a person should consult competent legal counsel. Plagerizers and copyright violators are subject to appropriate adjudicative proceedings. All NAAS EAS/N2 Rules apply.