Family that had Daughter Medically Kidnapped Awarded $261M Verdict – presented by Steve Lehto
This is not a case about a corrupt judge. It is a case about Corporate America, and worse, a major medical entity, keeping a family in court for years instead of allowing a jury to hear the case and decide damages reasonably.
Many of my readers from the early years had their children kept away from them with no more purpose than Maya’s family was separated. It is tragic.
No amount of money can compensate for the harm that was done. But we can celebrate this victory as it may deter others from using innocent children to generate income for the child-custody-cottage-industry.
Light and Love,
Laura
Don’t Drop the Hot Cup. How to Handle a Corrupt Officer of the Court.
Yoga is a wonderful tool to regain or maintain serenity in your life, even when all around you are bent on working havoc.
Travis Eliot told a Zen story during my practice this morning. It is about a student who was holding onto pain. The Zen Master handed him a cup and poured boiling hot tea inside. The Teacher told the student to hold the cup; do not let go.
Eventually, the boiling hot water in the cup burned the student’s hands so badly, he dropped the cup. It hit the floor, smashing into pieces.
The Zen Master said, “see, it is not so difficult to let go.”
The story is well taken; but I don’t think “letting go” is the answer to the pain that corrupt judges and lawyers cause.
There is a way to set the cup down gently, and let it cool off. Then you can sip in the often-medicinal brew.
There is a paradox created when Corporate America causes angst in the common person, the kind of person who can’t afford an attorney.
The commoner must represent himself in court but is stressed out already.
My experience is that judges won’t give pro se litigant’s time to recover from mental or physical illness before proceeding. If an attorney for the moneyed elite falls ill, no problem. There are other attorneys in the firm that can step in. Sometimes the judge will allow an attorney time to recover from illness or even to handle family issues. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky did not heed my pleas for time to heal, but when attorney James Trefil’s wife was in the hospital, the judge allowed him an extension without a motion (just email), reasoning Mr. Trefil knew the case better than his co-counsel from Troutman Pepper and Rose Law Firm. I once asked Judge Linda Lopez for an extension by email, because I was extremely ill. Judge Lopez said she was ignoring the request because I did not file a proper motion.
My suggestion to pro se litigants who are struggling with stress or debilitating fatigue is to make a formal motion for a stay. I know, how can you write even a simple one paragraph document if you can’t lift your head off the pillow? I don’t know if the law will allow for the stay, but I know that you should document each issue to preserve it for appeal.
Maybe a pro se litigant can bring the question up to the Supreme Court. Is a mentally or physically ill pro se litigant represented by incompetent counsel?
Much health. Much wealth. Much love.
Laura
A Moment to Vent About Judge Lee P. Rudofsky
My appellate brief challenging Trump appointed Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s asinine rulings is due November 27th.
Here are a couple lines that I mean to leave on the cutting room floor. God give me strength.
“The Court is ridiculous.”
I’m discussing the judge’s apologetics for debt collector PRA continuing to call me over a hundred times after I told them to stop calling. More like “STOP CALLING.”
Lee Rudofsky: “PRA, LLC didn’t know who was telling it to stop calling.”
Oooooh! Okay, Lee. All I had to do was give them my name, address and last four of my social, and they would say “thank you, have a nice day.” I’d never hear from them again.
“Are you a fricking moron?” cut. cut. don’t print that.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, Debt Collectors and the Lack of Integrity in Our Courts
Missing y’all.
My appellate deadline to file a brief challenging the majority of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s orders on my case against a PRA Group subsidiary was extended to November 27th. Using the extra time to edit and edit again makes the difference between filing a good brief and a make-them-want-to-cry-and-suck-their-collective-thumb brief.
Here is another sneak peek. It is my required a one-page summary of the 287-docket entries in the case.
Summary of the Case and Willingness to Participate in Oral Argument
PRA and the Court do not want the public to hear the facts of this case.
PRA intended to extort payment of a debt I did not owe by annoying and harassing me with incessant, disturbing phone calls.
PRA’s intrusion upon my seclusion was outrageous. Adverse verdicts and settlements against PRA total over $130,000,000. PRA’s spoliation and secreting of evidence shows the company knew its calling pattern was unacceptable.
I sent possibly thousands of calls to voicemail, blocked calls, begged these strangers to stop calling and finally acquiesced to answering questions on a recorded line. The only way to stop PRA was to pay an invalid debt or file a lawsuit. I filed a lawsuit. With no offer, stated waiver or cancellation, PRA agreed the balance was zero. 8.5 months later, PRA swore the correction was a “waiver”.
PRA continued to harass me throughout the proceedings, using the same illegal and unethical litigation tactics that my therapists documented as PTSD stressors. The Court upheld PRA’s subpoenas of my utterly irrelevant sexual history.
The Court denied me equal protection, misstated evidence, misquoted me, denied my discovery motions and allowed PRA to spoil evidence. The Court granted summary judgment based on negative inferences against me, the non-moving party, and ordered me to pay PRA four times the fraudulent Debt in costs.
If it pleases this Court, I will attend oral argument for rebuttal and questions.
More Time than Words to List All the Lies by Federal District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky
The due date for the brief of appeal of Judge Rudofsky’s orders in a case against PRA Group, Inc. subsidiary Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC was extended until November 27, 2023.
The problem is that the length limit was not extended past 13,000 words.
Hopefully the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals looks into the record on its own and finds the clear errors that get left on the cutting room floor. (You can read about the left behind lies on this blog and in an upcoming book.)
It doesn’t take a Harvard Law School graduate to detect the fraudulent statements made by the Federalist Society Grand Poobah. If the clerks at the 8th are too busy to help, they can send copies of the record to a local prison and let some of the common criminals play a game of find-the-fudge.
I still have 3,000 words to write, so ciao for now.
Turn Writing an Appeal into Bite Size Pieces
When you run into a corrupt judge like Lee P. Rudofsky or Arkansas Circuit Court Judge Susan Weaver, chances are good you will need to take your case to appeal.
This is not legal advice. I am not a licensed attorney.
This is writing advice.
Organize your files and create an outline for your appeal.
Ideally you start the case with organization.
Make a paper copy of each document and file it chronologically. It is easier on your eyes to read and you can add sticky notes as you read through in the first sitting.
Keep an electronic file with each document, using unique names. Instead of “Motion” call it “motion unseal” or “motion settle record”. That way you can search for a file easier. I use the docket number first, so the file is automatically ordered chronilogically.
To keep your thoughts organized at the appellate brief writing stage, start with an outline.
The outline is not set in stone. My appellate brief against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is due in five days and I am still adding to and refining the outline.
Here is a sneak peek.
A .Jurisdictional Statement
B. Statement of Issues
- The Court erred by granting PRA’s motion and supplemental motion for summary judgment.
- The Court erred by failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest that creates the appearance of bias.
- The Court abused its discretion by denying Hammett access to electronic filing.
- The Court erred by denying Hammett’s Motion to Extend and Compel Discovery or Sanctions Against PRA (R. Doc. 97, supported by R. Doc. 99 and 100), and other evidentiary objections and requests for sanctions.
V. The Court erred by granting PRA’s motion for costs.
VI. The Court erred by denying Hammett leave to amend
VII. The Court erred by refusing to strike PRA’s defamatory comments that violate FRCP Rule 11 and grant sanctions.
VIII. The Court erred by denying public access to any and all documents PRA designated “confidential” or filed under seal.
C. Statement of the Case
a) Facts
b) Procedural History
c) Rulings Presented for Review
D. Summary of the Argument
E. Argument
I. The Court erred by granting PRA’s motion and supplemental motion for summary judgment.
A. Standard of Review
B. The Court erred by determining Hammett had no damages
C. All PRA’s communications were communications in connection with the collection of a debt.
D. The Court erred by agreeing the Debt was waived.
E. Hammett genuinely disputed the Debt.
1. Hammett verified her original complaint.
2. “Hammett DENIES that she opened an account ending in -6049” under penalty of perjury.
3. The Court misstated Hammett by taking one phrase out of context, truncating again to fit his narrative. “Ms. Hammett concedes that she “probably” opened a Capital One account in 2001.
F. Hammett has a genuine dispute of material fact about PRA’s documentation.
1. “Declaration of Meryl Dreano ¶ 8 [regarding authenticity of the Statement] is inadmissible hearsay.
2. “Capital One did not make any assurance of the accuracy of the ‘load data’ and the ‘-6049 Account’ was not mentioned in the Capital One affidavit and bill of sale.”
3. The Data Load shows the account was paid on time from 2001 to 2010. The “last payment” in 2010 was $0.00, so there was no balance at the “last payment”. The interest rate was 0%. This makes PRA’s evidence incredible.
4. When PRA completed its investigation, there was no account documentation.
5. The Account was purchased before the Consent Agreement with the CFPB and is likely from a portfolio that was riddled with errors.
6. The data load document is impermissible as evidence.
7. The Account was crossed with Laura Lyman’s account at least once.
8. The data makes no sense.
9. The PRANet record and the self-generated phone log are inconsistent with each other.
G. Hammett has a genuine dispute that if an account she opened was used and not paid off in full, it was a fraudulent use.
H. The Court made numerous egregious errors in the Orders granting Summary Judgement to PRA and denying partial summary judgment to Hammett. (R. Doc. 173 and 237)
I. Recent developments are appropriate to offer as new evidence, illustrating that Hammett’s contention that PRA can only succeed financially by annoying people is true.
II. The Court Erred by failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest that creates the appearance of bias.
A. Standard of Review
B. (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)
III. The Court abused its discretion by denying Hammett access to electronic filing.
- Standard of Review
B. Looking first at Constitutionality, the Court applied the wrong standard.
C. Arguendo, denial of the convenient and economical litigation tool is forbidden to those who can’t afford attorneys is ever constitutional, the Court abused its discretion when denying Hammett access.
D. The error was material.
IV. The Court erred by denying Hammett’s Motion to Extend and Compel Discovery or Sanctions Against PRA (R. Doc. 97, supported by R. Doc. 99 and 100), and other evidentiary objections and requests for sanctions.
- Standard of Review
- (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)
V. The Court erred by granting PRA’s motion for costs.
A. Standard of Review
B. (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)
VI. The Court erred by denying Hammett leave to amend.
A. Standard of Review
B. (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)
VII. The Court erred by allowing PRA to violate FRCP Rule 11 and cover-up its lies through an abuse of confidentiality. It was an abuse of discretion to forbid Hammett meaningful discovery and transparency in the proceedings.
A. Standard of Review
B. (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)
VIII. The Court erred by denying public access to any and all documents PRA designated “confidential” or filed under seal.
A. Standard of Review
B. (Reasons with citation to caselaw and the record.)
IX. The Court Erred by keeping the Audio Recording of the December 1, 2021 which is now part of the judicial record from public disclosure; and relying on hearsay evidence proffered by PRA instead of demanding the Pietrczak recordings referred to be subpoenaed.
A subpoena should issue for the Audio Recording PRA referred to in opposition to settling the record at the District Court (cite), the Audio Recording of the December 1, 2021 hearing should be distributed to each party and made a public record, and the record settled.
Conclusion
(Relief requested)
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: Sneak Peak of an Appeal
Writing my appeal is kinda fun, like the game Find the Fudge, if Judge Rudofsky’s conduct was not so sick and disturbing.
Hey, if you think this dishonesty merits judicial discipline, send a Judicial Conduct or Disability Complaint here. Or wait for me to file the entire appeal on November 6, 2023 and send a copy to Senator Elizabeth Warren with a suggestion about judicial impeachment. Or come up with your own way to Get Loud.
Judge Rudofsky said “on this record, it does not appear to be genuinely disputed that Ms. Hammett owed PRA, LLC $2,297.63.” (R. Doc. 173, at 71, f.n. 463.)
Hammett genuinely disputed the Debt.
The Court erred by claiming “on this record, it does not appear to be genuinely disputed that Ms. Hammett owed PRA, LLC $2,297.63” on an account opened in 2001, account number ending -6049. (R. Doc. 173, at 71, f.n. 463)
The Court truncated a sentence that Hammett wrote to say she was a consumer according to the FDCPA, to make it sound like she agreed she had owed the debt. In the hearing on MSJ and reconsideration, June 14, 2023, Judge Rudofsky admitted to making this misquotation. (R. Doc. 261, at 97) Then the Court said of the true sentence, “if it does anything, it hurts her”. (id. at 98)
Read the true sentence using the meaning of “debt” in the context of the FDCPA is, inter alia, “any obligation or alleged obligation”. (15 U.S.C. §1692a(5))
The way ChatGBT artificial intelligence reads the sentence, it “makes it clear that you are not admitting to owing the debt and that you may be disputing its validity or accuracy.” The one ambiguous statement the Court cited was taken out of context because it is a boilerplate recitation that means Hammett was a consumer.
The evidence that Hammett disputes the Debt is overwhelming. Overlooking this barrage of evidence gives the Court the appearance of bias.
- Hammett verified her original complaint. Subsequent amendments did not invalidate the verification. All the documents signed by Hammett are certified as per FRCP Rule 11.
- “Hammett DENIES that she opened an account ending in -6049” under penalty of perjury. See CUF (R. Doc. 99, 198, at 2.)
- The Court misstated Hammett by taking one phrase out of context, truncating again to fit his narrative. “Ms. Hammett concedes that she “probably” opened a Capital One account in 2001. Hammett Dep. Vol. I (Doc. 164) at 80:4–12, 81:15–18, 82:10”. (R. Doc. 173, at 71, f.n. 463)
Hammett clearly did not agree her account ended in -6049. “Hammett said she probably had a Capital One account opened about 2001 but did not state her Capital One account had an account number ending in -6049 in Dkt. No. 37 ¶ 19 nor Dkt. No. 39 ¶ 2.” under penalty of perjury. See CUF (R. Doc. 99, 198, at 2.)
Hammett said, under penalty of perjury, “I have no evidence of it anywhere. I’ve looked through every piece of paper that I have and I’ve looked through all my e-mails. There’s not a single one from Capital One.” (R. Doc. 164, at 80:7 – 11, cited by the Court above.)
Hammett said, under penalty of perjury, “[opening an account] might have even been earlier than [2001], but, you know, around then, probably more like 1998.” (R. Doc. 164, at 81:20 – 22, just after the Court’s citation above.)
Hammett said, under penalty of perjury, “I don’t deny having a Capital One account, but don’t twist that into being this account.” (R. Doc. 164, at 82:6 – 7, just before the Court’s citation above.) “I thought this was very funny. My son gave me this key chain [showing a key lanyard]. It says ‘Capital One’ on it. So, I mean, everybody has a Capital one — he has a Capital One account. He gave me this thing from it. And his ex-wife, Elizabeth Lynn, had a Capital One statement sent to the [G]arnett address and I asked him about it and he said, oh, just throw it out.” (id. at 82:11 – 17, just after the Court’s citation above.)
God? Karma? A Really Bad Business Model? Why Did the Bottom Drop Out for PRAA Stock?
It was the COVID-Crash and frankly, it seemed like no one might still be around in a year.
Sorry for the lack of variety in cases this past week and until November 6th. I am writing a 13,000 word plus tables and certificates appellate brief against the litigious, vexatious and secretive Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the once golden child of parent company PRA Group, Inc.
Now it seems like all my work is for naught. The execs at PRA Group, that pay themselves millions of dollars per year, might pack up whatever currency is laying around and leave the building in the dead of night, so to speak.
Watch What Happens When a Debt Buyer’s Collection Practices Are Under Scrutiny
Each time, PRA settled claims that it used illegal, unethical and unprofessional conduct while attempting to collect on portfolios of nonperforming loans it purchased from companies like G.E. Walmart and Capital One Bank. PRA knew the data they purchased was riddled with errors.
Each settlement was about $24 million, and PRA was supposed to cease and desist from the bad conduct. (Spoiler Alert: They didn’t after the first round. I know because they violated the order trying to collect an alleged debt from me.)
Look at the chart above and try to guess when each settlement was reached.
It is actually a month or two after the fall, September 2015 and March 2023.
Does it look to anyone else like insiders were dumping their stock ahead of the public announcement of the settlements?
A Higher Law 