We Need to Charge Every Public Servant Who Lies to Us
There must be honest, incorruptible people out there who are willing to take positions in government. We need an honest president, honest judges, honest police, honest administrators in public hospitals. And those that call themselves honest must stand up to the corrupt ones; allowing the corruption is dishonest.
I have serious issues with Donald Trump leading our country. But today, I want to share an interview with parents of a soldier who died under Biden’s watch. Biden lied straight faced to us during the presidential debate. He said no military personnel died while deployed on a mission.
I also have personal knowledge of voter fraud by democrats, not during the presidential election, but during an election right after. A childhood friend teaches film writing at UCLA. He grew up in California and his first home purchase was in California. He posted on Facebook that he signed up for absentee voting in Georgia. Almost 100 of his Facebook friends gave thumbs up and cheered. I told him this was dishonest. He unfriended me.
It comes from both sides of the aisle though. Republican appointed judge Lee P. Rudofsky acted worse than the Democratic party judge and prosecutors who were over the Trump trial. Rudofsky changed a pivotal sentence in one of my court documents by truncating a phrase that came after a comma. Then when I used this dishonesty as an example of the plethora of errors he made, the Harvard trained judge admitted the sentence was altered, but claimed the actual sentence was even worse for me. He did not explain how it was worse, because it wasn’t.
Speak the truth and the truth shall set you free.
Will the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Rehear Appeal to Benefit Pro Se Litigants?
Case No.: 23-2638, -3093, -3432
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC; DOES 1-99 Defendant-Appellees
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
No. 4:21-cv-00189-LPR
[] Lee P. Rudofsky, District Judge
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 35(b) Statement
The proceeding involves many questions of exceptional importance. (FRAP Rule 35(b)(1)(B)) This petition focuses on three.
- Whether pro se litigants with meritorious cases lose because of what appears to be a bias against them.
- Whether the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas discriminates systemically against litigants who can’t afford attorneys, by forbidding pro se litigants from filing electronically based solely upon class, instead of criteria that will allow everyone who is technically and ethically qualified access to this valuable tool.
- Whether the regulatory opinions resulting from civil investigations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are authoritative and may be used as evidence of the respondents’ practices.
The panel decision conflicts with the following decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions. (FRAP Rule 35(b)(1)(A))
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978), well settled.
“Common-law right of access to judicial records provides a measure of accountability to the public at large, which pays for the courts.”
- Whittington v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 21 F.4th 997, 1000 (8th Cir. 2021), well settled.
“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).”
- U.S. v. Melton, 738 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2013)
“The recusal statute sets forth an objective standard for assessing a judge’s duty to recuse: the question is whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the average person on the street who knows all the relevant facts of a case. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a).”
- U.S.A. v. Taleb Jawher, No. 22-2844 (8th Cir. 2023)
A party’s fabrication of business records exemplifies knowledge that the authentic evidence is adverse to that party. Extrapolating, spoliation of evidence gives a reasonable inference that the spoiled evidence is adverse to the party that altered or destroyed it.
- Friedman v. Farmer, 788 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2015), well settled.
“A district court ‘should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).”
Single Page Summary of Case Verbatim from Appellant’s Opening Brief
Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates’ willful and wanton violation of the FDCPA and a Consent Order injured me. The Court shrugged.
No justice against PRA’s extortionist enterprise was attained. The Court failed. PRA intruded upon my seclusion, annoyed, and harassed me. Adverse verdicts and settlements against PRA total over $130,000,000 for similar conduct. PRA’s spoliation of evidence shows it knew its pattern and practice was unacceptable.
I sent its calls to voicemail, blocked them, begged these strangers to stop and finally, in November 2020, acquiesced to answering questions on a recorded line. It didn’t help. My only option was to pay an invalid debt or file a lawsuit. I filed.
PRA sent a letter saying it “has concluded its investigation of your dispute and is closing your account” with a balance of zero. Eight months later, for the first time, PRA said the debt had been “waived”. But PRA chose not to issue a form 1099-C.
PRA was allowed to subpoena my entire physical and mental health record, despite the irrelevance, and published false, defamatory accusations against me.
The Court granted summary judgment based on insufficient discovery, PRA’s inadmissible evidence, and disregard of my evidence. The grant of summary judgment is reserved for exceptional cases, emphasizing the court’s preference for full trials and thorough examination of evidence. Please grant me a jury trial.
If it pleases this Court, I will attend oral argument for rebuttal and questions.
Panel Activity
This case was originally “Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges”, called here “The Panel”. Unlike another case The Panel agreed should be heard en bank, this is the perfect vehicle for answering “momentous” questions. (Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 853 F.3d 339, 359 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (Sykes, J., dissenting), as cited by STRAS, Circuit Judge, with whom GRUENDER, ERICKSON, GRASZ and KOBES, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Dylan Brandt, et al v. Leslie Rutledge, et al, No. 21-2875 (8th Cir. 2022)). “In light of the importance of the issue[s], and recognizing the power of the full court to overrule earlier decisions and to bring [Circuit] law into conformity with the Supreme Court’s teachings, a majority of the judges in regular active service voted to rehear this case en banc.” (Hively).
The Panel failed to correct errors that denied Hammett equality and transparency in proceedings. In doing so, they slammed the doors of justice on those who can’t afford an attorney and helped the District Court take back what he called an “unconstitutional power grab” by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). (Br. 72)
The panel decision was notably imprecise and devoid of explanation.
The Panel gave a 225-word opinion. The “reasoning”, omitting citations, amounts to this: “After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal in the other matters, we agree with the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis of Hammett’s claims; and we discern no error in the grant of costs. As to Hammett’s arguments challenging the district court’s rulings on a host of other issues, we find no basis for reversal.”
The Panel then disposed of motions to unseal the spoiled evidence prepared by PRA and recordings of hearings that were transcribed improperly on another Hammett pro se case thus: “We also deny her pending motions.”
Hammett intends to take this case, if not reversed, to the United States Supreme Court upon petition for writ of certiorari. They may have this to say:
“It is to be regretted, that the case referred to had not been more fully reported. As it is not preceded by any statement of facts, abstracts of the history and laws of this society, or the arguments of counsel, the insulated unexplained opinion of the Court, as it is printed, must be ever unintelligible to all descriptions of readers, except those whose professional duties lead them to the study of the novel and extensive institution whose interests are involved in it.” (Mutual Assur. Soc. V. Faxon, 19 U.S. 606, 1821 WL 2164, 5 L.Ed. 342, 6 Wheat. 606.)
The United States Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and reversed. “The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [decided] in a three-paragraph unpublished memorandum opinion. 389 Fed.Appx. 640 (2010). In so doing, the court did not discuss any specific facts or mention the reasoning of the other three courts that had rejected Jackson’s claim. Instead, after setting forth the basic background legal principles in the first two paragraphs, the Court of Appeals offered a one-sentence conclusory explanation for its decision:
‘The prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for peremptorily striking the two African–American jurors were not sufficient to counter the evidence of purposeful discrimination in light of the fact that two out of three prospective African–American jurors were stricken, and the record reflected different treatment of comparably situated jurors.’ Id., at 641.
“That decision is as inexplicable as it is unexplained. It is reversed.” (Felkner v. Jackson, 562 U.S. 594, 131 S.Ct. 1305, 179 L.Ed.2d 374.)
This Eighth Circuit decision is stark in comparison. Especially because the Ninth Circuit could look back on lower appellate court review. Hammett detailed with specificity the errors made sua sponte by the District Court, which will be touched upon in the sections titled “Consistency” and “Fairness”. The Panel failed to find specific flaws in Hammett’s rebuttal of the orders.
The Panel did not address Hammett’s argument about why her NOA of the order on her post judgment motion to revive a subpoena was timely. (Br. 24)
“Kuntz v. Rodenburg LLP, 838 F.3d 923, 924 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review)”, on summary judgment. Hammett gave specific citations to evidence that raised a genuine dispute of material facts in her brief.
“Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 853 F.3d 414, 431 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review)”, costs. The Panels citation refers to 28 U.S.C.A. §1920. This code makes taxation of costs discretionary by use of the word “may”. It is an abuse of discretion to charge any costs to Hammett when PRA agreed that it only agreed to a zero balance “in light of the litigation”.
Ironically, the Court gave PRA an excuse to resume collection activity.
The point should be moot when summary judgment orders are reversed.
A decision by the full court can provide a more comprehensive and authoritative ruling.
Rehearing en banc is crucial for maintaining judicial consistency and fairness.
Consistency
The robust citation to authorities throughout Hammett’s opening brief point to the inconsistencies with Eighth Circuit cases as well as cases nationwide. Of particular note are the $82M Jury Verdict Mejia case, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Guadelupe Mejia, 2016 WL 3460177 (Mo.App. W.D.) Appeal No. WD79175 (Br. 28, 57, 64, 67, 88 and Reply Br. 17, 31, 38, 39) and another pro se case called Green, Mazie Green v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Court of Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 0144-22-3, February 20, 2024 (Reply Br. 18, 19).
The CFPB investigated PRA twice. The first resulted In the Matter of Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 2015-CFPB-0023 [AKA Consent Order]. The CFPB found that the portfolios PRA bought before 2015, which might include the portfolio PRA claims it purchased from Capital One that purportedly had a line item for The Debt, were full of inaccuracies. PRA agreed to cease collections on debts like Hammett’s that lacked Old Account Level Documentation. (Br. 2)
Hammett filed her suit in early 2021, claiming that PRA violated the Consent Order by its conduct toward her.
In 2023, the CFPB filed a complaint against PRA that mimicked Hammett’s complaint, but said the bad conduct effected hundreds of thousands of consumers. (CFPB v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case 2:23-cv-00110, U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia [AKA CFPB Complaint and Stipulated Judgment]) (Br. 31, 63, 64, 70)
Pro se litigants are at a disadvantage. They do not have a formal legal education. Many are not gifted communicators.
The District Court noted that Hammett communicates well. She has a good lifetime record of staying out of court and prevailing when she is forced to resort to litigation pro se. Her case is a good vehicle to try to right some of the injustices that pro se litigants commonly suffer.
Hammett was denied the electronic filing tool by the Eastern District of Arkansas. It would make as much sense for the Court to demand Hammett brush off the typewriter she used in college and use it instead of a computer with a word processor. Or, like pro se inmates, hand write her documents.
Hammett was not allowed to hear the recording of a hearing she recalled quite differently than the transcript portrays it. It is common to allow attorneys to play back the recordings when they ask.
The Court participated in a cover-up of documentary evidence that is inconsistent. PRA clearly created a phone log that does not have all the calls on it, a communication log that has far fewer entries than the phone log and produced fewer recordings of calls than the number that were connected. Evidence used to make a summary judgment determination should be made public as if it was seen by a jury. Especially since the forms were produced in other cases.
The judge that was counsel to WalMart, who partners with Capital One on branded credit cards and who sells portfolios of debt to PRA, should have disclosed this relationship and recused himself.
Instead, the Court told numerous falsities, including truncating a sentence to bolster the lie that Hammett agreed she owed The Debt.
Petitioner-Appellant begs the Eighth Circuit to rehear this appeal, including two motions, en banc and to give a reasoned opinion as to why Hammett’s plethora of arguments presented in her briefs are wrong.
Respectfully submitted,
June 18, 2024 Laura Lynn Hammett
UPDATE (June 16, 2024) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals teaches Pro Se Litigant and the District Court Judges and $450 per Hour Attorneys: Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction – Order Must Be Vacated
In Hammett v. Sherman, et al, the court went to unprecedented lengths, sanctioning the unauthorized practice of law, to transfer assets from the pro se litigant to attorneys and their wealthy clients, also attorneys.
The case is on appeal in Federal Court. It is likely that the California State Courts would not allow this case to have proceeded. Allowing a derivative action advocated by a non-lawyer to proceed is tantamount to authorizing the advocate to practice law.
Here is a list of district court judges who insisted that the derivative case on behalf of Silver Strand Plaza, LLC proceed on the merits, even though it was filed by someone who is not an attorney.
Janis L. Sammartino, nominated by former President George W. Bush.
Todd W. Robinson, nominated by former President Donald Trump.
Linda Lopez, nominated by President Joseph Biden.
While researching for this blog post, I came across an interesting story about Judge Sammartino’s son, a convicted sex offender who had sex with his 17-year-old student while teaching at San Diego’s most prestigious private schools in 2020. It will be interesting to find more about how the 36-year-old judge’s son was treated by the court. Click here to read the story on the NYPost.
One “reason” the judge’s son gave for violating his young student was that he had a bike accident that caused a head injury. My son fell two stories onto his head, and though it caused brain damage to his speech center and hearing loss, his reasoning was not diminished at all, and was in fact improved. Of course, every injury is different, and each individual might respond differently, but I can just imagine Janis Sammartino and her lawyer friends sitting around coming up with this bullshit excuse. Why not attribute his bad conduct to seeing his unethical mother get away with her corruption and his resultant feeling of entitlement?
Also, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal brought a case to the attention of all litigants and asked for supplemental briefing.
Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990), a decades old SCOTUS case, decided that any entity other than a corporation, such as a limited partnership, is a citizen in each state where any member is a citizen. This includes even limited partners’ citizenship. That makes it impossible for the federal courts to take diversity jurisdiction. (I have not done all the research yet. My supplemental brief will be expounded upon.)
While digging into Carden, I realized that, without the derivative malpractice case against the attorney defendants, the remining damages against the attorney defendants fell far below the $75,000 minimum threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction. Those defendants should have been bifurcated out of the case six years ago, and the remaining conversion case sent to state court.
Jurisdictional problems should be brought up by the Court. Kudos to the Ninth Circuit for doing its job, even if they ignored the jurisdictional error for two previous bids at interlocutory appeal of the order for attorney fees on the anti-SLAPP motion brought by the attorney defendants and their $450 per hour attorneys.
Judge Sammartino, Judge Robinson, and Judge Lopez just wasted an insane amount of public and private resources by keeping the case active in the federal court system for over 300 documents. The Court of Appeals and a sickly old lady who is not an attorney had to school the team of highly paid attorneys and the team of corrupt judges.
Your tax dollars and your justice system at work.
Judge Susan Weaver Claims Expressing Intent to Appeal is a Criminal Threat on the Judge
This is unbelievable. But true. I’ve heard recordings that clearly substantiate the claims of pro se litigant and fellow Judge Weaver victim, Betty Figueroa.
Betty was terrorized. She says she was going to participate in a luncheon event given by the Arkansas Bar Association on Friday. Judge Weaver was slated to speak there.
According to the pro se litigant, Judge Weaver conveyed a message through the police department, that if Betty Figueroa attends the shindig, she will be arrested. Her alleged crime. Threatening the judge.
I heard a recording of Betty speaking to Judge Weaver’s clerk, Emma.
Betty: “She [Judge Susan Weaver] filed a report on me.”
Emma: “…the last few times I’ve talked to you you’ve said that if [Judge Weaver] doesn’t file a response [to a petition for writ of mandate Betty Figueroa filed in the circuit court] you’re going to take it to the Supreme Court, and that is a threat.”
Really? Inquiring if the petition for writ of mandamus to compel Judge Weaver to do her job at the circuit court needs to be filed in a higher court, or if Judge Weaver intends to agree to the requested conduct on her own is considered a “threat”? A threat worthy of arresting Mrs. Figueroa for, but only if she participates in a Bar Association event?
Yes, later in the conversation, Emma repeated quite clearly: “You threatening to file stuff against Judge Weaver is a threat.”
The ones who seem to be making criminal threats are Judge Susan Weaver and her goon patrol.
It gets more frustrating!
Mrs. Figueroa claims she reported the judge’s threats to the JDDC. Someone at the JDDC told her to report it to the prosecutor, according to Mrs. Figueroa. I heard the recording of Betty and the prosecutor’s discussion. The prosecutor told the alleged victim to report the threat to the police; the same police office that conveyed the threat for Judge Weaver.
I went to three different police departments to report Judge Weaver for colluding to fictionalize transcripts of hearings she presided over. I went to Searcy County, Faulkner County and Malvern. Each department refused to investigate. The Malvern officer told me that judges can do whatever they want, even lie in court.
Is there no one in the government who will stand up against this tyranny? Are there no lawyers willing to challenge Judge Weaver on appeal for her unethical and allegedly illegal conduct against pro se litigants?
What about you? What will you do?
Improved Questions for SCOTUS: Pro Se Fights Against the Lack of Transparency in Court
The lead case for this challenge to a common problem is Laura Lynn Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, et al.
Questions presented for review:
- Whether transparency, equal access to technology, and guarding the integrity of evidence in court proceedings is required to protect the due process rights of a class of people who are often denied equal protection because of their socio-economic class; Pro Se Litigants.
- Whether the regulatory opinions resulting from civil investigations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are authoritative and may be used as evidence of the respondents’ practices.
If court personnel, including clerks and judges, altered the record in a case in which you were an unrepresented litigant, you were denied permission to file electronically, or the judge ignored obvious incongruities in the represented parties’ evidence and you were self-represented, please post your case name, number and jurisdiction in the comments or contact me anonymously at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.
Your case may be included in a collection for an appendix to this petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States and if denied, the Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations.
Advocate Lucinda. Go ahead and preach.
Write In Candidate for President, Betty Figueroa, May Be Our Best Option
My readers know the angst the upcoming presidential election brings me.
RFK hits the nail on the head when he defines the problems with our current system and options. But does he provide an option that is different? I think not.
My personal standard of living has decreased during Biden’s reign. Court corruption has increased and there is little meaningful enforcement for anti-corruption laws that are already in place. (The Trump verdicts are encouraging; but we need to bring criminal charges against judges who violate individuals’ rights and hide behind judicial immunity to evade civil liability.) Still I was thinking of voting for Biden because none of his appointed judges have hit my radar for court corruption yet.
There is a new candidate that is my probable choice now. Yes, it is a “wasted” vote, because the chance she will win approaches zero. She does say exactly what I want to hear. We have met in person a couple times and she strikes me as authentic. What you see is what you get when you see Betty Figueroa.
Here is her campaign statement that she wrote with the help of the AI application Goodparty.org.
AI Campaign Plan
Your personalized plan powered by GoodParty.org GPT and our team of campaign experts.
Campaign Slogans:
1. “Real Change, Real Results”
2. “Transparency for All”
3. “From Struggle to Strength”
Personal Credentials:
I’m Betty Figueroa, an Independent candidate for President of the United States. While I don’t have a conventional occupation, I am always helping people and taking on new challenges. I enjoy fishing, music, and learning new things.
Motivation for running:
Having never been rich or handed anything, I understand what it means to be overlooked, not heard, and walked over. I can relate to the everyday struggles of the people and believe our system needs fixing. My experience as an advocate for people’s rights has shown me the importance of transparency and accountability in government.
Government ethics and anti-corruption measures: I am committed to promoting transparency in government decision-making to ensure it serves everyone, not just those with an agenda.
Police Accountability: I advocate for mandatory body cameras for all officers as a part of their uniform. These cameras should protect everyone, and any officer who tampers with them should face immediate termination and charges.
Differentiating Factors: Standing Apart in the Race
We’ve been lied to enough by presidents who have no firsthand experience with poverty or struggle. It’s time for a leader who knows what needs to be done and has the drive to get it done. I’ve had people released from jail and fought tirelessly for others’ rights. I bring a unique perspective and a genuine commitment to making meaningful changes.
Bio
### About Me: Hello, I’m Betty Figueroa, and I’m running for President of the United States as an Independent, non-partisan candidate. My journey to this point has been deeply rooted in my commitment to addressing critical issues that impact everyday Americans. My primary focus lies on government ethics, anti-corruption measures, and police accountability.
**Government Ethics and Anti-Corruption Measures** Transparency in government decision-making is essential. It should serve everyone’s interests, not just those of a privileged few. We are supposed to have a say in everything, yet often, we’re expected to follow orders without any input, especially the less fortunate among us. If you’re wealthy, you might not see this disparity, but it’s a reality for many. It’s time for a change where everyone’s voice is heard, and our freedoms are preserved.
**Police Accountability** Police accountability is another cornerstone of my campaign. I firmly believe that mandatory body cameras should be a part of every police officer’s uniform. These cameras protect everyone—both civilians and officers. An officer should not have the ability to turn it off, cover it, or block it in any way. Any violation of this should result in immediate termination and legal consequences. This measure is crucial for building trust and ensuring justice.
**A Voice for the Struggling** Our country has been lied to enough by politicians who seek votes without understanding the struggles of ordinary people. Many of them have been handed everything on a silver platter and have no idea what it means to be broke or overlooked. I know what it’s like to struggle in everyday life because I have lived it. My career has been enriched by my skills and achievements, like advocating for people’s rights and having individuals released from jail. I can relate to the people, and I believe our system needs fixing by someone who understands these challenges firsthand.
**Personal Touch**
On a personal note, I am always eager to help people, and I enjoy fishing, music, and learning new things. I’m always up for a challenge, which reflects my personality and commitment to our community’s betterment. Together, let’s make a change. It’s that simple. Thank you for considering me, Betty Figueroa, for President of the United States.
My Policies
Betty Figueroa for President
Independent / Non-partisan Candidate
Government Ethics and Anti-Corruption Measures
Promoting transparency in government decision-making
Ensure all government decisions and processes are transparent and accessible to the public.
Implement strict regulations to prevent conflicts of interest among government officials.
Develop a public online portal for real-time tracking of government spending and activities.
Police Accountability
Mandatory body cameras
Require all police officers to wear body cameras as part of their uniform.
Prohibit officers from turning off or obstructing body cameras, with immediate termination and legal consequences for violations.
Establish an independent oversight committee to review body camera footage and ensure accountability.
Addressing Poverty and Broken Systems
Real struggle in our State
Implement policies that address income inequality and provide support for low-income families.
Focus on educational reforms that offer equal opportunities for all, regardless of socio-economic background.
Develop community-based programs that offer job training, healthcare, and housing assistance to those in need.
It’s time for a change. It’s time for a person who has first-hand knowledge of what needs to be done and get it done. Betty Figueroa has the experience and vision to lead our nation towards a more transparent, accountable, and equitable future.
What I Will Say About Myself
As a dedicated advocate for government ethics and anti-corruption measures, my priority is promoting transparency in government decision-making. The transparency in government decision making should help everyone, not just serve agendas that take more of our freedoms. We are supposed to have a say in everything. The current system expects us to do what we’re told without a say, especially the poor. If you’re rich, you most likely won’t see these issues.
Police Accountability is another key issue. I support mandatory body cameras for all officers as a mandatory part of the uniform to protect everyone. Officers should not be able to turn these off. Any officer who covers, turns off, or blocks the camera should be terminated immediately and charged.
Transparency, accountability, broken systems, poverty, and real struggle in our State are my focus areas. We have been lied to enough by presidents just for a vote. People who don’t know a thing about being broke and have been hand-fed with a silver spoon can’t relate to the real struggles. It’s time for a change, for someone who has first-hand knowledge of what needs to be done to take over and get it done. It’s that simple.
Leveraging my experience in various skills, I have never been rich and was not handed anything. I know what it is like to be overlooked, not heard, and walked over. I can relate to the people. I also believe that our system needs fixing. A person who knows first-hand what it’s like to struggle in everyday life is essential. I have had people released from jail and have been an advocate for people’s rights.
What I Will Say About My Opponent
Unlike Joe Biden and Donald Trump, my approach to government ethics and anti-corruption measures is grounded in promoting transparency in government decision-making. The current system’s transparency should help everyone, not just serve specific agendas that take more of our freedoms. We need to ensure everyone has a say, not just the wealthy.
On the issue of Police Accountability, I support mandatory body cameras as a mandatory part of the uniform to protect everyone. Officers should not be able to turn these off, and any officer who covers, turns off, or blocks the camera should be terminated immediately and charged. This ensures transparency and accountability, which are lacking in the current system.
Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s approaches are often rooted in traditional politics, which have failed to address these critical issues effectively. My hands-on experience in dealing with real struggles ensures practical and realistic solutions for our community.
What My Opponent Will Say About Me
Joe Biden and Donald Trump may argue that my unconventional background and approach do not align with traditional political strategies. They might claim that my lack of a longstanding political career is a disadvantage. However, I believe that innovative solutions are what our community needs. My experience in advocating for people’s rights, having people released from jail, and understanding the struggles of everyday life make me uniquely qualified to bring about the change we need.
What My Opponent Will Say About Themselves
Joe Biden and Donald Trump will likely emphasize their longstanding political careers, positioning themselves as traditional choices for President of the United States. They will highlight their experience in handling national and international issues, portraying themselves as seasoned leaders capable of maintaining stability and continuity. However, it’s time for a change, for someone who has a fresh perspective and a deep understanding of the real struggles faced by ordinary people.
About the Candidate and Race
In this exciting race for President of the United States, Betty Figueroa’s unique background as an advocate for people’s rights and her personal flair, shown in her passion for helping people, fishing, music, and learning new things, stand against the campaigns of Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The election on November 11, 2024, will be a pivotal moment for our nation, offering a choice between traditional political approaches and a fresh perspective grounded in real-life experience and practical solutions.
***********************
If you don’t see any option for real change, consider writing in “Betty Figueroa” for president.
Do I really think Betty Figueroa is the best person in this country for the position? NO! This is parody. I thought it was a joke also when I heard Donald Trump was running.
Why I Can’t vote for a walking douche-bag instead of a turd sandwich for President: Their record on judicial appointments
My enthusiasm for the Other Candidate RFK waned when his campaign failed to heed my requests to stop receiving text requests for donations. It was also troubling that Mr. Kennedy was offering to meet personally with donors who were able to give $6,000 to his campaign. Not exactly a populist practice.
Other Candidate Cornel West is a genius and authentic. But he is a little too “green” for me and, while I could overlook our different leanings, he has no chance of winning.
UPDATE:
If I thought our country doomed under the rule of Joseph Biden and Donald Trump equally, I might waste my vote and check off the Libertarian candidate, Chase Oliver. But there is one issue in which Biden stands out against Trump. Trump chooses pro-big business, anti-individual judges. Worse, Trump judges like Lee P. Rudofsky are corrupt and Trump appointed circuit judges like Ralph Erickson and David Stras turn a blind eye to the corruption.
I have run into corrupt judges who were appointed by Democrat presidents, also, but never one appointed by Biden. Maybe that is because I am in a Republican state and circuit. I do have a lingering case in Dem run California and of the numerous judges involved, none are Biden appointees.
Biden nominated corrupt judge Linda Lopez to her position as a federal district court judge. Alas, I think our nation is doomed.
I might need to waste my vote on the Libertarian candidate or write in a random person. I thought it clever for one Libertarian delegate to vote for Stormy Daniels.
A Higher Law 