Portfolio Recovery Associates Dumps Numbers Then Lies About the Quantity of Calls They Made
Trump appointed judge Lee P. Rudofsky does not want a jury to hear the evidence in my case against Portfolio Recovery Associates who were collecting an alleged debt generated by Capital One. His last job was as attorney for Walmart and Walmart branded debt from Capital One Credit Cards is sold to Portfolio Recovery Associates.
It wouldn’t help his homeys if the PRA Group subsidiary was exposed.
I know for a fact that PRA made more calls to me than they listed on the call log they generated. I answered the calls. After I told PRA I was filing a lawsuit, all the calls stopped.
Never again did I receive the scripted call, “Hi this is [representative’s name or assumed name] calling on a recorded line for Laura Lynn.” Those calls had the same background noise, the same cadence, and similar neighbor spoofed numbers.
One of the reps told me PRA “owned” all the numbers it called from. I returned calls to those numbers and reached PRA. That changed after PRA produced the falsified phone records.
All of a sudden, none of the numbers worked any longer. PRA was too lazy and stupid to differentiate between the numbers it admitted to calling from and the numbers it actually called from but omitted from its records. It dumped all of them.
Many courts would consider that to be “spoliation” and give a negative inference against the party who destroyed the evidence. Not Judge Rudofsky.
Luckily, I recorded some of the calls to numbers that were on my telephone service provider’s records. My assistant who helped demonstrate that my phone worked made a boo boo. He accidently said it was February 2021. I hadn’t sued until after that, so it was 2022. The last calls from PRA came in February 2021.
If you found this blog because you are getting annoying calls from Portfolio Recovery Associates, hopefully you will learn from my experience. I should have documented even more. It would have been better for me if I wrote down each time I received a call or missed a call from the neighbor spoofed numbers. I should have recorded every one of the calls. I think there are programs you can get to record calls. I’m not great with technology as it is, so I haven’t learned to use any of those programs yet. I should have screenshot the call log on my phone more often and before the oldest numbers fell off the list.
Not that a judge like Lee P. Rudofsky will allow you to progress to a jury trial against PRA or any debt collector. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rubber stamps district court orders against pro se litigants. But if we can document intentional errors well enough, we can possibly stop the errant judges from reaching the Supreme Court.
Challenge to Discrimination Against Pro Se Litigants Heading to the Supreme Court
Debt buying Goliath Portfolio Recovery Associates rejected an offer to settle the case brought against them by me, a pro se litigant.
As promised, here is the offer: (I had to remove references that would disclose the settlement offer PRA made in mediation, even though they made statements in court documents about my lowest offer. They lied about my lowest offer, so maybe they will claim that it isn’t a breach of contract to say you are disclosing what is in a confidential mediation and then lie about it.)
Dear Counsel,
I am open to a settlement with your clients that is 1/10th my final offer in our mediation. It is also the amount [they offered to another person with similar complaints]. PRA must agree to vacate the judgment so as not to harm my credit rating.
Please see my recent FICO score of 803 from Experian, attached. (If I get to trial, I will use this as evidence of the magnitude of emotional distress PRA is causing me by the specter of bankruptcy that is inherent in prolonged litigation, especially for a low income person like myself who is likely to lose for lack of funds rather than lack of merit.)
The agreement should be simple and bilateral. There can be a nondisclosure agreement as to the amount of the settlement, but I will spend no time trying to remove anything I’ve already disclosed about the case from the internet or any other forum. Neither party will ever contact the other party, including to litigate. This means PRA will not try to collect on the judgment (which will be vacated anyhow) nor any alleged debts owed by me, past, present or future. There should be one exclusion, which is the enforcement of this settlement agreement.
It is against the odds that my petition for writ of cert is granted (as it is rare for any pro se petition to be granted), but if it is and I get to trial, I believe a jury will award an $82 million verdict.
This offer will increase by actual costs I incur on appeal to the Supreme Court and be automatically rescinded upon issuance of a writ.
Thank you for your client’s consideration,
Laura Hammett
**********
PRA responded:
FRE 408
Ms. Hammett,
My client rejects your demand. In exchange for a full release and settlement of all claims you have or may have against PRA, my client will forego collecting its taxable costs award of $8,356.18 and any interest accrued on this amount since it was entered on August 23, 2023.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Jim
***********
I rescinded my offer.
First glaring problem with PRA’s offer, PRA was collecting on an alleged debt with no documentation about how that debt was incurred. PRA can, by the terms it offered, sell the judgment to another PRA Group subsidiary. Then that debt buyer can come after me. My documentation won’t show the judgment was vacated.
The sneaky attorneys did not include an agreement that PRA will not sue me for anything else. They may try to get an award for costs of the appeal. Or they may come up with some other BS reason to sue me. They sue people often without any legitimate claim.
More importantly, PRA did exactly what I complained about, lied in court documents, had Judge Rudofsky lie in his written order, and PRA does similar things to hundreds of thousands of people. Just like they win by default in 90% of their collection cases, they know they can win in almost 100% of cases against pro se litigants, because most pro se litigants lose because of discriminatory court policies and practices.
Here is a quote from a pro se who reversed his criminal conviction obtained by the United States after going to the Supreme Court, Giridhar Sekhar. Talk about bringing down Goliath!
“I’m a little annoyed with the NDNY federal prosecutor Elizabeth Coombe who willfully put [an alleged perjurer] on the stand knowing that the admission was fabricated, but I think her karmic reward will be to forever be reminded by her colleagues that she was beaten at trial by a pro se defendant.”
Your Kind Words Inspire and Encourage Me to Continue to Fight for Justice for All
The judges at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals are incredibly disappointing. I know I need to petition the Supreme Court to try to effect changes that will give the rest of us (not the ones that control the money) hope. But a colonoscopy sounds better right now.
Then, like the songs of four little angels sent by God, these four readers’ comments were brought to my attention, a decade later.
They inspired and encouraged me to write and fight for justice again. Hopefully, even a grey-haired grandma can help the generations behind her.
Thank you for the love.
Pro se wisdom from a poker player
I was stressing on my Supreme Court bid against Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC and evil judge Lee P. Rudofsky. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit let the lower court get away with outright lies and hiding the evidence under seal. If SCOTUS doesn’t help, I will be bankrupt.
How ironic. A debt buyer tries to collect $2,297.63 from someone who has no debt. The alleged debtor sues PRA which causes them to immediately set the balance on the account they bought to zero. Then PRA tosses a bone at the poor woman to settle. The plaintiff insists on more money or going to a jury to decide what it is worth. PRA submits doctored records, lies about the plaintiff in certified court documents and offers lower and lower amounts to settle. Huh? Then the judge joins in on the lies, denies the opportunity to show even a jury the evidence and orders the pro se pensioner to pay for the goliath debt buyer’s litigation costs…even though she could not afford her own. The lawsuit sends the alleged debtor from an 803 FICO score to bankrupt.
When I heard the news the other day, that the appellate judges were going to stand behind Rudofsky with no explanation of why they disagreed with my well supported appeal, I felt like I got kicked in the gut. There is no winning for me. Paying the costs of their defense to the PRA Group company will bankrupt me. Settling for nothing means they got away with harassing another old lady and will do it again and again. But writing and publishing a petition for writ of certiorari will also bankrupt me, if I don’t win, and the chance of being one of the few cases chosen each year as a self-represented litigant approaches zero.
I was ready to quit. I made my rock bottom offer to PRA. (If they reject it, I will share the offer with you, my friends.)
Today I was scrolling through the Facebook page of another female poker player, Meg Chapman. She had these inspiring words to offer:
“If you’re worried about the cost of going for it, you should see the price of staying exactly where you are.”
We Have the Best Legal System Money Can Buy
The common citizen cannot afford to hire an attorney for representation in litigation.
The courts have both a systemic bias and personal judicial bias against the self-represented.
I am taking a case against debt buying goliath Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC to the Supreme Court of the United States to give SCOTUS the opportunity to discuss this bias.
Here are my questions, as a work in progress:
1) Whether the difference in treatment between pro se litigants and those who are represented by attorneys discriminates based on the distinction of property, as prohibited by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article two.
2) Whether an appearance of bias by the court, whether systemic or personal, creates a fundamental denial of due process.
The purpose of this appeal to our highest court is to procure basic tools of due process for We, the People, that are extended now only to the moneyed elite. These include access to electronic filing; access to original recordings of hearings; and public disclosure of all but the most sensitive evidence on which disposition of a case is based, whether that be by trial or by summary judgment.
Also, we should be able to introduce evidence of a defendant’s practices that was collected by a civil investigation of a regulatory agency such as the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) or in a prosecutorial action by an attorney general. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky and the Eighth Circuit judges do not find the discovery the public paid for to be relevant to an individual’s case. The courts expect anyone who wants justice to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars up front to reproduce the same discovery as done with taxpayer dollars.
Ironically, the Rules of the Supreme Court require technical compliance with the formatting and number of copies of the petition for writ of certiorari and then the briefs that is cost prohibitive for most people, including me. I have an 803 FICO score, but only bring in about $640 per month revenue. I doubt I qualify for in forma pauperis status, because it seems like the court expects a person to take on debt to proceed in court, and I am debt adverse.
Please consider helping with expenses, formatting the booklet, especially the appendix that must include about 100 orders, or legal representation. (Earn your quill!)
You can reach me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.
Perseveration v. Perseverance: How pro se litigants might channel ruminations
Do you notice that ever since you started representing yourself on that court case, your friends quit inviting you to dinner parties? Do you notice an increase in the frequency that your husband is nudging you and saying, “you didn’t hear a word I said?”
You may be a ruminating pro se litigant.
Here are a few things I do to stay present or monetize my ruminations.
- Repeat my mantras. “Work, don’t worry.” “Write, don’t ruminate.”
- Take a yoga break.
- Take a poker break, playing on my phone for fake money. (I’m worth $7,400,000 on Poker bros and billions on Zynga, 1,000 times the free tokens they gave me for seed money.)
Basically, find your passion, other than justice, and practice. When you find yourself thinking about justice, don’t leave the words in your head and don’t burden your friends and loved ones with them. Honestly, I don’t want to listen to my husband, the love of my life, talk about which lures are best to catch Kentuckies when the wind is coming from the North-East, and he doesn’t want to hear the play by play when I hero fold a flopped boat 10s over queens and see the guy who rivered aces over queens beat the guy who flopped a set. There are probably few people who want to hear about diversity of jurisdiction or SCOTUS defeating the Chevron Doctrine, either.
Luckily, you found me. I want to hear about your pro se case. So, write about it and send me a guest post for this blog to Bohemian_books@yahoo.com. Include PDFs of filed documents. Share with people who care.
Or write your thoughts into a “notes” document on your computer, to help you write court documents quicker, when they are required.
Or, try to put an end to the litigation. Write a reasonable offer to your opposing counsel. I am not an attorney and cannot give you legal advice. But I can share samples of my own writings with you. Here is a settlement offer I wrote today.
Dear Frank Polek, Nicholas Labor, Corinne Bertsche, Daniel Forde, Daniel Agle, and Keith Cochran,
I hope I included all defendants’ counsel. If you notice any missing, please share this offer.
My intention is to refile an improved and supplemented complaint and immediately motion the court for leave to name the attorney defendants. All in the proper jurisdiction, of course.
On the chance that the Court of Appeals erroneously claims diversity jurisdiction exists, they should rule in my favor on a substantial number of the issues on appeal. If they do not, I intend to file petition for writ of cert to file a suit in the Supreme Court that addresses parallel issues in my case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. Further, I will attack enforcement proceedings on all judgments for costs and fees collaterally to the extent they are void. This includes judgments on derivative claims advocated by someone unauthorized to practice law or obtained from a court who was without jurisdiction.
I prefer to settle. The orders must be vacated. I will agree not to pursue any claims against any defendants with the exclusion of issues pertaining to my father’s irrevocable trust. The defendants must make the same agreement not to pursue any claims against me.
The defendants can decide amongst themselves and their insurance companies how much each shall contribute. I will receive a total of $218,000 from all defendants, including Silver Strand Plaza (not a nominal defendant). The defendants shall jointly and severally receive nothing from me. ($0.00).
This offer is a huge concession on my part, as the defamation per se claims alone are potentially worth millions. The offer to purchase my shares authored by the Stern & Goldberg firm attorney, Ellis Stern, was approximately $218,000 and the actual value of my shares was at least $1,400,000. Each member was willing to rip me off for at least $1,182,000. Punitive damages on the breach of contract claims, which show the defendants were malicious, will probably be at least $1,182,000 per member.
Thank you for your consideration,
Laura Hammett
Judge Susan Weaver Considers it Threatening to Say You Will “File Stuff” Complaining About Her Job Performance
(Transcribed from a recording between pro se litigant Betty Figueroa and Faulkner County judicial clerk “Emma”) The Arkansas state police contacted Mrs. Figueroa and threatened to arrest her if she attended an Arkansas Bar Association function. Mrs. Figueroa is a member. Judge Susan Weaver did not want Mrs. Figueroa to attend.
Betty: She filed a report on me.
Emma: The last few times I’ve talked to you, you’ve said that if she doesn’t file a response, you’re going to take it to the Supreme Court, and that is a threat.
Betty said she was tape recording all their phone conversations.
Emma: Ok, well that’s great.
Emma, later: You threatening to file stuff against Judge Weaver is a threat.
So, if you need to appeal decisions made by the unethical judge, or report her to the JDDC, it seems prudent to just do it. No warning.
Unless you want the Arkansas SWAT to arrest you for peaceful assembly.
Another Stupid Attorney (and Corrupt Judge) Trick to Play on Pro Se Litigants
Pro se litigants, people who can’t afford attorney representation and file their case on their own, often get the sneaky suspicion that the court is teaming up with the opposing parties’ attorneys.
Are there brief cases full of cash exchanging hands? I haven’t seen any with my own eyes.
Are there lavish gifts or invites to shin-digs being given to the judges? Think Justice Clarence Thomas.
Is there a natural tendency to favor someone who belongs to the same club? Absolutely!
The document above is from a case that had judges and clerks allegedly colluding with six law firms and the defendants that included two more law firms against me.
But, you know me. As much as they cheated, I responded with logic, facts and law. My appellate brief was jam packed with valid reasons to overturn the vast majority of district court orders. If the Ninth Circuit refused justice, this was going to the Supremes.
Five years into the proceedings, the Ninth Circuit pointed out a Supreme Court case from 1990, authored by Justice Scalia and followed in every circuit, that says the federal courts did not have jurisdiction over my case. The proceedings are void. The orders must be vacated. It is a do-over.
This is very good for me! I basically won on appeal and get to start over in state court.
But what if I won the case against all odds? The defendants would all of a sudden remember the rule that destroyed jurisdiction and I would still need to start over.
The rule: One situation that allows federal court jurisdiction is when each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than each defendant. The tricky part is that an LLC, partnership or other unincorporated association is a citizen of each state of which each member is a citizen. I sued a limited liability company organized in California with all its business in California, and said it was a citizen of California. I am a citizen of Arkansas. Looked to me like we had diversity. But no! The LLC was also a citizen of Arkansas.
I am thrilled that all merit-based orders in the case must be vacated. (The federal courts can still police the participants for bad behavior, like direct contempt.) I would be more thrilled if the court did not waste five years of a bunch of people’s energy and other resources playing stupid games.
The judges on my case were well aware of the caselaw that told them they lacked jurisdiction. I found a few relevant cases they presided over on Westlaw.
The Attorney Defendants argued that I should still have to pay the bullshit attorney fee order the corrupt judges made and upheld, based on an anti-SLAPP motion. Here is an outtake of an order written by Judge Todd W. Robinson, one of the judge gang.
“Although the California Supreme Court has recently advised that a court may award attorneys’ fees and costs to the defendant pursuant to Section 425.16 where the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it did not hold that an award of fees is mandatory. See Barry v. State Bar of Cal., 2 Cal. 5th 318, 320–21, 329, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 124, 386 P.3d 788 (2017). Consequently, federal courts have denied—and continue to deny after Barry—as moot anti-SLAPP motions when the court has dismissed the underlying action on jurisdictional grounds. See, e.g., Newport Inv. Grp., LLC v. Cliett, No. SACV 18-01597-JVS(DFMx), 2019 WL 2424109, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) (declining to reach anti-SLAPP motion after concluding that dismissal was warranted for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2)); Williby v. Hearst Corp., No. 5:15-cv-02538-EJD, 2017 WL 1210036, at *1, *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) ( ); Sikhs for Justice, Inf. v. Facebook, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 3d 1088, 1097 (2015) (denying as moot anti-SLAPP motion after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims); Fortinos v. Sills, No. C 12-3828 MEJ, 2012 WL 5870681, at 5 & n.9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2012) (same); Ravet v. Solomon, Ward, Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP, No. 07 CV 0031 JM, 2007 WL 2088381, at *7 S.D. Cal. July 17, 2007 (same).” Williams v. Kula, Case No.: 20-CV-1120, ECF No. 76, TWR (AHG)(Signed 12/29/2020)
“Despite having a meritorious personal jurisdiction defense, Defendants filed duplicative—and voluminous—anti-SLAPP motions. Having prevailed on their Rule 12(b)(2) motions, Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions have ‘not achieve[d] any practical benefit’ aside from burdening the Court (and Plaintiffs) and menacing Plaintiffs with the specter of attorneys’ fees.” (Williams)
Judge Robinson ignored the jurisdictional issue on my case and upheld the bad order on the anti-SLAPP. The order was wrong for other reasons than the lack of jurisdiction. The difference between the two cases?
Guess first. Ok?
The defendants that Robinson chewed out were pro se. The defendants on my case were attorneys represented by attorneys. Robinson said those defendants were spot on. The plaintiffs that Robinson favored were represented by attorneys. I was a pro se plaintiff and the judge showed no concern whatsoever for the unethical legal strategies used against me, even though more egregious than in the Williams case.
Real Debate. Bobbie Kennedy is certainly the most intelligent and specific of the three presidential candidates who have a chance of winning.
First, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. had less time to speak than Biden and Trump. For some inexplicable reason, he was not given the rebuttal minute. I think that because of his neurological disability that makes speech difficult, he should have received more time, not less. (My experience is that when a person’s language center in his brain malfunctions it does not mean that person has impaired reasoning.)
My enthusiasm for RFK is dampened by perhaps petty annoyances. For instance, once I gave my telephone number to his campaign, it was difficult to get them to stop contacting me incessantly. Not nearly as hard as it was to get Portfolio Recovery Associates to stop calling me – I didn’t even threaten a lawsuit on RFK. I blocked one number and the campaign texts stopped. Whereas PRA had an endless number of lines to call from and blocking one number just made another number pop up.
It was not fair for Kennedy to have a live studio audience cheering for him, when the other two candidates did not get to use that cheap device for persuasion.
The meat of the issues though is which person has the best morality, intellect and health. Kennedy wins on all three.
RFK has fought for environmental protection and against big businesses. Biden is a career politician who has some shady deals going on with his son and billion-dollar foreign companies. Trump appointed Walmart counsel Lee P. Rudofsky to a lifetime position on the judiciary. Rudofsky apparently is using his position to encourage the nation’s second largest debt buyer, a customer of Walmart’s, to ignore its obligation to validate or verify the accuracy of the non-performing loans it buys before making collection calls.
RFK is an avid outdoorsman. Trump and Biden argued over who had the best golf skills. Golf is an elitist game reserved for people who can spend as much on a round as the rest of us spend for a week of groceries. We need public access to open spaces – not exclusive golf clubs.
If I was the judge of which of the three candidates is truly a man of faith, I would decide RFK. Is he without sin? No! Am I certain that he is running for office to fulfil God’s will for him? I am skeptical. I am 100% certain that the motivations driving Trump and Biden are ego, money and power.
RFK gave some real solutions for three problems closest to my heart. Trump and Biden made broad claims of superiority and slung invective epithets at each other.
On substance abusers, Kennedy intends to build free rural rehabilitation facilities. (I named my trust that Judge Susan Weaver pillaged “the Rural Revival Living Trust”. The property in the trust was meant to be used as a retreat for people who were having trouble coping in the city – and were willing to change.)
On childcare, Kennedy proposes using half the military budget to fund affordable options. He also endorses school choice, such as charter schools.
On corruption in government, presumably meaning the courts as well, RFK expressed zero tolerance for lying officials. Under Kennedy’s proposal, Lee P. Rudofsky would be fired. (See the unfinished series on this blog about Lee P. Rudofsky’s web of deceit.)
We should not base our vote on a person’s physical appearance, or even prowess. But dementia is a physiological ailment. Biden exhibits extreme signs of cognitive degeneration. My personal experience is that my “brain fog” was lifted by a drastic change in my diet and diligence in pursuit of better health. Biden is losing it. He has the finest free health care in the world, and the physicians have not had any success in reversing or even stopping the degenerative disease that seems to afflict our current head of state.
Hopefully Robert F. Kennedy is sincere. If he is, he is by far the best viable option for President.
It is worth your time to listen to the “Real Debate”.
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.
A Higher Law 