Today you get two FREE Docs of the Day. One is a background report written by the Alliance for Justice on Federal District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky written soon after then President Donald Trump nominated him to his lifetime position.

I am a Christian Libertarian Populist, so I agree with many but not all of Judge Rudofsky’s stated opinions. He panders to Christian conservatives and pretends to be a Federalist, but he is openly anti-populist. I say “stated opinions” because I think Mr. Rudofsky is disingenuous. He may disagree with me, but I think his “opinions” are motivated by a political power grab, and allegiance to big business and the moneyed elite.

Judge Rudofsky presides over my FDCPA (Federal Debt Collection Practices Act) case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The Cornell and Harvard educated judge acts like he is mentally challenged. He misquotes and misinterprets simple English, always in a way that benefits PRA. He accepts the most transparent lies as truth. So much for “veritas”.

Why the apparent bias?

According to the AFJ:

“Rudofsky worked on a 2016 article titled ‘The CFPB’s unconstitutional power grab,’ which examined the D.C. Circuit’s decision in PHH Corporation v. CFPB. The decision, written by then-judge Brett Kavanaugh, held in part that the statute creating the CFPB was unconstitutional as it related to the President’s lack of authority to fire the single-director except for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’

“However, in January 2018, the D.C. Circuit reheard the claim en banc and held, ‘[b]ecause we see no constitutional defect in Congress’s choice to bestow on the CFPB Director protection against removal except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” we sustain it.’ The court recognized Congress’s intent in protecting consumers following the 2008 financial crisis and concluded that ‘[n]o relevant consideration gives us reason to doubt the constitutionality of the independent CFPB’s single-member structure. Congress made constitutionally permissible institutional design choices for the CFPB with which courts should hesitate to interfere.’

“The CFPB serves a vital role in protecting consumers and Rudofsky’s labeling of the actions of this agency as an ‘unconstitutional power grab’ raises serious concerns.”

I am preparing for an appeal of Judge Rudofsky’s orders on my case and took a close look at some evidence entered in another case against Portfolio Recovery. (That case was settled confidentially of course.)

One of PRA’s lies in my case was that a written interrogation it sent to me was “NOT” an attempt to collect a debt. The affidavit that I was supposed to fill out asked for my social security number, birthdate, driver’s license, and the details of who I suspected used my credit card fraudulently, any police reports I filed and if I was willing to assist in the prosecution of the 9-year-old fraud. (As if they haven’t heard of a statute of limitations and think I might still have the documentation to prove what happened in another State a decade back.) I was supposed to have it notarized or witnessed.

They sent a similar letter to an old lady named Loretta Burks. Ms. Burks filled it out and it didn’t help her one bit. PRA continued suing her and won by default. (Ms. Burks got representation and had the judgment set aside and filed the FDCPA action.)

Look at the fraud affidavit posted below. Check out page 7. The institution that issued one of the fraudulent accounts was “Portfolio Recovery/GE Capital Retail Walmart”. On page 2, Mrs. Burks’ response to the lawsuit against her included, “[t]his acct. was proven fraud before portfolio assoc. assumed it.”

Now look at page 1 of the AFJ background report, in the biography section. Judge Rudofsky was an assistant general counsel at Walmart and worked his way up from there.

I didn’t even realize Walmart issued credit cards. I live under a rock.

It seems to me that there is a conflict of interest where a defendant debt buyer purchased a bunch of junk debt from the judge’s former employer. Call me crazy.

I was watching a random trial in California years back. The dignified looking judge was listening to opening arguments intently. There was an accounting of some kind projected on a screen. The judge stopped the attorney suddenly and said, (paraphrased) “I am probably ok to continue, but I think I should let you know that the accountant who signed that document did my taxes for me, and we sometimes see each other at a party. We are just acquainted, but I think I should be transparent in case you think a motion for recusal is in order.” The attorneys declined to ask for a recusal.

Hey. I am going to take my case to the Court of Appeals. I am right, but PRA’s army of attorneys will probably annihilate me. This is not David and Goliath. This is David and 1,000 goliaths.

Any good and brave attorney who wants to help, hit me up at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.