Judge Rudofsky Multiplies Litigation by Tacit (and not so tacit) Approval of Fraud on the Court
Portfolio Recovery Associates committed fraud, misrepresentation and misconduct while defending itself against private allegations of violating the FDCPA and state law. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, after being informed about the allegations against the debt buyer, dismissed the case on summary judgment anyhow.
The CFPB was able to obtain a $25 million settlement against PRA for similar claims in a public suit filed in March 2023.
There was an $83 million verdict returned in a private case against PRA in 2016, based upon the same kind of fraud, misrepresentation and misconduct.
The Doc of the Day is the motion I filed requesting more time for discovery or sanctions for Portfolio Recovery’s destruction of evidence. Also included is Judge Rudofsky’s response.
It was within Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s discretion to allow for more time to let the defendant correct its spoliation of evidence. He refused. Therefore the case shall be challenged pursuant to FRCP Rule 60 and then, if Judge Rudofsky does not correct his errors, by appeal.
If you are a plaintiff’s attorney who handles FDCPA claims against any of the PRA Group, Inc. subsidiaries, please contact me to discuss representation. bohemian_books@yahoo.com.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Biased Opinion: Free Doc of the Day, Transcript of Hearing on MSJ
The transcript of the hearing on my motion for partial summary judgment and the dueling MSJ filed by Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is posted below.
[On Friday night, July 7 at 5:59 p.m., attorneys for Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC sent an email to me. I was sitting out back under the porch, watching a light rain and a grand rainbow, destressing from reading PRA’s latest pack of lies. When I went back to writing for the night (because my hubby was fishing), I opened the email. The version of the transcript I had posted was an unredacted version. There is a redacted version which I am posting tonight in its stead. I got the unredacted version off PACER minutes before I posted it on June 28, 2023. Please let me know if you were one of the readers who downloaded the unredacted version. You should delete it. Thank you and I am sorry for any inconvenience this causes you.]
(The usual $3 per document maximum charge on PACER does not apply to transcripts, so the value of the free document is $13.50. In my spare time I will address the inequity of charging pro se litigants to download copies of their file stamped documents from PACER. Also, how charging the average person to browse through federal district court files discourages the transparency that is supposed to be a cornerstone in our justice system.)
Read the transcript as if you are on a jury. Would you be reasonable to believe that I was telling the truth?
Did PRA call me hundreds of times, more times than they admitted to? Or did I decide to take a full minute to set up a video recording of our call on November 18, 2020, without having received any calls from the same people in the months leading up?
At the time PRA “investigated” my alleged debt, before I filed my lawsuit, did they have any documentation supporting the debt. Or did they base their investigation on one line item in a portfolio of untold thousands or millions of line items that are known to be inaccurate?
Judge Rudofsky decided that no reasonable juror could believe I had a case, and no reasonable juror could agree with me that I had no debt to Portfolio Recovery, nor that the numbers they claimed did not add up.
If you happen to read this transcript of a hearing held in front of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky and you are opposing confirmation of a promotion of Judge Rudofsky, feel free to contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com. I’d love to talk. [My attorney and I presume potential attorneys may have access to the unredacted version of all the case documents. Maybe we can form a symbiotic relationship.]
Free Doc of the Day: Motion in Limine to Exclude Report of Dr. Sanjay Adhia Hired Gun of Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
Busy Busy Busy.
I am preparing for my post judgment activity in the case against PRA Group, Inc’s wholly owned subsidiary. PRA Group, Inc. has $2.6 billion dollars of credit extended to it, which it can use to try to destroy me in court. So, fighting them is a daunting task.
Here is a motion to file a motion in limine that was mooted when Judge Lee P. Rudofsky granted the debt buyer’s motion for summary judgment.
Awfully convenient that PRA will not need to defend Dr. Adhia’s indefensible conduct in this case. Look for PRA II, which will address the “moot” conduct.
If you are a plaintiff’s attorney in Texas, Virginia or Arkansas and want to get involved in the suit, contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com or TheNext55Years@gmail.com.
P.S. Judge Rudofsky denied my motion to file my documents electronically. This increased my costs in time and money. I was required to drive to the courthouse 30 miles from home and deliver the documents in triplicate, plus make a copy for myself if I wanted a stamped copy before leaving.
I say this because two random pages from Dr. Adhia’s CV were attached at the end of this document by accident, and I was not the one who entered them.
[UPDATE] The Brief in Support is also posted. It is similar to the motion, adding a bit of authority and importantly, exhibits. If you have time to kill, look up each case on Dr. Adhia’s resume. He represented the losing party predominately.
Stupid Attorney Tricks: First Honorary Mention to Keith Cochran of Fitzgerald Knaier, LLP
Writing the caption of a court case is an exacting task. Lawyers seem to get off on getting their clients off on a technicality. One pro se case in Florida was dismissed because the non-attorneys named “First American Home Warranty Corp.”, instead of “First American Home Warranty of Florida”. I kid you not.
Attorney Keith Cochran appears to me to have tried a new trick. He left one party he later claimed to represent off the cover of his first response to the First Amended Complaint that was served to Linda R. Kramer as a co-trustee of a trust and Linda R. Kramer as an individual. Separate copies of the complaint were served and two acknowledgements were signed by Linda R. Kramer.
The clerk failed to enter the individual on the docket when he entered all the other defendants. Kramer and her husband Erik Hunsaker were not named as co-trustees on the original complaint.
Apparently, the clerk did not notice his error when he added the co-trustees. Apparently, the clerk did not notice his error when entering the notices of acknowledgement.
I suspect the plan was to go through the proceedings to finality and then, if I won, pop up and say Linda R. Kramer was not included as an individual. They could put the blame on me, for failing to notice that Kramer was entered in only one capacity and only represented in one capacity.
If I filed a motion for default under FRCP 55 that late in the game, Kramer would have a good argument that there was too much prejudice to her defense.
I am not certain that the clerk’s original error was by mistake. It could have been and Mr. Cochran seized the opportunity, dropping the individual off the list of parties he represented.
Unfortunately for the defendants, I caught the error and filed for default.
Mr. Cochran’s paralegal swore under penalty of perjury: “As a paralegal for over five years, I had never encountered a party not being listed on the ECF system. I believed that by selecting the single option for Linda R. Kramer on the system, it encompassed both Linda R. Kramer as an individual and as co-trustee of the Lynn and Erik’s Trust.”
Um, ok, so why did he remove Linda R. Kramer as an individual from the cover of the document he was filing? Or was it a convenient coincidence that the paralegal and the clerk both omitted the individual?
The Doc of the Day attached below for free download is paralegal Robert M. Wilson’s declaration. Bonus docs are the MTD filed timely (naming only the co-trustees), my motion for “clerk’s default judgment”, an opposition to my motion and my improved motion for clerk’s default.
This would all be much ado about nothing. But Mr. Cochran chose to call the clerk and ask a favor, instead of filing a motion to set aside default. The clerk agreed to add the third party to the docket entry as if it was done timely. He did not make the expected notation that he altered the docket entry two days after the attorney filed.
This caused me to have a melt-down. I called the clerk’s office and spoke to a few individuals. A female clerk told me the addition of Kramer as an individual was improper.
I read the riot act to Mr. Cochran. I told him I had a copy of the original, unaltered docket entry.
Presto, the clerk changed the docket entry back, but refused to enter default.
I did my usual bitch and complain in court documents. The judge, Janis L. Sammartino, instead of correcting the clerk, made a snarky threat to me about “impugning” the clerk in her dismissal of my complaint.
I am appealing the decisions regarding the default and several other decisions.
Attorney Cochran’s argument on appeal is citing caselaw that discusses Default Judgments entered by the judge, not the clerk.
Will the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals act like the clerk’s default and default judgment granted by a judge are the same thing and there is no need to file a motion under FRCP 55(c) to set aside a clerk’s default?
Stay tuned.
A Moment of Silence for Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Robin Wynne (deceased)
To honor the late justice who passed away last night, I will have a long weekend without any posts.
Justice Wynne had my vote, and it was with much sadness that I heard the news.
May God bless his soul.
Judge Susan Weaver Gives Tacit Approval to Fraud on UAMS and Old Lady, Me
Judge Weaver received the Doc of the Day, my motion for Criminal Contempt against Attorney William Zac White and his client Mike Pietrczak, and ignored it. The accused fraudsters did not file an opposition.
Judge Weaver was completely silent as to the accusations. She finally dismissed the case against me, with prejudice, but still gave the property Pietrczak and I were fighting over to the accused fraudster. She approved a fraudulent transfer of the property to an irrevocable trust. She even wrote that she would help with the transfer.
The unethical judge never addressed the motion for contempt.
Judge Susan Kaye Weaver also lied in an order by saying she listened to an audio recording of a hearing and she insisted the recording was accurate, even though the transcription was grossly inaccurate. Weaver blocked me from having the recording played in public.
So far, the justices at the Arkansas Court of Appeals have given me no relief from any of the errant orders.
Judge Susan Kaye Weaver is the elected judge in three Arkansas counties, Searcy, Faulkner and Van Buren.
If she has the audacity to put her name on the ballot in 2024, vote her out.
Here is a copy of the filed motion for criminal contempt and a few exhibits, the fraud notes trio and a record of Mike Pietrczak’s felony conviction for misuse of a passport at the U.S. Mexico border.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Champion of Telemarketers and Debt Collectors
I read the Doc of the Day before I filed a complaint against PRA Group, Inc. subsidiary Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
On page 9, Judge Rudofsky gave a concise list of what “substantive information would be a ‘verification’ under § 1692g(a).” It included “a copy of the original contract between [the alleged debtor and creditor], as well as an affidavit stating the amount still owed.”
No credit card agreement was provided in my case. There is no affidavit from the original creditor that states the amount still owed. Eight months after I filed suit, PRA “found” a statement from Capital One, but there is no affidavit that the statement shows an accurate amount owed. In fact, the credit card company made no guarantees as to the accuracy of any account on the list of millions of accounts it sold to the debt buyer for pennies on the dollar.
I am looking for a plaintiffs’ attorney who does not want to allow Judge Rudofsky to dismantle the FDCPA and is willing to take over my case on contingency. If you are accepted to practice in the Federal District Court of Eastern Arkansas and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, please contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.
Here is the Free Doc of the Day.
Free Doc of the Day: King Lee P. Rudofsky has no clothes
Yesterday I began to present the evidence that Trump Appointed Federal District Court Judge Lee P. Rudofsky is a dishonest man. He does not belong on the bench and I am happy to give testimony against him at any confirmation hearing if he is considered for a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
Today, I am posting a transcript of the oral order Judge Rudofsky made during the latest Star Chamber hearing. This is a busy time for me, so I will take several days to share with you all the lies and legal errors made by the Harvard educated judge in rationalizing denying a jury trial on this case.
Today I will concentrate on Lee P’s misquotation and subsequent misinterpretation of a single sentence.
“I will say I appreciate and accept Ms. Hammett’s discovery that I had a drafting error [Ya, ya, drafting error, wink, wink] in footnote 463. I said at one point in that footnote that Ms. Hammett in her affidavit said, quote, 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, period. And as Ms. Hammett correctly points out, that period was too early and chopped off the rest of the sentence. The full sentence is, 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, comma, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food, and other consumer items, period, close quote.
“I hope that is the correct — is the correct iteration of it. I am going off of page 6 of Ms. Hammett’s brief in support of opposition to the defendant’s supplement motion for summary judgment. But I agree that I should not have chopped off the sentence with the period. I take responsibility for that. [Hooray, a man who can say the four most difficult words in the English language, “I made a mistake.” But he could not leave good enough alone. He continued…]
“Having said that, the last clause does not change anything in my mind. It does not create more — a more favorable situation for Ms. Hammett were this to go to a jury than she had before. In fact, if it does anything, it hurts her, but I just don’t think it makes any difference one way or the — or the other.”
Judge Rudofsky’s interpretation of the sentence found in the consolidated order denying my motion for partial summary judgment and granting Portfolio Recovery’s motion for summary judgment:
“But, on this record, it does not appear to be genuinely disputed that Ms. Hammett owed PRA, LLC $2,297.63. fn 463 That is, the Court (tentatively) believes that every rational juror would conclude that Ms. Hammett owed PRA, LLC this amount. In turn, there is good reason to think that no rational juror could conclude that PRA, LLC falsely represented to Ms. Hammett the amount of the debt.”
The lengthy footnote 463 starts with the premise, “Ms. Hammett concedes that she ‘probably’ opened a Capital One account in 2001.” True. Then the misquotation is added. “‘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.’” Lee is not the slightest bit lazy. He continued spinning his lie in two footnotes that hopped down three pages. I will address the rest in future writings.
Here, I just want to share my question and answer session with ChatGBT’s OpenAI. This is language based artificial intelligence.
It is important to share a fact that I shared with the Court in several ways. The meaning of “debt” in the context of the FDCPA is “alleged debt”.
Q: I wrote, “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank in or about 2001, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food and other consumer items.” Does this mean I agree that I owed a particular debt. Or does it mean that if I owed the debt, it was used to purchase consumer goods?
A: Based on the statement you provided, it seems that you are acknowledging that you used a credit card issued by Capital One Bank to make purchases for household items, food, and other consumer goods. However, it does not necessarily mean that you are admitting to owing a particular debt.
It is possible that you are acknowledging the use of the credit card but disputing the amount of the debt or any fees or charges that may have been added to the original debt. Alternatively, you may be acknowledging that you owed the debt, but you are simply explaining the nature of the purchases that were made using the credit card.
Overall, the statement you provided suggests that you used a Capital One credit card for consumer purchases, but it does not necessarily indicate whether you acknowledge or dispute any particular debt related to those purchases.
Q: How does the meaning change if I change the sentence to, ““I am a consumer in respect to any alleged debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank in or about 2001, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food and other consumer items.”
A: By changing the word “debt” to “alleged debt” in the sentence, you are indicating that you do not necessarily acknowledge that you owe the debt. The term “alleged” suggests that you are disputing the existence or validity of the debt and that you are not admitting to owing the debt.
The rest of the sentence remains the same, indicating that you used a Capital One credit card to make purchases for household items, food, and other consumer items. However, the addition of “alleged” before “debt” makes it clear that you are not admitting to owing the debt and that you may be disputing its validity or accuracy.
Summary judgment is an extreme measure. There was a reasonable inference that I meant I opened an account to use for consumer purchases but did not incur the alleged debt of $2,297.63. Especially when taken in context with my certified complaint and my motion for partial summary judgment that is based on the fact that the debt collector made false statements about the amount or character of a debt.
Lee P. Rudofsky is putting your tax dollars to work by forcing me to go to the Court of Appeals and the CFPB.
Please contact me if you want to represent me as plaintiff to the Court of Appeals and beyond. bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Institutional Betrayal: How the commoners are abused by King Lee P. Rudofsky and other judges
“The term institutional betrayal refers to wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals dependent on that institution, including failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals committed within the context of the institution.” – Jennifer J. Freyd, PhD.
“Institutional betrayal harms in at least two distinct ways: pragmatic and psychological.” id.
“Institutional denial plays a crucial role in institutional betrayal. One particularly pernicious form of denial is DARVO — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender” id.
Let SouthPark explain DARVO to you here.
I filed a complaint against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC for making a triple digit number of phone calls to me in regard to an alleged 10-year-old debt. PRA refused to tell me anything about what was allegedly purchased on a credit card account opened by someone in my name in 2001 that PRA agrees was never in default before the 2010 purchase. When I filed suit, PRA said their investigation was complete, the balance was zero and the account closed.
PRA expected me to drop my suit or settle for $1,000. When I didn’t, PRA claimed the debt was cancelled or waived by them. But they did not issue an I.R.S. cancellation of Debt form 1099-C.
They also altered phone records generated by their company and their internal company contact records. The discrepancies between the records and the audio tapes of some of the phone calls was glaring.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, a Trump appointee, allowed PRA to file the pertinent documents under seal.
Then the federal judge, who is nearly impossible to fire, misquoted me to support his contention that I owed the debt.
Many months later, Judge Rudofsky said the misquotation was an error, but that the actual quotation supports his contention even more. I ran the quote by ChatGBT’s OpenAI. AI is not perfect, but it is a language-based application and is particularly good at reading comprehension. (Lee went to Harvard and is probably almost as good at analyzing language as AI, which makes his miscomprehension rather suspect.)
The legislature doesn’t distinguish between making annoying calls to people who don’t owe a debt and people who do owe a debt. Judge Rudofsky doesn’t seem to care what the legislature codified. He calls an FDCPA claimant a dead beat and denies them a jury trial. He says there cannot be statutory damages because there is no actual harm in the plaintiff being told she owes a debt, even if there was no debt owed.
I will report to the CFPB about the ordeal PRA and Judge Rudofsky put me through. I would like to appeal the decision granting summary judgment to the debt buyer. If you are willing to reimburse me for some of the actual costs I have already paid, which is in excess of $10,000, please contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com. Your generosity will make it possible for me to ask the Eighth Circuit to unseal the business records and help me expose both the PRA Group, Inc subsidiary and the betrayer of the public faith, Judge Rudofsky.
bohemian_books@yahoo.com
A Higher Law 