Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: Sneak Peak of an Appeal

Writing my appeal is kinda fun, like the game Find the Fudge, if Judge Rudofsky’s conduct was not so sick and disturbing.

Hey, if you think this dishonesty merits judicial discipline, send a Judicial Conduct or Disability Complaint here. Or wait for me to file the entire appeal on November 6, 2023 and send a copy to Senator Elizabeth Warren with a suggestion about judicial impeachment. Or come up with your own way to Get Loud.

Judge Rudofsky said “on this record, it does not appear to be genuinely disputed that Ms. Hammett owed PRA, LLC $2,297.63.” (R. Doc. 173, at 71, f.n. 463.)

Hammett genuinely disputed the Debt.

    The Court erred by claiming “on this record, it does not appear to be genuinely disputed that Ms. Hammett owed PRA, LLC $2,297.63” on an account opened in 2001, account number ending -6049. (R. Doc. 173, at 71, f.n. 463)

     The Court truncated a sentence that Hammett wrote to say she was a consumer according to the FDCPA, to make it sound like she agreed she had owed the debt. In the hearing on MSJ and reconsideration, June 14, 2023, Judge Rudofsky admitted to making this misquotation. (R. Doc. 261, at 97) Then the Court said of the true sentence, “if it does anything, it hurts her”. (id. at 98)

     Read the true sentence using the meaning of “debt” in the context of the FDCPA is, inter alia, “any obligation or alleged obligation”. (15 U.S.C. §1692a(5))

     The way ChatGBT artificial intelligence reads the sentence, it “makes it clear that you are not admitting to owing the debt and that you may be disputing its validity or accuracy.”      The one ambiguous statement the Court cited was taken out of context because it is a boilerplate recitation that means Hammett was a consumer.

The evidence that Hammett disputes the Debt is overwhelming. Overlooking this barrage of evidence gives the Court the appearance of bias.

1. Hammett verified her original complaint. Subsequent amendments did not invalidate the verification. All the documents signed by Hammett are certified as per FRCP Rule 11.
2.  “Hammett DENIES that she opened an account ending in -6049” under penalty of perjury. See CUF (R. Doc. 99, 198, at 2.)
3. The Court misstated Hammett by taking one phrase out of context, truncating again to fit his narrative. “Ms. Hammett concedes that she “probably” opened a Capital One account in 2001. Hammett Dep. Vol. I (Doc. 164) at 80:4–12, 81:15–18, 82:10”. (R. Doc. 173, at 71, f.n. 463)

    Hammett clearly did not agree her account ended in -6049. “Hammett said she probably had a Capital One account opened about 2001 but did not state her Capital One account had an account number ending in -6049 in Dkt. No. 37 ¶ 19 nor Dkt. No. 39 ¶ 2.” under penalty of perjury. See CUF (R. Doc. 99, 198, at 2.)

    Hammett said, under penalty of perjury, “I have no evidence of it anywhere. I’ve looked through every piece of paper that I have and I’ve looked through all my e-mails. There’s not a single one from Capital One.” (R. Doc. 164, at 80:7 – 11, cited by the Court above.)

    Hammett said, under penalty of perjury, “[opening an account] might have even been earlier than [2001], but, you know, around then, probably more like 1998.” (R. Doc. 164, at 81:20 – 22, just after the Court’s citation above.)

     Hammett said, under penalty of perjury, “I don’t deny having a Capital One account, but don’t twist that into being this account.” (R. Doc. 164, at 82:6 – 7, just before the Court’s citation above.)  “I thought this was very funny. My son gave me this key chain [showing a key lanyard]. It says ‘Capital One’ on it. So, I mean, everybody has a Capital one — he has a Capital One account. He gave me this thing from it. And his ex-wife, Elizabeth Lynn, had a Capital One statement sent to the [G]arnett address and I asked him about it and he said, oh, just throw it out.” (id. at 82:11 – 17, just after the Court’s citation above.)