Punctuation matters. Period. End of story.

If this conduct by Goliath debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and Trump appointed Judge Lee P. Rudofsky was not so evil, it would be humorous.

So, I’ll start with one of my dad’s favorite jokes.

He wrote words on a piece of paper exactly like this:

Sex Sex Sex

Worry Worry Worry

Then he told his audience to punctuate the words correctly.

You try.

Sex Sex Sex

Worry Worry Worry

Should I help you?

Sex. Sex. Sex

Worry Worry Worry

Speak the punctuation outloud.

Sex, period, Sex, period, sex, no period. Worry Worry Worry. lol

Seriously, the placement of a single period or comma can change the meaning of a sentence completely.

For example, there is a case Portfolio Recovery loves called Facebook, Inc. v Duguid. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that dialing systems like those used by Portfolio Recovery are not an “auto dialer” subjecting their obnoxious calls to the TCPA. The decision is 13 pages long, focused primarily on the placement of a comma in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act statute.

“When interpreting a statute, a qualifying phrase separated from antecedents by a comma is evidence that the qualifier is supposed to apply to all the antecedents instead of only to the immediately preceding one.” Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 209 L. Ed. 2d 272, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021)

If you don’t fear death by boredom, read this entire paragraph: “(a) This case turns on whether the clause ‘using a random or sequential number generator’ in § 227(a)(1)(A) modifies both of the two verbs that precede it (‘store’ and ‘produce’), as Facebook contends, or only the closest one (‘produce’), as maintained by Duguid. The most natural reading of the text and other aspects of § 227(a)(1)(A) confirm Facebook’s view. First, in an ordinary case, the ‘series-qualifier canon’ instructs that a modifier at the end of a series of nouns or verbs applies to the entire series. Here, that canon indicates that the modifying phrase ‘using a random or sequential number generator’ qualifies both antecedent verbs, ‘store’ and ‘produce.’ Second, the modifying phrase immediately follows a concise, integrated clause (‘store or produce telephone numbers to be called’), which uses the word ‘or’ to connect two verbs that share a common direct object (‘telephone numbers to be called’). Given this structure, it would be odd to apply the modifier to just one part of the cohesive clause. Third, the comma in § 227(a)(1)(A) separating the modifying phrase from the antecedents suggests that the qualifier applies to all of the antecedents, instead of just the nearest one. Pp. 1168 – 1170.” Ok, WAKE UP!

Judge Rudofsky created a “fact” in my litigation against Portfolio Recovery Associates by claiming that I admitted to owing a debt to PRA. He based that “fact” in major part on a sentence he claimed I wrote.

“I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on
a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001.” – see footnote 463 on the consolidated order granting PRA’s motion for summary judgment.

The actual sentence I wrote: “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food and other consumer items.”

I could have said “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001, as I had not borrowed money for business prior to 2013 when PRA allegedly bought the alleged debt.” Still, Judge Rudofsky would still truncate the sentence without indicating the clause removed.

I explained this in a later document, my opposition to PRA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment. I accidentally attributed the misquotation to the defendant instead of the judge. It is so difficult to remember who said something when the judge is creating arguments for a favored litigant.

Yesterday, PRA filed an opposition to my motion for reconsideration or alternatively to compel production of the credit card agreement that was necessary to create an obligation to pay. PRA admitted there is no record of an agreement, written or oral.

Unbelievable as it may seem, PRA repeated Judge Rudofsky’s misquotation of the sentence. But, like a child who looks around furtively and then interjects another lie to try to cover-up for its previous lie, PRA added two characters around the period. “[.]” Here is PRA’s version of the sentence:

“I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001[.]”

OOOOhhh… Lawyers James Trefil of Troutman Pepper and David Mitchell of Rose Law Firm were trying to not lie. The straight parentheses mean something was changed. They changed the comma to a period. But a person filing documents is subject to Rule 11, that they reasonably believe what they write is accurate. The change PRA made by straight parentheses is not accurate.

For instance, if quoting case law that says “Facebook, inc. is right” the filer writes “[Duguid] is right”, the filer has made a statement he knows is false. Otherwise, lawyers would riddle their points and authorities with straight parentheses that change the meaning of the caselaw completely. Don’t like caselaw? Just change “shall” to “[may]”.

Clever, clever children.

If you had a period after the last “sex”, you might not need the worry, worry, worry, either.