When you run into a corrupt judge like Lee P. Rudofsky or Arkansas Circuit Court Judge Susan Weaver, chances are good you will need to take your case to appeal.

This is not legal advice. I am not a licensed attorney.

This is writing advice.

Organize your files and create an outline for your appeal.

Ideally you start the case with organization.

Make a paper copy of each document and file it chronologically. It is easier on your eyes to read and you can add sticky notes as you read through in the first sitting.

Keep an electronic file with each document, using unique names. Instead of “Motion” call it “motion unseal” or “motion settle record”. That way you can search for a file easier. I use the docket number first, so the file is automatically ordered chronilogically.

To keep your thoughts organized at the appellate brief writing stage, start with an outline.

The outline is not set in stone. My appellate brief against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is due in five days and I am still adding to and refining the outline.

Here is a sneak peek.

A  .Jurisdictional Statement

B.  Statement of Issues

1. The Court erred by granting PRA’s motion and supplemental motion for summary judgment.
2. The Court erred by failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest that creates the appearance of bias.
3. The Court abused its discretion by denying Hammett access to electronic filing.
4. The Court erred by denying Hammett’s Motion to Extend and Compel Discovery or Sanctions Against PRA (R. Doc. 97, supported by R. Doc. 99 and 100), and other evidentiary objections and requests for sanctions.

V. The Court erred by granting PRA’s motion for costs.

VI. The Court erred by denying Hammett leave to amend

VII. The Court erred by refusing to strike PRA’s defamatory comments that violate FRCP Rule 11 and grant sanctions.

VIII. The Court erred by denying public access to any and all documents PRA designated “confidential” or filed under seal.

C. Statement of the Case

a) Facts

b) Procedural History

c) Rulings Presented for Review

D. Summary of the Argument

E. Argument

I.   The Court erred by granting PRA’s motion and supplemental motion for summary judgment.

A.   Standard of Review

B.    The Court erred by determining Hammett had no damages

C.   All PRA’s communications were communications in connection with the collection of a debt.

D.   The Court erred by agreeing the Debt was waived.

E.   Hammett genuinely disputed the Debt.

1. Hammett verified her original complaint.

2. “Hammett DENIES that she opened an account ending in -6049” under penalty of perjury.

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.

F.   Hammett has a genuine dispute of material fact about PRA’s documentation.

1. “Declaration of Meryl Dreano ¶ 8 [regarding authenticity of the Statement] is inadmissible hearsay.

2. “Capital One did not make any assurance of the accuracy of the ‘load data’ and the ‘-6049 Account’ was not mentioned in the Capital One affidavit and bill of sale.”

3. The Data Load shows the account was paid on time from 2001 to 2010. The “last payment” in 2010 was $0.00, so there was no balance at the “last payment”. The interest rate was 0%. This makes PRA’s evidence incredible.

4. When PRA completed its investigation, there was no account documentation.

5. The Account was purchased before the Consent Agreement with the CFPB and is likely from a portfolio that was riddled with errors.

6. The data load document is impermissible as evidence.

7.  The Account was crossed with Laura Lyman’s account at least once.

8. The data makes no sense.

9. The PRANet record and the self-generated phone log are inconsistent with each other.

G.   Hammett has a genuine dispute that if an account she opened was used and not paid off in full, it was a fraudulent use.

H.   The Court made numerous egregious errors in the Orders granting Summary Judgement to PRA and denying partial summary judgment to Hammett. (R. Doc. 173 and 237)

I.   Recent developments are appropriate to offer as new evidence, illustrating that Hammett’s contention that PRA can only succeed financially by annoying people is true.

II.   The Court Erred by failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest that creates the appearance of bias.

A. Standard of Review

B. (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)

III.   The Court abused its discretion by denying Hammett access to electronic filing.

1. Standard of Review

    B.   Looking first at Constitutionality, the Court applied the wrong standard.

     C. Arguendo, denial of the convenient and economical litigation tool is forbidden to those who can’t afford attorneys is ever constitutional, the Court abused its discretion when denying Hammett access.

     D. The error was material.

 IV. The Court erred by denying Hammett’s Motion to Extend and Compel Discovery or Sanctions Against PRA (R. Doc. 97, supported by R. Doc. 99 and 100), and other evidentiary objections and requests for sanctions.

1. Standard of Review

• (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)

V.   The Court erred by granting PRA’s motion for costs.

A.    Standard of Review

B.      (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)

VI.   The Court erred by denying Hammett leave to amend.

A.      Standard of Review

B.      (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)

VII.   The Court erred by allowing PRA to violate FRCP Rule 11 and cover-up its lies through an abuse of confidentiality. It was an abuse of discretion to forbid Hammett meaningful discovery and transparency in the proceedings.

A.      Standard of Review

B.      (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)

VIII.   The Court erred by denying public access to any and all documents PRA designated “confidential” or filed under seal.

A.      Standard of Review

B.      (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)

IX.    The Court Erred by keeping the Audio Recording of the December 1, 2021 which is now part of the judicial record from public disclosure; and relying on hearsay evidence proffered by PRA instead of demanding the Pietrczak recordings referred to be subpoenaed.

     A subpoena should issue for the Audio Recording PRA referred to in opposition to settling the record at the District Court (cite), the Audio Recording of the December 1, 2021 hearing should be distributed to each party and made a public record, and the record settled.

Conclusion

(Relief requested)