My appellate brief challenging Judge Lee P. Rudofsky for granting summary judgment to defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates is due in about 49 days.

I need to file a motion to change privacy designations soon, so don’t have time to chat with you, my dear readers.

In lieu I am offering to you two documents pulled from PACER yesterday.

One is my reply to my motion for partial summary judgment. The gist is that when a debt collector agrees to zero out an account without an order from a court and does not issue a 1099-C cancellation of debt, the debt collector is admitting that the person named on the account is not liable for the alleged debt.

Portfolio Recovery Associates claimed that it just decided to zero out the debt “in light of the litigation”, and they admitted that my claim that I owed no debt was made in “good faith”, but Judge Rudofsky interpreted that to mean PRA “waived” the debt.

The second document talks about why the business records that showed my account details should not be kept confidential. Judge Rudofsky allowed for me to make the comment about the waiver and 1099-C issue, but made it clear that if I step over the line he will hit me with paying the debt buyer’s attorney fees.

If you have business documents generated by PRA that are not ordered confidential by a court, please share them with other readers by emailing a copy to bohemian_books@yahoo.com. Together we can show that, as the CFPB complained, PRA lying on affidavits in court and making collection efforts on an invalid debt is commonplace and therefore awards and settlements on state cases and FDCPA cases against Portfolio Recovery should be much higher than the usual $1,000 or $5,000 they get away with.