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?”