This video is a scam caller who called me back to ask what my YouTube channel is called.

He and his partner in crime called earlier to try to trick me into divulging information about myself, such as where I bank and approximately how much money I have in my accounts.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, a debt buyer and collection company owned by PRA Group, Inc., also made calls trying to gain information about me, even after I told them I have no debt and to quit calling me.

Instead of messing with them like I did with this caller, I sued for violations of the FDCPA and invasion of privacy.

PRA got the last laugh (so far) on that one. Trump appointed judge Lee Rudofsky threw my case out on summary judgment, meaning I did not get a jury trial. The Harvard educated judge also ordered me to pay over $8,000 of the scam caller’s costs. He even lied – flat out – that I said I owed the debt.

The Eighth Circuit justices said they agreed completely with Judge Rudofsky, but failed to elaborate at all on the reasons they disagreed with my full-length appellate brief and reply.

By this order and failure to reverse on appeal, the courts are ordering us to answer questions from scammers or expect the scammers to call us again until we comply with their demands for information.

A good question that was not addressed in Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates: If a person lies to a scam caller on a recorded line, can that lie be used against the recipient of the call in a court of law to prove the recipient is somehow less than honest?

Here are the aforementioned briefs and the Eighth Circuit Order affirming Rudofsky’s B.S. summary dismissal.