People Just Don’t Read as Much as They Used To
Something I have just skimmed through and thought about but haven’t pursued enough is using YouTube to gain public awareness of the corrupt court conduct in our country.
YouTube, I hear from friends, has the potential of generating income. Not riches, necessarily, but enough to supplement an average income or maybe pay the expenses of litigation.
There are some channels that receive a million views per week. I watched the body cam footage of the police officer murdering Sonya Massey on Police Activity, along with a million other people. It might be as simple as putting in a Freedom of Information Act request for the footage that draws so many viewers and does a great service for the public.
Here are a few of my own YouTube videos:
Help Wanted! Plaintiff Advocates for Equal Justice for Ordinary People, Please Apply.
This pro se case is heading to SCOTUS with a petition for writ of cert. I am looking for an attorney who wants to argue at the Supreme Court. The attorney should be freshly licensed or have a record of advocating for the poor and middle-class against big business,
Here is a summary of the case I drafted today, with an eye on the Supreme Court Justices as the audience.
If you are interested and able, please contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com with the best time to call you.
In September 2015, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the second largest debt buyer in the United States, entered into a consent agreement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). This agreement came after the CFPB investigated the company’s practices. As part of this investigation, Portfolio Recovery Associates submitted data in response to a Civil Investigation Demand issued by the CFPB. Upon reviewing this data, the CFPB concluded that many of the debts purchased by Portfolio Recovery Associates prior to this investigation contained numerous errors. In the consent agreement, Portfolio Recovery Associates acknowledged the CFPB’s interpretation of the data and agreed to address the identified issues by ceasing collection of alleged debts that lacked Original Account Level Documentation (“OALD”).
Laura Lynn Hammett was an alleged debtor on a list of debts allegedly purchased by PRA from Capital One Bank, USA [get exact name]. During discovery on this Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and state tort case, there was no mention of the Debt on the purchase agreement or any other documentation about the purchase submitted by PRA. Portfolio Recovery Associates claimed it had no OALD of the alleged $2,297.63 it tried to collect from Hammett both before and after the Consent Agreement was signed.
Contradictory to the Defendant’s claim, business records generated by PRA and produced in discovery indicated there were several pieces of OALD. PRA chose not to disclose those. This spoliation of evidence should have supported an inference against PRA, that the OALD shows the Debt to be inaccurate.
Eight months into the case, PRA said it found a single credit card statement. The statement had been sent to an address where Hammett did not receive mail, and lacked any indication of by whom, on what and where charges on the account were made.
In 2023, the CFPB and Portfolio Recovery Associates agreed that PRA violated the consent agreement against hundreds of thousands of alleged debtors, such as Hammett.
The Court based grant of summary judgement in favor of PRA on the single piece of the otherwise missing puzzle and a single sentence written by Hammett that the Court truncated shamelessly to alter the meaning. The Court said Hammett agreed that she owed the Debt. Hammett actually said repeatedly that she did not owe the Debt! The Court rejected the evidence of general inaccuracies in the debts purchased by PRA as collected and analyzed by the CFPB.
Hammett’s income is below the poverty level, but her FICO score was 803 at last glance, an exceptional score. Hammett could borrow about $8,000 to fund litigation. PRA has a line of credit of [_billion?__]. Hammett anticipated being able to hold depositions of officers of PRA and the CFPB with borrowed funds, that would be returned upon resolution of the case.
Hammett’s ability to afford depositions was destroyed when the Court denied her motion to file electronically. The cost of printing her documents in quadruplicate and delivering them to the courthouse in another county would cost about $8,000. (It also exposed Hammett to COVID, which she contracted during the proceedings.) Hammett, who is a fiscal conservative, could no longer afford depositions.
Hammett used a Freedom of Information Act request to the CFPB to obtain the records of her alleged Debt and the other Capital One debts supposedly purchased by PRA. The CFPB claimed all the information in its CID was confidential. Because PRA demanded confidentiality of the data it provided to the CFPB despite the negative treatment by the CFPB, the analysis of that data should be deemed accurate. If it was inaccurate, PRA should want that known.
PRA generated documentation, its communications log, call history, and a low-level representative’s policy and procedure manual, for Hammett’s case. The Court overlooked the discrepancies between PRA’s own records and found for the debt collector. Yet PRA demanded confidentiality of that data, as well, and the Court approved PRA’s demand.
The CFPB is paid for by public funds. It is tasked with protecting the public from unscrupulous debt collectors including Portfolio Recovery Associates. The Court is obviously not as adept at analyzing financial data as the CFPB. The Court acknowledged that he is not an expert and that his wife handles the finances in his house. [Find quote in hearing at courthouse]
The Court’s concurrence with a statement issued by the Arkansas Attorney General when the Court was Arkansas Solicitor General, saying the CFPB was on an unconstitutional power grab, gives the appearance that the Court would not want to give due weight to the evidence as analyzed by the public agency.
The Court’s last employment before taking a seat on the bench was as counsel to Walmart. Capital One issues Walmart branded credit cards. A significant dollar amount of Walmart branded credit is sold to PRA. Neither the District Court nor the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found this to create a conflict that reasonably can appear as a bias in favor of the purported present owner of the Capital One Debt and against the pro se litigant. But they should have.
This case is the perfect extension of Loper, which overturned Chevron. We know the Supreme Court’s opinion is that deference to regulatory agency interpretation of law does not need to be given. But what about the facts? The Court should give deference to the regulatory agency’s interpretation of facts collected with public dollars when one of the public presents the interpretation as evidence in private litigation.
While we have the Supreme Court’s ear, this is the perfect case to decide whether the Court is discriminating against a class of people, albeit the majority class, that can’t afford attorney representation.
How Does a Pro Se Litigant Publish a Document on Westlaw?
Thomson-Reuters’ Westlaw is a comprehensive legal research database. It has a robust search engine function that uses Boolean or natural language inquiries. It is a primary source of research for attorneys.
Most Appellate decisions are posted as caselaw. Some lower court orders are also posted. The documents I find most helpful are the small section of trial court documents.
Westlaw may post documents pro se litigants email to them. They posted most I sent. If I had unlimited time or a clerk-assistant, I would send all of them.
My suggestion for today is to email your file stamped motion for recusal to west.briefsandtrialdocsubmissions@thomson.com. Put “Trial Court Docs” in the subject. I add a simple note, such as “Please include the attached Reply to Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Thank you, Laura Hammett”.
Share your experience with the public. Let others decide if your judge is acting ethically or not.
Please also email a copy to me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com. If I site it in my petition for writ of cert to SCOTUS, discussing the issue of discriminatory practices against pro se litigants, you can feel confident that your motion is good enough to publish on Westlaw.
Write: Don’t Ruminate
The injustices done to ordinary people by some who are supposed to provide law and order is jaw dropping. Look at the video of the killing of Sonya Massey.
What can you do if you are the victim of this kind of injustice? Or if you want to be part of the solution?
Write; don’t ruminate.
Write a blog. You might not reach millions of readers, but you will reach some. Look, I reached you.
Write emails to news agencies.
Write to elected officials.
Write complaints that you can file in court.
The pen used to be mightier than the sword. With the invention of the internet, how much more so is the power of the keyboard?
Write.
Brainstorming Ways for Pro Se Litigants to Defend Against Discriminatory Judges
Here are four more ideas to explore and extrapolate on next week:
- Write; Don’t Ruminate.
- Submit documents to Westlaw for publication.
- Use YouTube.
- Respond to other people’s blogs.
Now, here is my most difficult suggestion. Don’t do anything at all. Just for the weekend.
God told us to take a break. God’s pretty smart.
Many pro se litigants, especially those who lose their children because of a biased judge, become obsessed with seeking justice. Many lives fall apart, and some are even lost.
Please learn to refocus for a couple days. You don’t need to be in a church building or sitting on a mountaintop, though both those options work.
You might try reading the Bible, having a self-care day, or participating in a hobby you used to love.
If the day or days that work for you are Saturday and Sunday, I pray the next two days of rest bring you peace and love.
Is the Right to a Fair, Impartial Judge a Civil Liberty? Ask the ACLU.
You are having trouble representing yourself in court because your judge appears to favor your opponent, one who is represented by an attorney.
Maybe the ACLU can help.
The common acronym stands for the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU is an organization in the United States dedicated to defending and preserving the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
When ordinary people are denied due process and equal justice because they cannot retain an attorney, and the judge favors the represented party out of cronyism, there is no justice.
The ACLU might not be able to help each pro se litigant, but if many of us fill out the brief intake form on the ACLU website, perhaps the preeminent public service organization will choose a case that reflects all the others.
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Extends Quasi-Judicial Immunity to Other Court Personnel
There is a legitimate purpose for Judicial Immunity, but making it “absolute” creates a dictatorship, fascist government, you choose the phrase. Judges can do no wrong. Seriously, if a judge is on the bench and shoots a litigant in the face, there would probably be no civil recourse.
Good luck trying to get the prosecutors and police officers who cow-tow to the judges to ever investigate or charge a judge for a crime.
Now the absolute immunity is extended to police, court reporters and clerks.
Read this opinion coming out of the Eighth Circuit.
Personally, I’ve tried to draw attention to corrupt acts by court reporter Jana Perry and Clerk “JPP” in Southern California District Court. I was too ill and spread too thin to pursue the case against Clerk JPP, but see now it would be a waste of time anyhow.
Institute for Justice Champions the Cause of the Commoner Against Government Misconduct
If you are pro se because you can’t afford an attorney to represent you and legal aid refused your case for any one of a myriad of reasons, give Institute for Justice a try. http://www.IJ.Org.
IJ can’t take every case. When they decline though, they are the most gracious of any firm I have contacted.
IJ is not afraid to go all the way to the Supreme Court and beyond. They often win. This is what they say about their losses:
Even when IJ loses—which has happened only twice—we keep fighting to change the law and get justice for our clients. Following a technical win for the government, James King is still in court, with IJ by his side, fighting to hold accountable the Michigan police officer and FBI agent who misidentified him, beat him, and then lied to make sure he was charged with crimes. And after the Supreme Court ruled private developers could take Susette Kelo’s little pink house, IJ created a grassroots movement for reform and continued to win eminent domain abuse cases in state supreme courts. In the wake of the Court’s widely decried decision, almost every state changed its laws to make it harder for the government to take property and give it to private developers.
What can I do when a judge seems to be working for the other party?
There are many reasons a judge may favor one party over another. Judges are human. We all have biases. Accepting Judeo-Christian teaching as truth, we all sin.
Did the opposing attorney walk into your judge’s chambers with a briefcase full of cash and leave without one?
Is your judge an Instrument of the shadowy cabal funded by dark money that is determined to do the bidding of an oligarchy?
Did your “family law” judge appoint a man to decide what is in the best interest of your children who openly approves of unprotected homosexual encounters with strangers and posted pictures of himself looking down the pants of a questionably under-aged boy?
Does your judge have a financial interest in the facility in which he incarcerated you?
I’ve seen all four of these scenarios play out.
To me, a reasonable person, each of these scenarios gives the judicial officer an appearance of bias. Yet, none of the judges was removed in response to a motion to recuse.
Having a judge show favoritism to the other party denies the most fundamental constitutional right to due process and equal protection.
Many jurisdictions will allow a person to recuse one judge from the case without cause. Unfortunately, most pro se litigants don’t have enough experience or even interest in what way each judge leans. The free pass usually expires once the judge makes a substantive interlocutory order. So once the self-represented litigant finds out he was marked as loser before the games began, it is too late to have the judge removed without a major effort.
Personally, I have filed several motions for recusal of judges. (You can download some samples below.) I think only one was granted. That was based on the judge having recused himself from the case once before, without any request from me. About a year after the biased judge’s voluntary recusal, the judge who took over decided to retire. The admittedly biased judge was appointed again, and this time did not voluntarily step down. He needed a nudge.
I filed a motion to recuse Commissioner Alan Friedenthal. My motion was denied. Years later, the California Supreme Court agreed with the Commission on Judicial Performance that Friedenthal appeared to be biased and embroiled in the case. (See yesterday’s post about filing a complaint with the judicial ethics commissions.)
But acknowledgment of an ethics violation does not automatically reverse the unfair decisions. I went all the way through the U.S. Supreme Court and Friedenthal’s life devastating orders were never unwound.
My complaint to the next level, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights did not land on deaf ears. Unfortunately, the UNHCHR is, like the judicial ethics commissions, a toothless tiger, and a slow old cat at that. They are all we have, so appeal to them, but any changes made to the system will be politically correct, super subtle, and slow.
There have been times where I filed a formal motion for recusal that was denied, but the judge was transferred to another assignment. Again, there never was a do over, and sometimes the replacement was more evil than the original, but there is some small gratification thinking the powers that be made an effort to limit the damages.
So, my friendly, non-legal advice is to take the next right step: write and file your motion for recusal. Just don’t get your hopes up that the corrupt judge will suddenly be struck by a bolt of integrity lightning or swallow a potion of honesty.
In the following appellate brief, the issue of recusal of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky was brought up for the first time on appeal. This motion is found at page 70 to 75. The volume and obviousness of the errors on the merits contributes to the appearance of bias that might cause the public to question the integrity of the court.
How a Pro Se Litigant Can Complain About Judicial Ethics Violations
“Won’t the judge get really pissed if I turn him in?”
My fellow self-represented litigant, be bold.
After all, you searched out this information because the judge is already treating you unfairly, favoring the party who is represented by attorneys. You did not try to find an unethical judge when you filed a case. And if someone else is suing you, you definitely did not hope to come across a cheat in a black robe. You hoped for a quick and economical path to justice. The judge is the one who chose to cause trouble and the judge will take as many of your rights from you as the thug can get away with. Fight back.
Statistically, most of the ethics complaints will be determined in favor of the judge. One of my complaints resulted in a “severe” public admonishment against the judicial officer, Commissioner Alan H. Friedenthal, deceased. There were private disciplinary actions taken that are consistent with complaints I filed against Judge Elizabeth Feffer (doing arbitrations, last I checked) and Judge Marjorie Steinberg (who retired in 2011).
If your judge is in Federal Court, find information here.
“The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(link is external), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364, establishes a process by which any person can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” or has become, by reason of a mental or physical disability, “unable to discharge all the duties” of the judicial office.
“The Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (pdf), as amended on March 12, 2019, provide mandatory and nationally uniform provisions governing the substantive and procedural aspects of judicial conduct and disability proceedings under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.
“The judicial conduct and disability review process cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a judge’s decision in a case. A judicial decision that is unfavorable to a litigant does not alone establish misconduct or a disability.”
To put it in the vernacular, an ethics complaint must address corruption, not stupidity. The way I prevailed on my complaint against Alan Friedenthal is that he was both corrupt and stupid. He made a statement in open court, in front of an honest court reporter, proudly revealing that he was reading this blog.
Here is what I wrote to the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. It was early in the case. The JDDC ruled in favor of Judge Susan Weaver and this only emboldened her. You can download the appeal written years later, which discusses amongst other things, how the transcript of the hearing discussed in the JDDC complaint was fictionalized by Court Reporter Jana Perry. There has yet to be a publication of the actual audio recording.
A Higher Law 