All the misstatements and outright lies told by Federal Judge Lee P. Rudofsky in his opinions on my case against debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC could not fit into a 13,000-word appellate brief.

Here I have no word limitation and no time constraint. It is the perfect place to expose the corrupt judge, hopefully blocking him from moving any further up the official court hierarchy.

Let’s start at the beginning of the order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Portfolio Recovery on all claims, docket number 173.

“CONSOLIDATED ORDER¹“

Judge Rudofsky made ample use of footnotes. There are two things I look for when I am digging for deception. One is footnotes. (You’ll need to return for the next installment to find the other indicator.)

Footnote 1: “The Court is issuing two versions of this Order. The Court will file a redacted version on the public record. The Court will file an unredacted version under seal. Only Ms. Hammett, PRA, LLC, and PRA, LLC’s counsel may view the unredacted version of this Order. Neither party may share the unredacted version with anyone else or reveal the contents of the redacted information. If there is an appeal in this matter, the unredacted version of this Order should be filed under seal with the Eighth Circuit, unless the Eighth Circuit concludes otherwise.”

Star Chamber anyone?

Judge Rudofsky denied my right to have a jury as fact finder, then he cloaked the supposed facts in secrecy.

Out of fear of incarceration, I will honor the judge’s order until, hopefully, the Eighth Circuit overturns it. (A news agency, citizen’s group or the Democratic Party might want to file a stand-alone suit asking for declaratory relief that the top-secret documents be unsealed.)

In the meantime, it is not contemptuous to tell you what is not in the blacked-out text.

Let’s look at the first block on page 4, footnote 30, referenced in the main body text:

“PRA, LLC also tried to contact Ms. Hammett by phone.³⁰“

sshhhhhhh. The blacked-out text is super-secret. What the judge shares publicly is that he pulled words or ideas from other documents. The first was from my response to PRA’s statement of facts, paragraph 36. The other secret sections are from PRA’s “Dreano” declaration as an exhibit to PRA’s statement of facts, all under seal.

Judge Rudofsky, in deciding that there were no genuine issues of material fact that preclude granting PRA’s motion for summary judgment, failed to acknowledge that I reasonably disputed the “facts” from PRA’s statement of facts that are under seal.

Rudofsky finished the footnote paragraph: “As will be discussed below, these processes are not full proof.” (Perhaps a Freudian slip for “fool proof”.) “In this case, for example, there are two occasions in which Ms. Hammett was called after 9:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.”

Judge Rudofsky himself let the cat out of the bag. He told the world that the blacked-out text discusses “processes” meant to deter the debt collector from calling after 9 p.m. The processes under seal were not full proof. They were not even partial proof. Nowhere under seal or publicized did PRA prove, nor did I admit that PRA maintained any procedures reasonably adapted to avoid calling after 9 p.m.

Judge Rudofsky said that “these processes” are not perfect. The implication is that they are reasonable.

I love math. I love teaching math. Weird. I know.

I love to “proof”, to figure out in which step someone went wrong to come up with the wrong answer.

“Oh! You added where you should have multiplied.”

From there out, my student could adapt his behavior, and multiply instead of add.

The sealed information did not explain why two calls were made outside the 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. time frame.

PRA never tried to figure out why they got the wrong answer. Therefore, they could not adapt the processes to be effective.

Don’t let Lee P. Rudofsky fool you into thinking there was a reasonable explanation where there was none.