Hospitals & Asylums
Professor Michael Luebbe A 459444 v. University of Cincinnati and Susan Tave Zelman, Superintendent of Education
Anthony J. Sanders
#51737564 v. OSI Education Services Inc.,
I. Corruption of Criminal Usury
II. False Arrest of Professor Michael Luebbe, the Original Sin
III. Superior Criminal Responsibility of the Debt Squad
IV. History of the Student Loan Program
V. Right to a Free Education
I. Corruption of Criminal Usury
The problem that we hope to redress with the resolution of
these cases is the seizure by the Ohio Attorney General of the State Debt and
Student Loan Collection Service and to return these services to their rightful
holding agency. This was a fatal mistake
and is the most blatant corruption in the State of
In the 2005 Cincinnati Mayoral elections predatory lending came under criticism by Mark Mallory, the winner. The Attorney General has seized the State Debt Collection Service, for state debts and student loans, irregardless of the hypocrisy that the Department of Corrections is the leading cause of state overspending and could be the source of an estimated $750 million in savings to the budget if an honest attorney would step up to free 65% of state prisoners to the much more affordable community corrections programs or at least eliminate the massive amount of corruption in the justice system that impoverishes freedom and enriches slavery. A debt collection service supervised by the Attorney General or any armed force or judicial officer is extremely dangerous and creates a situation known as a coup d’etat. This is evident in the overthrow of the Governor on trumped up ethics violations although his impeachable failure is in fact to balance the Ohio budget and refrain from the cold blooded murder of prisoners. The series of bombings and homicides in Hamilton County after receiving calls from the student loan corporation, furthers the hypothesis of coup d’etat. The Ohio General Assembly has risen to address the issue in the Chapter 2905 treating upon Kidnapping and Extortion "Extortionate extension of credit" means any extension of credit with respect to which it is the understanding of the creditor and the debtor at the time it is made that delay in making repayment or failure to make repayment will result in the use of an extortionate means or if the debtor at a later time learns that failure to make repayment will result in the use of extortionate means. "Extortionate means" is any means that involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person or property of the debtor or any member of his family. Under RC§2905.24 Evidence of implicit threat as means of collection may be introduced tending to show that one or more extensions of credit by the creditor were, to the knowledge of the person against whom the implicit threat is alleged to have been made, collected, or attempted to be collected by extortionate means or that the non repayment thereof was punished by extortionate means. The State Debt Collection Service needs to be transferred to the Department of Treasury where debt collection could take place on the rational basis of the IRS. This would save considerable time and money for the state while upholding the poverty line. The State of Ohio has really created a monster with the debt collection service. Politicians have the liberty to commission harassing callers against their citizens. Awareness of sort of corruption and undue advantage taken by armed government officials is heightened in the Inter-American Convention against Corruption March 29, 1996 and the UN Convention Against Corruption.
In 2005 since the Bankruptcy Prevention and Consumer Protection Act this harassment has become the standard tactic of public officials against citizens petitioning for reimbursement or state responsibility in regards to human rights. The idiocy there under is typified in a recent request for the Attorney General to pay for Time Warner AOL to prevent wiretapping through the phone line that was responded to by a worthless $5 million fine against Time Warner for about $2,500 of work federally legislating to improve the honesty of industry advertising without any corrupt misdirection to judicial proceedings. The Attorney General must not pillage the white market because his jails are too corrupt for the business of lawyers and he wants to work with civil people because as a general he is not a civil person himself. The State Debt Collection Service would be okay in any other Department of the State but must not be a corruption of kidnapping employees (coke) because of the unfair advantage they would take on the even ground of civil law where the armed forces are enormous debtors not only to the state but to individual victims, unlawfully imprisoned and uncompensated conscientious witnesses. It is therefore not permissible for Ohio to lend the State Debt Collection to the Attorney General or his corrupt clientele of politicians and police – state debt must be collected on the rational basis of the poverty line by the Treasury. The US has been engaging in increasingly predator lending practices since the Bush Administration began. The administration seems to relish defrauding the student loans accounts of their researchers as the result of their perverse and self destructive favoritism of the rich over the poor who they don’t pay, no matter how much work they do. PL 102-164 provides for the garnishment of the defaulted borrowers wages directly from their employer without going to court and without their permission. Although contract law upholds these student loans it is wrong to empower these collection services without consideration for the poverty line or services seeking to compensate students for their work for the State. Ohio has reacted inappropriately to the Bankruptcy Prevention and Consumer Protection Act by granting the State Debt Collection Services to the Attorney General and must redress this error. Wherefore this Civil Actions for Deprivation of Rights is instituted under 42USC(21)I§1983 that states, every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. In this case the full absolution of the author’s student loans in apology for the criminal usury and in recognition for his work for the State of Ohio that was estimated at $75,000 in Sanders v. Kravetz C-98-466 in 1998 that was never settled by the Attorney General.
II. False Arrest of Professor Michael Luebbe, the Original Sin
The original sin from whence this judicial education money laundering plot was derived clearly came from the most corrupt court in the state, Hamilton County, from whence our homicidal Governor comes. In 2003, inspired by the “Rape of Baghdad” the Court and University of Cincinnati Police conspired to falsely arrest a music professor, Michael Luebbe, on charges that he was pandering child pornography for asking that a computer consultant to erase child pornography from his computer in State v. Michael Luebbe Hamilton County Court B0307635, Judge Ethna Cooper. The motive appears to have been to create a state of fear so that the professors would be more compliantly silent in regards to the deprivations of rights and other crimes against humanity the university wished to get involved in so as to keep up with the government officials and wealthy in a nation gone to war. In retrospect, and from my own now porn addicted experience after defending a similar false arrestee, it is obvious that the University of Cincinnati Police spammed this child pornography onto his computer to falsely arrest him. The University of Cincinnati blithely permitted this action and prohibited the News Record, the school paper, from covering the topic. I appear to be the only person who defended Mr. Luebbe bringing product liability into question in my student loan case as not only has my education proven totally worthless but I am the only attorney the university has, who they of course don’t compensate to such a degree that when the original case regarding the liberation of Michael Luebbe was filed the University of Cincinnati was fined $6.6 million by the State because they behaved like imbecilic slaving misers who would rather extort money from their students than free a falsely arrested man they are sworn to protect in the Hippocratic Oath. The University of Cincinnati is obviously a tyranny and their prison needs to be reviewed because they have clearly vested a great interest in the state slave trade for reasons of status in the most criminally corrupt community in the State of Ohio. The placing of the State Debt and Student Loan Collection Services with the prohibited office of the Attorney is clearly, by reason of harassing phone calls in retaliation against petitions, the brainchild of the slaving conspirators of Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters to treasonously overthrow the state, corrupt the Attorney General who has been witnessed freeing prisoners, and lead a constant assault against the advocates of human rights, whereas the secret information of the former Secretary of Treasury was exposed to the most incompetent Court in the State of Ohio Prosecutor v. Joe Deters HA-30-12-05
Michael Luebbe, whose prisoner number is A459444, was admitted on 12/19/2003 with a 5 year sentence for being convicted of pandering sexual material RC §2907.322 by Judge Ethna Cooper 227 and Attorney Bradley Greenberg P55568 in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Case # B030635. Pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor; second offense constitutes felony of the third degree, RC §2907.322. Prison sentences for multiple offenses of possessing child pornography are not unlawful or an abuse of discretion considering the high rate of recidivism for such offenders and the continuing harm done to the children depicted. Michael Luebbe is protected as a former UC Music Professor seen on the television getting a ridiculous sentence for a crime he didn’t commit. He must be released today. This was Mr. Luebbe’s first offense, he has no traffic or criminal priors at all and must be immediately freed. Mr. Luebbe is immune from prosecution because he was arrested for obeying RC§2907.322 B1. Specifically asking the computer consultant to erase offensive Child Pornography from his computer. This demonstrates that he was taking proper interest to have the material erased and should not have been arrested under most professional responsibility confidentiality policies that promise not to slander clients, this must be reinforced in criminal courts, professional computer consultants do not sell their first time child pornography clients to the Court or they become suspected of publishing those annoying internet spams themselves and corrupting their clients for pleasure of slavery. Mr. Luebbe has no prior convictions and the criminal charge detaining him are inapplicable under RC §2907.322 B-1. Michael Luebbe demonstrated appropriate interest by requesting that the child pornography infection be removed from his computer. The computer consultant violated Mr. Luebbe’s confidentiality by reporting the event to the police. It is likely that the police, court and computer consultant did not take the child pornography out of circulation as Mr. Luebbe had hoped to. The Prosecutors are suspected of continuing to use the child pornography virus to entrap the objects of their perverted justice investigations as was evident in State v. Anthony (Hamilton) C-030510 (2004).
Mr. Luebbe must be immediately released. His persecutors need to be punished for their judicial misconduct. A prisoner may bring suit for a civil action for deprivation of rights. Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any State or political subdivision of a State, official, employee, or agent thereof, or other person acting on behalf of a State or political subdivision of a State is subjecting persons residing in or confined to an institution, to egregious or flagrant conditions which deprive such persons of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States causing such persons to suffer grievous harm, and that such deprivation is pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may institute a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against such party for such equitable relief as may be appropriate to insure the minimum corrective measures necessary to insure the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities, under 42USC(21)I-A§1997a regarding the Initiation of Civil Action. In 42USC(21)IV§2000c-2 relating to Public Education, the Secretary is authorized, upon the application of any school board, State, municipality, school district, or other governmental unit legally responsible for operating a public school or schools, to render technical assistance to such applicant in the preparation, adoption, and implementation of plans for the desegregation of public schools. a complaint in writing signed by a parent or group of parents to the effect that his or their minor children, as members of a class of persons similarly situated, are being deprived by a school board of the equal protection of the laws, or signed by an individual, or his parent, to the effect that he has been denied admission to or not permitted to continue in attendance at a public college by reason of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious notice of such complaint shall be served on the school board under §2000c-6. Michael Luebbe is entitled to $1 million from the University of Cincinnati for every year that he is imprisoned, superceding the request for $100,000 that was not enough to catch the attention of the corrupt Attorney General. One can consider this absolution of my student loans as legal fees for this case and others involving false arrest by the University of Cincinnati Police who probably need a new chief after this scandal.
III. Superior Criminal Responsibility of the Debt Squad
The student loan corporation is not only annoying but they have been the harbinger of terrorist attacks since they began their assault against scholars in the summer of 2005. Although there is room for argument as to whether they are actually superiorly criminally responsible for ordering these terrorist attacks they are increasingly responsible for planning their own murder attempts, as they become more and more corrupt from their criassociation with “criminal” justice. To facilitate a very serious criminal investigation into the communications and orders to harass received by the student loan corporation the crimes for which they and the Attorney General have claimed superior criminal responsibility in their senseless attempts to collect a debt while a death squad performed crimes against the words of the author are listed in this section. This cover for a death squad is clearly the only reason that the student loan corporation calls. They cannot squeeze blood from turnips and self professedly do not collect from the state. The debt squad is a hate group designed for the persecution of scholars, particularly those engaged in defending fundamental freedoms, as an institutionalized retaliation unit lodged with the Attorney General. The conspiracy however seems to have been concocted in Hamilton County, where the death squad is lord, and former Secretary of Treasury Joe Deters ruthlessly embezzles with impunity. These slavers conspired to corrupt the Attorney General who we presume innocently believed in Joe Deters because he has escaped all official prosecution, because he is the (failure) prosecutor, who bankrupted the State of Ohio and made it a very dangerous state to do business with. The Attorney General is so corrupt in regards to Hamilton County that in January 2006 it was discovered and remedied that he was attempting to run for governor with Hamilton County Commissioner Phil Heimlich who had been convicted of treason in fall of 2005, in regards to attempting to build a fifth surplus jail in a town where persecution and money laundering is causing a massive exodus of refugees. Let me then recount the major crimes against humanity committed by this Republican conspiracy.
The first eccentric call with a false ring was received after communicating with then solicitor for slavery of Cincinnati City Council, David Pepper, who seems to have investigated me and discovered information regarding student loans and managed to elicit a call from them in retaliation for my requests for victims compensation for the burglaries of his death squad, this was however just a one time event that did not become a chronic problem until the scam had been introduced to the local politicians who empowered by Joe Deters corrupted the Attorney General whereupon predatory lending became an endemic problem whereby the debt squad covered the highly publicized actions of a racially motivated death squad without any respect for human life beginning with the application to the United Nations University HA-26-5-05 that was disrupted and cancelled after the disappearance of Natalee Holloway (USA) v. Clifford M. Sobel (Netherlands) HA-30-5-05. Although the persecution began the instant Joe Deters came back to Hamilton County the frequent calls began in the beginning of July 2005 with the terrorist attacks on London to disrupt the G-8 HA-7-7-5. The second attack occurred on 12 August after a person named Hope called representing OSI and the Governor was convicted of corruption charges although he was to be impeached for failing to balance the budget HA-12-8-05. This was followed shortly by a styrene leak that forced the evacuation of several hundred residents and seemed very likely to have been the same sort of corporate corruption and thermodynamic package that may have been used to make Hurricane Katrina strike the ethnically black community of New Orleans with such force HA-29-8-05. The 999th prisoner to be executed in the USA was killed under a false name with 24 hours notice HA-28-11-05. To insult the dignity of my quarterly journal the local mosque was bombed and a person with the same name as a free man on death row was poisoned in police custody HA-21-12-05. In January a plot was concocted at the expense of the debt collection agency to wiretap me and get a violent offender to come to my home in a bait and switch with another friend. The most recent spate of calls foretold the ethnic cleansing of Milan Babic HA-5-3-06 and Slobodan Milosevic HA-11-3-06 in the Hague, Milosevic seems to have been brought down with the same heart poison that took the life of Jermaine Jones on the winter solstice. These are just a few cases that infringed upon my copyright, evidence has been produced linking the debt collection service to nearly every suspicious homicide that occurred in the past year.
It is imperative that the student loan corporation be free from outside influence in their attempts to collect debts and not be associated with the justice system as the inherent evil of debt collection will be used by criminals to extend their vendettas, terrorism, slavery and peonage to a larger portion of the general populace under the auspices of wealth that they are obviously prone to steal as their own treason that the government would never give them legally. The social phenomenon that we are confronted with in this case is known as ABC. ABC is a general principle of criminal law in the US that summarizes the behavioral patterns of terrorist organizations in Title 18 US Code Chapters 113A Telemarketing Fraud, 113B Terrorism and 113C Torture that provides insight into the institutional oppression that permeates every layer of society beginning with the degrading treatment of school and is brought to light in this case whereby the fusion of a telemarketing fraud and criminal justice create a fearsome terrorist organization. 1. Telemarketing fraud, which specifically prohibits the annoying calls of unethical debt collectors who are often in cahoots with the armed forces, is best interpreted as a general reference to the utility of the television to fascism. The concept of ABC comes together in Chapter 113 that relates to Stolen Property and treats upon Criminal Copyright Infringement §2319 to explain the behavioral pattern of terrorist organizations who often commit their crimes while inspired by the criminal infringement upon the copyright of an author. The A category of offenses typically involves espionage by and stealing for the support of a terrorist organization or in this case a corporation that is corrupted by the criminal justice system. The terrorist offenses that we are confronted with are assassination under §2331 as involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that appear to be intended - to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. And §2332f Whoever unlawfully delivers, places, discharges, or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into, or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or with the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility, or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss, shall be punished. §2339C prohibits the financing of terrorism when directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used for terrorist activity. The prohibition of the finance of terrorist activities through the sanction regime of the treasury and freezing of assets are the most used peaceful method for preventing and punishing acts of terrorism. Torture is defined in §2340 as an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control. Now that you know your ABC it is important that we, as lawyers and scholars, do all we can to prevent these dangerous elements of our society from becoming corrupt and dissuade private individuals from committing acts of terrorism to achieve their political objectives. The primary venue for prohibiting terrorism is by ensuring that the law is executed without any treason meaning that the armed forces are not over funded or corrupted with money or laws to commit crimes against the people. The US Constitution in Art. 2(4) and 3(3) makes it clear that treason, as terrorism finance is known, comes in two forms in the government, prosecution and war. §2381 explains whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort has committed treason. It is the responsibility of everyone to report the commission of treason to the President of the United States, Congress or to some judge or justice thereof so that it may be remedied and the seditious conspiracy suppressed under §2384.
IV. History of the Student Loan Program
The federal government began guaranteeing student loans in 1965, creating the program that is now called the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). The first federal student loans, provided under the National Defense Education Act of 1958, were direct loans, following a recommendation of the economist Milton Friedman. However, when Congress wanted to expand on that start, inflexible budget rules made the guarantee approach seem more attractive. Under then-prevailing budget rules, a direct loan would have to show up in the budget as a total loss in the year it was made, even though most of it would be paid back with interest. In contrast, a guaranteed loan, which placed the full faith and credit of the United States behind a private bank loan, would appear to have no cost at all -- because the government’s payments for defaults and interest subsidies would not occur until later years. This raised concerns among economists, who worried that the government was making financial commitments without accounting for the ultimate costs. In 1990, economists got what they wanted. With President George H.W. Bush’s signature on the Credit Reform Act, all government loan programs—whether guarantees of commercial loans, or loans made directly from a federal agency—would have to account for their full long-term expenses and income. Every loan program would have an estimated “subsidy cost.” The subsidy cost is the amount of money that needs to be set aside when the loan is made in order to cover the costs to the government over the life of the loan. According to the GAO, the old approach "distorted costs and did not recognize the economic reality of the transactions," while the new approach "provides transparency regarding the government's total estimated subsidy costs rather than recognizing these costs sporadically on a cash basis over several years as payments are made and receipts are collected." This more rational approach to budgeting changed the nature of policy discussions on Capitol Hill. Student loan programs were among the first to be affected. Prompted by an analysis from the Bush administration indicating that direct loans would be less costly and simpler to administer than guaranteed loans, Congress created a direct lending pilot program in 1992. In 1993, newly elected President Clinton proposed replacing the guarantee program with the direct approach as part of his deficit reduction plan. Estimates from all of the government's budgeting and auditing agencies showed that direct lending would deliver the same loans to students at significantly lower cost to taxpayers.
As part of the 1993 budget agreement, Congress chose to phase in direct lending, starting with colleges that volunteered to participate and giving the Secretary of Education the power, if necessary, to require colleges to switch until at least 60 percent of loans nationwide were direct. While the law called for direct lending to replace guaranteed loans, it was silent about what would happen beyond the 60-percent mark, since that was outside of the five-year window covered by the budget. In 1994, the new Republicans leadership in Congress targeted direct lending for elimination. However, many college and university officials were dissatisfied with the guaranteed loan system and optimistic about the new alternative. Under the guarantee system, financial aid administrators had to deal with what the GAO labeled a “complicated, cumbersome process,” disconnected from other federal aid and involving thousands of middlemen. Hundreds of institutions were already participating in the direct loan program, which operated in tandem with the other federal aid programs. Ultimately, congressional leaders stopped short of eliminating direct lending. Instead, they passed a law that prohibited the Department of Education from encouraging or requiring colleges to switch to the direct loan program. In theory, this maximized choice: schools could choose to participate in one program or the other. In practice, those profiting from the guarantee system could use their substantial resources to lure or retain colleges and universities, while the direct loan program was not allowed to make its own case. Not surprisingly, campus participation in the Direct Loan Program has declined. In 2003, a team of investigative reporters at U.S. News and World Report looked into what was causing some colleges to switch back to the guarantee program. Their front-page story found that much like old-time political ward bosses, the student loan industry “used money and favors, along with their friends in Congress and the Department of Education, to get what they wanted.” On 24 March 2005 the Washington Post reported on loans that earn a government-guaranteed interest rate of 9.5%, the Post points out that the Education Department has already made $240 million in excess payments to student loan companies in the first quarter of 2005. This is almost exactly the same amount as the government paid out in the fourth quarter of 2004, before Congress supposedly ended the 9.5% interest guarantee. According to the Post: "Perhaps it is also time for both Congress and the Education Department to take more seriously the calculations of the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, both of which agree that government-guaranteed loans, disbursed by financial institutions, cost a whopping 10 times more than loans provided by the Education Department. This is money that could be used to increase Pell Grants for needy students or to ease the massive budget deficit: It's scandalous to waste it on subsidies for banks." Congress acted last fall to temporarily close loopholes in student loan laws that were costing taxpayers an unnecessary $1 billion every year. With a certain amount of fanfare, both House and Senate education committee chairmen declared their intention to stop "shortchanging students," in the words of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), and to stop paying out huge, unnecessary sums to banks and other financial intermediaries that disburse student loans. At the time, we congratulated the lawmakers but nevertheless worried that the loose wording of the bill had ensured that some of the techniques banks had used to siphon money out of government coffers -- using an outdated law that once guaranteed lenders 9.5 percent interest rates -- would remain legal.
The federal government currently ensures that students have access to loans for college and graduate school in two ways: by guaranteeing bank loans, and by lending directly to students. The Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) takes the government-guaranteed approach. In this program, the government provides financial incentives to banks and student loan companies that provide student loans. The lenders keep the profit from students’ interest payments as well as subsidies they get from the government. The government also guarantees the loans against default, using taxpayer dollars to protect lenders from financial risk. Congress sets the fees, interest subsidies, and guarantee rates that the government pays banks, loan companies, and other vendors and intermediaries that participate in this system. The other program takes a different approach. Through the Federal Direct Student Loan Progam (FDSLP), the government provides low-interest loans directly to students, then uses their interest payments to help cover the program’s costs. The direct lending program uses market competition to determine the appropriate price to pay for loan capital and for private sector services to administer the loans. Instead of fixed fees and rates of return, it can pay the lowest price that the market will bear. In both programs, taxpayers are responsible for virtually all of the default costs, as well as much of the interest rate risk. However, the returns are distributed differently. In the guaranteed program, lenders get to keep student interest payments along with taxpayer-financed fees and subsidies. In the direct loan program, the government uses the income earned by the loans to minimize taxpayer costs. On 14 June 2004 Robert Shireman of the New York Times wrote, “What Student Loan Scandal?” He cited a federal General Accounting Office study, asserted that it found the direct loan program borrowed over $90 billion more from the Treasury than it repaid between 1995 and 2003. The G.A.O. said: "Amounts borrowed from Treasury, which are expected to be repaid using borrower payments in future years, totaled $137 billion from fiscal years 1995 through 2003, of which about $92 billion was outstanding as of September 30, 2003." The actual cost - after borrowers pay back the loans, after accounting for those who default on their loans, and after the Education Department pays interest to the Treasury for its borrowing - is estimated at $2.7 billion. That's a lot less than the shocking $90 billion figure. If all loans granted from 1995 to 2003 had been direct, more than $20 billion would have been saved, according to Bush administration budget figures. That's enough to fully finance the first three years of the No Child Left Behind Act, or to provide an extra $4,000 to every one of the five million low-income students in college today.
V. Right to a Free Education
Art. 10(e) of the Declaration on Social Progress and Development of 11 December 1969 prioritizes the eradication of illiteracy and the assurance of the right to universal access to culture, to free compulsory education at the elementary level and to free education at all levels. Article 13 of the Additional Protocol on the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to the American Convention on Human Rights 11/22/69, known as the Protocol of San Salvador explains in near quotation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966 everyone has the right to education, the States Parties to this Protocol agree that education should be directed towards the full development of the human personality and human dignity and should strengthen respect for human rights, ideological pluralism, fundamental freedoms, justice and peace. They further agree that education ought to enable everyone to participate effectively in a democratic and pluralistic society and achieve a decent existence and should foster understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups and promote activities for the maintenance of peace. The States Parties to this Protocol recognize that in order to achieve the full exercise of the right to education: Primary education should be compulsory and accessible to all without cost; Secondary education in its different forms, including technical and vocational secondary education, should be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular, by the progressive introduction of free education; Higher education should be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of individual capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular, by the progressive introduction of free education.
The right to a free education is basic to all human rights treaties upon education and the primary objective of higher education is for it to be progressively free. It is the concept of freedom that is being tried in this case. Not only is the student loan collection agency acting irrationally in that they are trying to collect from someone living below the poverty line but they have conspired with prisons to persecute the advocate of freedom who the state does not pay, although they are obligated to. It is the ideal of free higher education that we seek to enforce in this case. First we shall liberate the student loan corporation and state debt collection service from the corrupt influence of the Attorney General and he can again write his page, that we shall call basic literacy. Second we shall enforce the basic philosophic principle of debt collection in regards to inviolability of the poverty line. Third the student loan corporation shall cancel all debts to Great Lakes Higher Education Guaranty Corporation at their own expense in apology for the harassing calls terrorist attacks and criminal corruption that they are reliant upon myself to resolve. Fourth we shall free Michael Luebbe from his years of false imprisonment and ensure that he is settled, from whence the student loan corporation could satisfy my bankrupt student loan. No negotiations will be conducted with the student loan corporation or Attorney General whereas they are together, a terrorist organization.
Anthony J. Sanders
Hospitals & Asylums