Read a Deposition Taken by Portfolio Recovery Associates and Decide for Yourself if the Case Should Have been Dismissed Summarily by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky

While you are reading, answer these questions:

1. Might a reasonable juror think it more probable than not that I owed no debt to PRA? Judge Rudofsky said no reasonable juror can think that PRA bought a debt that was a clerical error or incurred by a fraudster.
2. Did I, as Judge Rudofsky said, admit to incurring the debt?
3. Did I present testimony that the many calls made by PRA were annoying to the point that they coerced me to tell them my personal identifiers in order to make the calls stop? Or should we allow PRA to call people, not identify themselves and demand the person called identify herself, as Judge Rudofsky ordered?

And, out of curiosity, do you think that the protection against improper search and seizure offered by the 4th Amendment applies only to search and seizures by the government, as Judge Rudofsky interprets it? Do you think you must identify yourself to everyone who asks you to, as long as the inquisitor is not dressed like a police officer?

I think Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s opinions are preposterous.

If you are a consumer advocate who wants to fight the summary dismissal of my FDCPA claim at appeal, please contact me at TheNext55Years@gmail.com or Bohemian_books@yahoo.com.