Two Good Lawyers: Robert F. Kennedy and Nicole Shanahan. Elect Them to Lead Our Nation.
Message from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.:
I’ve spent my entire career, over three decades, in the trenches fighting for the environment, the health of our children, clean water, and clean air. I’ve sued the biggest corporations on Earth and the government agencies that protect them (when they should be protecting the public). I know how the system works, and I know how to fix it.
As President, I will be a champion of peace, economic fairness, Constitutional freedoms, a strong border, healthy environment, and most of all, a clean, honest, and transparent government.
If you hold these values too, then please help us move our campaign toward the finish line by Young and old, poor and middle class, urban, rural, and everywhere in between – making a donation right now . Because as you might imagine, it is millions of activated citizens and not wealthy corporate donors who are powering this campaign.
**********************
It is with great hope that we may elect a president who was willing to take on large corporations like Monsanto, and a vice president who helped develop AI that streamlines a legal process.
A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Eight
So why would a young federal judge not only make bad decisions, but lie and cover-up the truth in a civil case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC?
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky had a “reason” (with air quotes, because his suspected motivation is not reasonable). Lee Rudofsky was a high-level attorney for Wal Mart directly before attaining a seat on the bench. Wal Mart partners with the original alleged creditor from whom PRA allegedly purchased the debt, Capital One. Judge Rudofsky had motivation to give dishonest services for his former employer’s sake and to encourage the debt trading business in general.
Some credible people, such as Senator Whitehouse, claim that there is “Dark Money” being funneled to Federalist Society Sweethearts. Lee P. Rudofsky qualifies as an alleged participant in the cabal. According to Senator Whitehouse, the Federalist Society judges are groomed to make absurd decisions favoring Dark Money interests.
Judge Rudofsky’s nefareous motivation is speculative.
The fact that he made a plethora of falsehoods in his opinion to grant summary judgment in favor of PRA is fact.
Let’s look further in Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, document 173.
At page 4, Judge Rudofsky talks about the early phone calls PRA made to my cell phone. He disclosed what was supposedly within “UNDER SEAL” documents. Hehehehe. “Try to prove me wrong”, the corrupt judicial officer seems to say.
For fear of retaliatory incarceration for dishonoring a court order, I cannot tell you what was actually said in the sealed documents. I can tell you what was not said.
The Judge reiterates PRA’s version of the first and second of over 400 admitted calls PRA made to the -6000 number. He cites a document that was not generated by a third party. The list of phone calls is incomplete. I know this because I am allowed to see the sealed document, and I know that PRA made more calls to me than they listed. I obtained about six months of records from my cell phone provider. All the numbers PRA admitted to calling from were disconnected. Also 14 connected calls that fit PRA’s pattern but did not show up on PRA’s call log were from numbers that were disconnected.
Also, the PRA call log and “PRANet” that shows all communications, supposedly, are inconsistent. For example, the calls on December 8th and 12th, 2013 disclosed by Loose Lipped Lee did not show up on PRANet.
Judge Rudofsky attributed a true statement to me. “Ms. Hammett answered but did not identify herself.35” I mention the true statement in this story about lies and deceit, because the citation in footnote 35 contains pertinent information that Judge Rudofsky omitted. The cited document 99 is the same as document 198, only unredacted. Read paragraph 10, page 11.
“Plaintiff cannot confirm or deny that ‘the first time Plaintiff answered a call made
by PRA on Plaintiff’s account to the telephone number ending in -6000 was on
December 12, 2013.” I did not know who was calling me incessantly until November 18, 2020. I knew I had a stalker, but I had no indication who the stalker was.
That same paragraph has other pertinent information Judge Rudofsky did not mention. “Importantly, there is a recording of Micheal Pietrczak sounding drunk, yelling something at the start of the call and Hammett sounds disoriented and worried. Hammett vaguely remembers this call.” That was when my partner was spinning out of control and we were in a dispute with an unsavory neighbor.
It got a little more interesting. The Judge wrote, “Ms. Hammett said, ‘No this is the estate sale. It’s a business.’37” Footnote 37 refers to “Ex. 6 (Call Trs.) to Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ.
J. (Doc. 107-6) at 3.”
Look at page 3. The line Judge Rudofsky quoted is toward the end. Where the judge wrote “the Estate Sale, it’s a business”, the transcript says “(unintelligible)”. The Court listened to the audio and saw that the transcript had this error and many others. Yet the judge did not admonish PRA in any way for falsifying the record. This call also has the distinct sound of a man yelling in a slurred voice, transcribed as “(Unintelligible)”, me starting the conversation by saying “The Estate Sale”, and again saying “This is the Estate Sale”. Those words were cut out by the Registered Professional Reporter bought and paid for by Portfolio Recovery.
Judge Rudofsky’s next less than the truthful statement referring to the same page: “PRA, LLC apologized and asked if Ms. Hammett worked at the business. Ms. Hammett did not answer PRA, LLC’s question. Instead, the call abruptly ended.”
The call did not end there. The recording ended there. The other recordings usually have a distinct clicking sound at the end. This one did not. All the other recordings have a trailing silence. This one did not. It is likely that I said something unpleasant to the uninvited caller that would give a strong indication that the calls should stop, and PRA chose to edit that out.
You can listen to the recording yourself and decide. I thought the recordings were under seal, but PRA filed the transcript on PACER. (For lack of time, I will load a few today and finish tomorrow. The downloadable file name starts with the date.)
A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Seven
This blog is getting a little monotonous. It is important though that all the lies and deceit by a federal district court judge, Lee P. Rudofsky, be documented.
His orders, including granting summary judgment against the plaintiff in an FDCPA, invasion of privacy and outrage complaint, are under appeal. Judge Rudofsky allowed the defendant to file its so-called evidence under seal. Then the defendant and judge misstated what was under seal. If the Eighth Circuit decides to maintain the Star Chamber and affirm the manifest injustice, it is important for the public to know what the appellate court ignored.
Why would you trust my version, more than that of the court? Because I am willing to let you see what is under seal. The defendant and the court are not. No particularized need was offered as to why to keep the documents sealed. For example, the “Data Load” the judge described in detail, omitting the entries that don’t look too good for the defendant, do not contain any trade secrets. The form itself is run of the mill. The privacy of the data should belong to the plaintiff. It does not divulge financial information about the defendant, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
Also, that Judge Rudofsky was nominate by Donald Trump is repeated in most chapters.
When I write a book, the redundancies will be left out.
This is not a Democrat or Republican blog. I am a Libertarian. I registered Republican in 2016, to vote against Trump in the primaries. The two candidates I liked, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, split their votes and Trump won. I did vote for Trump against Hillary Clinton, but only because my choice was a walking douche bag and a turd sandwich (plagiarizing from South Park).
I usually don’t “waste” my vote on the Libertarian candidate if I like or hate one of the Democrats or Rupublicans. I liked Mike Pence, which kind of swung me toward Trump. I am the proverbial “swing vote”.
This election, I will vote for RFK, Jr. I loved Bobbie Kennedy and JFK. Robert Kennedy, Jr. takes on big business and government agencies in court cases. He is a trooper. Like my son, who recently had a life-threatening accident and continues to work to make the world a better place, RFK can easily retire because of his neurological damage, and he keeps moving forward anyways.
So, not to bore you, but here are the next lines of interest from Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, docket no. 173.
The judge buried the next line in footnote 26, divided between two pages. In the second part, on page 4, the judge wrote: “It appears that PRA, LLC, used another company, Compumail, to facilitate the dispatch of the letter.”
You could place that line in the back of your brain, as Judge Rudofsky intended. There it might collect cobwebs, and you may never think of it again. Judge Rudofsky does not mention Compumail again until page 50, when he discusses the motion to amend. (Doc. 33 and 33-1)
But Compumail’s complicity in PRA’s collections is important at the summary judgment of the first amended complaint. The entire PRA production of documents was a bit light in the loafers. About half the documents were letters that were purportedly mailed by Compumail.
None of the letters purportedly mailed before February 2021 reached me.
PRA cannot use its own record of whether or not the letters were returned undeliverable without having Compumail swear by affidavit that it did not receive the letters back as “undeliverable”. It is crazy that Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, again, made a credibility determination, believing that PRA did not get the returned letters and disbelieving that I did not receive any letters, without any competent evidence to base that credibility determination. Forget the fact that at summary judgment, Judge Rudofsky must take all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor.
It is interesting, and we will get there another day, that Rudofsky treated Compumail as an integral part of PRA’s operations, allowing PRA to testify on behalf of Compumail, but would not allow Compumail to be added as a Doe defendant.
Are they or aren’t they partners in crime, so to speak?
A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Five
Let’s reiterate a thin little line we looked at in Chapter Four. It is a line that holds together the entire web spun by Judge Rudofsky to trap the Court of Appeals into agreeing with his deceit.
“The load data that Capital One provided to PRA, LLC”. (Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, Docket No. 173, at page 3)
The Trump nominated judge referred to an exhibit that he allowed PRA to mark “CONFIDENTIAL” and file “UNDER SEAL”. (id., Footnote 19, “Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121).”
Judge Rudofsky then stated what he purports to be written in the “under seal” document. He lied.
There is nothing on the document that suggests it was generated by Capital One. It is not a unique document. There are documents in other cases involving PRA that are almost identical, the only difference being the data loaded. Where “Capital One” was entered in this case, different credit card company names were entered in the other cases.
But, there is something more telling that the Data Load was a creation of Portfolio Recovery and not of Capital One.
Judge Rudofsky acknowledged that Hammett lived at the address on the “Data Load”, “5757 Erlanger for two nights”. (Doc 173, Footnote 21, “Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121); see also Hammett Dep. Vol. I (Doc. 164) at 78:9–12”.) Once again, notice that the judge told the public what was written on the “Under Seal”, “CONFIDENTIAL” Load Data.
The Hammett deposition is redacted, but not under seal. (If you have some spare time, read the whole thing. If not, please turn to Page 392.)
This is an email chain between the landlord at 5757 Erlinger and me when I was Laura Lynn. After spending two nights at the townhouse, I decided to move out. I was never there, so it was a waste. That was in October 2011.
Hey! Wait! Look back to the Rudofsky order granting summary judgment to the billionaire debt buyer, at page 2. The judge, not very good at keeping secrets, said that the charge off date on the super-secret docs was April 8, 2011.
Now, I didn’t go to Cornell and Harvard, like the judge, but, I’m pretty sure that October 2011 is after April 2011. It doesn’t make sense to me that Capital One would charge off a debt, then six months later, run a skip trace on the debtor, find an address where she lived for two nights that was not her residency for legal purposes, and never update the skip trace again, before supposedly selling the debt to PRA in 2013.
This web is looking so flimsy to me. I am beginning to think it was spun by a whole group of spiders and the data is not the only thing that was loaded.
A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Four
Join us on today’s episode of exposing the lies and deceit of the Young Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. We are working our way through an order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Debt Buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates on all claims, docket number 173.
We are on the top of page three. “As part of this purchase, Capital One transmitted to PRA, LLC ‘load data’ associated with the account [ending -6049].17 Load data provides specific details about an account that a company like PRA, LLC buys from Capital One.18 The load data that Capital One provided to PRA, LLC with respect to account number -6049 contained personal information about [Laura Lynn, AKA Hammett].19“
Footnote 17: “[See Ex. 1 (Dreano Decl.) to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-3) (Under Seal at Doc. 121)] ¶¶ 6–7; see also Ex. B to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-5) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) (indicating that Capital One transferred to PRA, LLC records of individual accounts); Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121).”
Footnote 18: “Ex. 1 (Dreano Decl.) to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-3) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) ¶ 7.”
Footnote 19: “Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121).”
Now, I will repeat what I said in Chapter 3. Judge Rudofsky was adamant that the litigants must not “share the unredacted version [of confidential documents] with anyone else or reveal the contents of the redacted information.” (See footnote 1 on page 1)
Two pages later Judge Rudofsky spilled the beans about what Ms. Dreano supposedly said in the super-secret declaration and exhibits. Only, technically, Judge Rudofsky did not disclose what was in the documents, because what Judge Rudofsky said was shown by the documents was not. Judge Rudofsky lied on behalf of the debt buyer. The judge let PRA keep its evidence under seal. Collusion anyone?
There is no indication on the “Load Data” that it was generated by Capital One. There was no portfolio sheet attached that showed the data transmitted by Capital One to PRA.
There is no dispute that PRA sent a letter to the alleged debtor, me, that was addressed to “Laura Lyman”. It had an account number that did not end in -6049, like the account in question. Did PRA transfer the data to the “Load Data” document from the Laura Lynn account or the Laura Lyman account?
More important than the question of whether the $2,297.63 balance on the -6049 account was correct is the question, “why did Judge Rudofsky order the evidence to be filed under seal, and then misstate what was in the evidence?”
Institute for Justice takes Retaliatory Arrests up with SCOTUS
“If you have a right without a remedy, what good is that right?” – Patrick Jaicomo, Attorney with Institute for Justice.
IJ does a great job fighting against the tyranny of government employees who have Judicial Immunity, Qualified Immunity and immunity from civil liability for retaliatory arrests.
Read their brief, today’s FREE Doc of the Day.
A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Three
You can catch up by clicking on Chapter One and Chapter two.
We are looking into an opinion of Trump nominated Federal Judge Lee P. Rudofsky.
Judge Rudofsky was less than honest. His deceptive practices on this case call into question the veracity of his opinions on all cases he rules over.
The Federalist Society poster boy for dark money politics turned the proceedings into a Star Chamber, by allowing the debt collector defendant to mark anything and everything “Confidential” and “UNDER SEAL”. This made lying convenient.
Rudofsky lied outright or by omission by misstating what was under seal.
I cannot tell you what was under seal, but I can tell you what was not there.
Hopefully the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will open the record to the public, so We the People can have a visual of the jurist’s lack of integrity.
Judge Rudofsky wrote: “On April 8, 2011, Capital One charged off the amount that Ms. Hammett owed on this account.13 The term ‘charge off’ means ‘[t]o treat (an account receivable) as a loss or expense
because payment is unlikely’ or ‘to treat as a bad debt.’14 There are companies, like PRA, LLC, that buy charged-off accounts from credit card companies.15 On November 19, 2013, PRA, LLC bought Capital One’s ‘rights and interests in the -6049 account . . . .’16“
Rudofsky loves those footnotes. The better to bury the truth, My Dear.
Footnote 13 refers to a “Load Data Sheet” that is under seal. The load data sheet does not identify who compiled the data. It is not dated. It is not a unique form, meaning nearly identical forms with different data have been entered into evidence in other cases by the debt collector. The nearly identical forms did not have Capital One listed as the original creditor, which indicates that PRA generated the Data Load.
Lest PRA claim it copied the data accurately from some other document, though they did not produce another document, note that PRA made at least one error on the data entry on this account. PRA changed the name and account number on a closing letter. While probably a purposeful ploy to convince me to dismiss the case against them, that data corruption might have been due to incompetence.
Footnote 15 and 16 discuss the “Dreano Decl.”, which is under seal.
Judge Rudofsky quoted the Dreano declaration. This is confusing. Judge Rudofsky ordered me not to “share the unredacted version [of confidential documents] with anyone else or reveal the contents of the redacted information.” Then he quoted liberally from the documents that are under seal. He gave partial quotes, misquotes and out of context quotes.
Now, will he throw a 61-year-old sickly woman into jail if she finishes the quotes or discusses their origins? I wouldn’t put it past him. Or maybe he would use more economic sanctions. He already ordered me to pay the billionaire debt buyer’s court costs. (When I argued that the order will bankrupt me, he questioned whether my expenses actually use up my $639 per month pension. I have not had a net profit off my writing for a few years.)
Here is the tippy-toe version of what is NOT in the Dreano declaration.
There is no mention of a document that connects the -6049 account to any purchase agreement or bill of sale of charged off debts to Portfolio Recovery Associates. None. Zip. Zero.
A Higher Law 