A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Two

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” – Sir Walter Scott

You can read Chapter One by clicking here.

Are you here to learn the second thing I look for when I am digging for deception? (The first thing was discussed in Chapter One. I look in the footnotes.)

I promise I won’t string you along too long.

But first, let’s look at the “Background⁷” section of Federal Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s opinion granting summary judgment to a debt collector defendant in my FDCPA and Arkansas state torts complaint. You can download a FREE copy of the redacted version.

Opining by footnote is Judge Rudofsky’s literary tic.

Footnote 7 starts innocently enough: “On summary judgment, the Court recites the genuinely disputed facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, including giving the nonmoving party all reasonable inferences from the facts. Haggenmiller v. ABM Parking Servs., Inc., 837 F.3d 879, 884 (8th Cir. 2016). Of course, the Court also relies on undisputed facts. Essentially, the Court considers the version of the facts most favorable to the nonmovant that a rational juror could find on this record.”

Next Rudofsky covers his ass: “Accordingly, the Court’s factual recitation is only good for the summary judgment motions.” The judge acknowledges that what he says next may not be true. It is a conclusion that is supposedly based on the limited evidence produced in discovery. He might be thinking that if somehow a self-represented non-attorney is not intimidated into settling the case for a stupid low amount and appeals the judgment, that the Cornell and Harvard trained young judge can play dumb like a fox.

Then Judge Rudofsky segued into a lie. “This case presents partially dueling motions for summary judgment. For efficiency purposes, and to give Ms. Hammett every possible benefit, the Court has chosen to recite all genuinely disputed facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Hammett, including giving her the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” He did no such thing.

Here is the jaw dropping recitation of “facts”. As I read it, I wondered how the judge could possibly rationalize that his recitation chose the light most favorable to me.

“In 2001, Ms. Hammett (then Laura J. Lynn) was living in California and opened a credit
card account with Capital One Bank.⁸ The account number ended in -6049.⁹ In 2010, Ms.
Hammett became delinquent on this account.¹⁰“

Footnotes 9 and 10 referred only to PRA’s self-serving declaration. Footnote 8 included a reference to two sections of a deposition PRA took from me.

Docket No. 164. You can download the redacted version FREE.

The judge cited page 80, lines 4 to 12 and page 81, lines 15 to 18:

4 Q: Okay. Have you ever had a Capital One account?
5 A: I believe I probably did.
6 Q: Does that mean yes or does that mean no?
7 A: It means I probably did. I have no evidence of it
8 anywhere. I’ve looked through every piece of paper
9 that I have and I’ve looked through all my e-mails.
10 There’s not a single one from Capital One.
11 Q: When did you have the Capital One account?
12 A: If I had it, the 2001 sounds about right.

15 Q: Okay. Going back to Exhibit 9. We touched on the
16 open date. You said 2001 sounded about right for a
17 Capital One account; is that correct?
18 A: Yeah, because — the reason why I say that is

Judge Rudofsky cut off my answer mid-sentence. Here is the part he did not want to talk about.

18 A: Yeah, because — the reason why I say that is
19 because I had just gotten divorced, and so I would
20 probably have been putting cards in my name. It might
21 have even been earlier than that, but, you know, around
22 then, probably more like 1998.
23 Q: And this is for your Capital One account, correct?
24 A: Any account that I had would have been opened
25 around that time like 1998 or thereabouts because

1 before that, I had all of my accounts with my
2 ex-spouse, Timothy Lynn, and we had phenomenal credit
3 together. You know, I just know that that’s when I
4 started opening my own accounts.
5 Q: Do you deny ever having a Capital One account?
6 A: I don’t deny having a Capital One account, but
7 don’t twist that into being this account.

Oh, my bad. I told PRA attorney James Trefil not to twist my answer. I forgot to tell Judge Rudofsky not to twist my answer. So, twist he did.

“In 2001, Ms. Hammett (then Laura J. Lynn) was living in California and opened a credit
card account with Capital One Bank.⁸ The account number ended in -6049.⁹“

Judge Rudofsky did not support the big lie, that I became delinquent on this account, with any evidence I produced. He ignored the plethora of evidence I produced that was the exact opposite. Here are statements I swore to over and over again.

   “I do not have any written record of a Capital One account, other than the insufficient documentation provided by PRA, and therefore do not know the account number on any account I may have had.”

     “I do not recall missing any payments [or] becoming delinquent on a Capital One account. I asked for PRA to mail documentation to me that might spark a memory of an alleged decade old event and none was offered.”

     In the recorded conversation February 18, 2021, Hammett said “I have no debt and so I know that whatever you have is not my debt. It is absolutely not my debt. I do not have any debt, and so anything that you allegedly have is not my debt.” (call transcript)

Unfortunately, that is all I have time to write about this case today. We didn’t reach the second tell when a corrupt lawyer or judge is writing deceptively. Rather than stringing you along, I’ll get it out and then extrapolate in our next installment.

The second tell is when a corrupt lawyer or judge puts something in quotation marks. It is a good bluff. Who the hell is going to lie about something that is in quotation marks if the quoted document is available to cross reference?

An arrogant and entitled corrupt lawyer or judge, like Lee P. Rudofsky. That’s who.