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.