Psychopath Judge? Compare Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Opinions to the Debtors’ Documents

Judge Lee P. Rudofsky wrote an opinion about me that said I agreed I owed a debt. What?!? I said I had no record of the alleged debt and the creditor had agreed the balance on the account was zero, without a settlement agreement nor issuing a 1099-C.

A little bit curious whether all the other FDCPA plaintiffs that went in front of Rudofsky had similar lies told about them, I pulled up the opinions that were filed on Westlaw.

A search on Westlaw, “(Lee /2 Rudofsky) & FDCPA” in all state and federal yields three cases besides mine.

Rudofsky repeated a phrase, that the FDCPA plaintiffs “took a victory lap” after prevailing on state court collection cases.

 In Millwood v. Adams, U.S.D.C. ARED, Case No.: 4:20-cv-01035-LPR, 2021 WL 4466309 Judge Rudofsky wrote: “Ultimately, Ms. Millwood did not have to pay any deficiency under the financing contract”. The Court interpreted my phrase, “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me” to mean I in fact owed the Debt. Therefore, his meaning in Millwood is that Millwood owed a deficiency and was let off the hook. Inspection of the underlying case, Cannon Finance v. Millwood, Garland County, Arkansas District Court Case No. HTCV-19-1364, August 29, 2019 shows otherwise.

Millwood filed an answer denying she had a deficiency. Cannon, through Adams, dismissed the case voluntarily, three days later, “without prejudice”. (Much like PRA closing my account but leaving some wiggle room to reassert the Debt later.) In the least, Millwood had a genuine dispute about owing a deficiency. Judge Rudofsky refused to acknowledge the genuine dispute.

Judge Rudofsky: “The state court lawsuit could therefore be described as a victory for Ms. Millwood. But she does not see it that way.” 2021 WL 4466309, at *3.

The Court’s repeated opinion is that cessation of collection on a disputed debt, at least temporarily, means the prevailing debtor was made whole. The Court’s opinion is wrong. Ending the harassment is not a complete victory, according to Congress.

Congress intended that debt collector victims be compensated for all the damages caused, and that the errant debt collectors do not keep harassing other victims.

FREE Doc of the Day