Archive | Uncategorized RSS for this section
March 25, 2024  

A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Six

Photo by David Hablu00fctzel on Pexels.com

Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, nominated to the bench by Donald Trump, did not want We the People to see the evidence upon which he based his decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the nation’s second largest debt buyer. He allowed Portfolio Recovery Associates to mark everything it wanted to as “CONFIDENTIAL” and then allowed PRA to file everything it wanted to “UNDER SEAL”.

Then the corrupt judge vomited whatever facts he felt like disclosing that were under seal. I will wait for the Eighth Circuit or SCOTUS to overturn the sealing orders, before disclosing what else is in the documents. But I am free to tell you what is not in the documents.

The Judge disclosed, “the charge-off amount was $1,916.05 and the post-charge-off interest amount was $381.58.” The “Data Load” created by PRA did not include a positive number for the interest rate. There was no documented authorization for the original creditor, Capital One, to charge any interest. The principle amount at charge off was not $1,916.05. Because I don’t want to risk retaliatory incarceration by violating a court order, I won’t tell you what the principle amount was. But let’s play “you’re getting warmer, warmer, you’re hot!” You start by asking if the principle amount at charge off was $1,916.04, and I tell you that you are freeeeezing.

I moved the court to order PRA to produce the alleged credit card agreement between Capital One and me. Judge Rudofsky said it was not necessary. PRA wouldn’t lie about such a thing, or anything for that matter.

Another thing that Lee P. Rudofsky didn’t want seen is that the last payment shown on the Data Load was also not a positive number. Supposedly the thing that retriggered the statute of limitations on legal enforcement of a debt was the “payment” of less than a penny.

Why so secretive? The elite who put Rudofsky in power would be proud of their puppet. He should just say “I am keeping wealth in the hands of the chosen few, and devouring anyone who gets in the way.”

March 23, 2024  

A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Five

Photo by chivozol on Pexels.com

Let’s reiterate a thin little line we looked at in Chapter Four. It is a line that holds together the entire web spun by Judge Rudofsky to trap the Court of Appeals into agreeing with his deceit.

“The load data that Capital One provided to PRA, LLC”. (Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, Docket No. 173, at page 3)

The Trump nominated judge referred to an exhibit that he allowed PRA to mark “CONFIDENTIAL” and file “UNDER SEAL”. (id., Footnote 19, “Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121).”

Judge Rudofsky then stated what he purports to be written in the “under seal” document. He lied.

There is nothing on the document that suggests it was generated by Capital One. It is not a unique document. There are documents in other cases involving PRA that are almost identical, the only difference being the data loaded. Where “Capital One” was entered in this case, different credit card company names were entered in the other cases.

But, there is something more telling that the Data Load was a creation of Portfolio Recovery and not of Capital One.

Judge Rudofsky acknowledged that Hammett lived at the address on the “Data Load”, “5757 Erlanger for two nights”. (Doc 173, Footnote 21, “Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121); see also Hammett Dep. Vol. I (Doc. 164) at 78:9–12”.) Once again, notice that the judge told the public what was written on the “Under Seal”, “CONFIDENTIAL” Load Data.

The Hammett deposition is redacted, but not under seal. (If you have some spare time, read the whole thing. If not, please turn to Page 392.)

doc-164-transcript-of-deposition-1Download

This is an email chain between the landlord at 5757 Erlinger and me when I was Laura Lynn. After spending two nights at the townhouse, I decided to move out. I was never there, so it was a waste. That was in October 2011.

Hey! Wait! Look back to the Rudofsky order granting summary judgment to the billionaire debt buyer, at page 2. The judge, not very good at keeping secrets, said that the charge off date on the super-secret docs was April 8, 2011.

Now, I didn’t go to Cornell and Harvard, like the judge, but, I’m pretty sure that October 2011 is after April 2011. It doesn’t make sense to me that Capital One would charge off a debt, then six months later, run a skip trace on the debtor, find an address where she lived for two nights that was not her residency for legal purposes, and never update the skip trace again, before supposedly selling the debt to PRA in 2013.

This web is looking so flimsy to me. I am beginning to think it was spun by a whole group of spiders and the data is not the only thing that was loaded.

March 22, 2024  

A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Four

Photo by Chris F on Pexels.com

Join us on today’s episode of exposing the lies and deceit of the Young Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. We are working our way through an order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Debt Buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates on all claims, docket number 173.

doc-173-consolidated-order-pra-3Download

We are on the top of page three. “As part of this purchase, Capital One transmitted to PRA, LLC ‘load data’ associated with the account [ending -6049].17 Load data provides specific details about an account that a company like PRA, LLC buys from Capital One.18 The load data that Capital One provided to PRA, LLC with respect to account number -6049 contained personal information about [Laura Lynn, AKA Hammett].19“

Footnote 17: “[See Ex. 1 (Dreano Decl.) to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-3) (Under Seal at Doc. 121)] ¶¶ 6–7; see also Ex. B to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-5) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) (indicating that Capital One transferred to PRA, LLC records of individual accounts); Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121).”

Footnote 18: “Ex. 1 (Dreano Decl.) to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-3) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) ¶ 7.”

Footnote 19: “Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121).”

Now, I will repeat what I said in Chapter 3. Judge Rudofsky was adamant that the litigants must not “share the unredacted version [of confidential documents] with anyone else or reveal the contents of the redacted information.” (See footnote 1 on page 1)

Two pages later Judge Rudofsky spilled the beans about what Ms. Dreano supposedly said in the super-secret declaration and exhibits. Only, technically, Judge Rudofsky did not disclose what was in the documents, because what Judge Rudofsky said was shown by the documents was not. Judge Rudofsky lied on behalf of the debt buyer. The judge let PRA keep its evidence under seal. Collusion anyone?

There is no indication on the “Load Data” that it was generated by Capital One. There was no portfolio sheet attached that showed the data transmitted by Capital One to PRA.

There is no dispute that PRA sent a letter to the alleged debtor, me, that was addressed to “Laura Lyman”. It had an account number that did not end in -6049, like the account in question. Did PRA transfer the data to the “Load Data” document from the Laura Lynn account or the Laura Lyman account?

More important than the question of whether the $2,297.63 balance on the -6049 account was correct is the question, “why did Judge Rudofsky order the evidence to be filed under seal, and then misstate what was in the evidence?”

March 21, 2024  

Institute for Justice takes Retaliatory Arrests up with SCOTUS

“If you have a right without a remedy, what good is that right?” – Patrick Jaicomo, Attorney with Institute for Justice.

IJ does a great job fighting against the tyranny of government employees who have Judicial Immunity, Qualified Immunity and immunity from civil liability for retaliatory arrests.

Read their brief, today’s FREE Doc of the Day.

institute-for-justice-retaliatory-arrest-case-brief-for-petitionerDownload
March 21, 2024  

A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Three

You can catch up by clicking on Chapter One and Chapter two.

We are looking into an opinion of Trump nominated Federal Judge Lee P. Rudofsky.

Judge Rudofsky was less than honest. His deceptive practices on this case call into question the veracity of his opinions on all cases he rules over.

The Federalist Society poster boy for dark money politics turned the proceedings into a Star Chamber, by allowing the debt collector defendant to mark anything and everything “Confidential” and “UNDER SEAL”. This made lying convenient.

Rudofsky lied outright or by omission by misstating what was under seal.

I cannot tell you what was under seal, but I can tell you what was not there.

Hopefully the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will open the record to the public, so We the People can have a visual of the jurist’s lack of integrity.

Judge Rudofsky wrote: “On April 8, 2011, Capital One charged off the amount that Ms. Hammett owed on this account.13 The term ‘charge off’ means ‘[t]o treat (an account receivable) as a loss or expense
because payment is unlikely’ or ‘to treat as a bad debt.’14 There are companies, like PRA, LLC, that buy charged-off accounts from credit card companies.15 On November 19, 2013, PRA, LLC bought Capital One’s ‘rights and interests in the -6049 account . . . .’16“

Rudofsky loves those footnotes. The better to bury the truth, My Dear.

Footnote 13 refers to a “Load Data Sheet” that is under seal. The load data sheet does not identify who compiled the data. It is not dated. It is not a unique form, meaning nearly identical forms with different data have been entered into evidence in other cases by the debt collector. The nearly identical forms did not have Capital One listed as the original creditor, which indicates that PRA generated the Data Load.

Lest PRA claim it copied the data accurately from some other document, though they did not produce another document, note that PRA made at least one error on the data entry on this account. PRA changed the name and account number on a closing letter. While probably a purposeful ploy to convince me to dismiss the case against them, that data corruption might have been due to incompetence.

Footnote 15 and 16 discuss the “Dreano Decl.”, which is under seal.

Judge Rudofsky quoted the Dreano declaration. This is confusing. Judge Rudofsky ordered me not to “share the unredacted version [of confidential documents] with anyone else or reveal the contents of the redacted information.” Then he quoted liberally from the documents that are under seal. He gave partial quotes, misquotes and out of context quotes.

Now, will he throw a 61-year-old sickly woman into jail if she finishes the quotes or discusses their origins? I wouldn’t put it past him. Or maybe he would use more economic sanctions. He already ordered me to pay the billionaire debt buyer’s court costs. (When I argued that the order will bankrupt me, he questioned whether my expenses actually use up my $639 per month pension. I have not had a net profit off my writing for a few years.)

Here is the tippy-toe version of what is NOT in the Dreano declaration.

There is no mention of a document that connects the -6049 account to any purchase agreement or bill of sale of charged off debts to Portfolio Recovery Associates. None. Zip. Zero.

March 20, 2024  

A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Two

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” – Sir Walter Scott

You can read Chapter One by clicking here.

Are you here to learn the second thing I look for when I am digging for deception? (The first thing was discussed in Chapter One. I look in the footnotes.)

I promise I won’t string you along too long.

But first, let’s look at the “Background7” section of Federal Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s opinion granting summary judgment to a debt collector defendant in my FDCPA and Arkansas state torts complaint. You can download a FREE copy of the redacted version.

doc-173-consolidated-order-pra-2Download

Opining by footnote is Judge Rudofsky’s literary tic.

Footnote 7 starts innocently enough: “On summary judgment, the Court recites the genuinely disputed facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, including giving the nonmoving party all reasonable inferences from the facts. Haggenmiller v. ABM Parking Servs., Inc., 837 F.3d 879, 884 (8th Cir. 2016). Of course, the Court also relies on undisputed facts. Essentially, the Court considers the version of the facts most favorable to the nonmovant that a rational juror could find on this record.”

Next Rudofsky covers his ass: “Accordingly, the Court’s factual recitation is only good for the summary judgment motions.” The judge acknowledges that what he says next may not be true. It is a conclusion that is supposedly based on the limited evidence produced in discovery. He might be thinking that if somehow a self-represented non-attorney is not intimidated into settling the case for a stupid low amount and appeals the judgment, that the Cornell and Harvard trained young judge can play dumb like a fox.

Then Judge Rudofsky segued into a lie. “This case presents partially dueling motions for summary judgment. For efficiency purposes, and to give Ms. Hammett every possible benefit, the Court has chosen to recite all genuinely disputed facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Hammett, including giving her the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” He did no such thing.

Here is the jaw dropping recitation of “facts”. As I read it, I wondered how the judge could possibly rationalize that his recitation chose the light most favorable to me.

“In 2001, Ms. Hammett (then Laura J. Lynn) was living in California and opened a credit
card account with Capital One Bank.8 The account number ended in -6049.9 In 2010, Ms.
Hammett became delinquent on this account.10“

Footnotes 9 and 10 referred only to PRA’s self-serving declaration. Footnote 8 included a reference to two sections of a deposition PRA took from me.

Docket No. 164. You can download the redacted version FREE.

doc-164-transcript-of-depositionDownload

The judge cited page 80, lines 4 to 12 and page 81, lines 15 to 18:

4 Q: Okay. Have you ever had a Capital One account?
5 A: I believe I probably did.
6 Q: Does that mean yes or does that mean no?
7 A: It means I probably did. I have no evidence of it
8 anywhere. I’ve looked through every piece of paper
9 that I have and I’ve looked through all my e-mails.
10 There’s not a single one from Capital One.
11 Q: When did you have the Capital One account?
12 A: If I had it, the 2001 sounds about right.

15 Q: Okay. Going back to Exhibit 9. We touched on the
16 open date. You said 2001 sounded about right for a
17 Capital One account; is that correct?
18 A: Yeah, because — the reason why I say that is

Judge Rudofsky cut off my answer mid-sentence. Here is the part he did not want to talk about.

18 A: Yeah, because — the reason why I say that is
19 because I had just gotten divorced, and so I would
20 probably have been putting cards in my name. It might
21 have even been earlier than that, but, you know, around
22 then, probably more like 1998.
23 Q: And this is for your Capital One account, correct?
24 A: Any account that I had would have been opened
25 around that time like 1998 or thereabouts because

1 before that, I had all of my accounts with my
2 ex-spouse, Timothy Lynn, and we had phenomenal credit
3 together. You know, I just know that that’s when I
4 started opening my own accounts.
5 Q: Do you deny ever having a Capital One account?
6 A: I don’t deny having a Capital One account, but
7 don’t twist that into being this account.

Oh, my bad. I told PRA attorney James Trefil not to twist my answer. I forgot to tell Judge Rudofsky not to twist my answer. So, twist he did.

“In 2001, Ms. Hammett (then Laura J. Lynn) was living in California and opened a credit
card account with Capital One Bank.8 The account number ended in -6049.9“

Judge Rudofsky did not support the big lie, that I became delinquent on this account, with any evidence I produced. He ignored the plethora of evidence I produced that was the exact opposite. Here are statements I swore to over and over again.

   “I do not have any written record of a Capital One account, other than the insufficient documentation provided by PRA, and therefore do not know the account number on any account I may have had.”

     “I do not recall missing any payments [or] becoming delinquent on a Capital One account. I asked for PRA to mail documentation to me that might spark a memory of an alleged decade old event and none was offered.”

     In the recorded conversation February 18, 2021, Hammett said “I have no debt and so I know that whatever you have is not my debt. It is absolutely not my debt. I do not have any debt, and so anything that you allegedly have is not my debt.” (call transcript)

Unfortunately, that is all I have time to write about this case today. We didn’t reach the second tell when a corrupt lawyer or judge is writing deceptively. Rather than stringing you along, I’ll get it out and then extrapolate in our next installment.

The second tell is when a corrupt lawyer or judge puts something in quotation marks. It is a good bluff. Who the hell is going to lie about something that is in quotation marks if the quoted document is available to cross reference?

An arrogant and entitled corrupt lawyer or judge, like Lee P. Rudofsky. That’s who.

March 19, 2024  

A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter One

All the misstatements and outright lies told by Federal Judge Lee P. Rudofsky in his opinions on my case against debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC could not fit into a 13,000-word appellate brief.

Here I have no word limitation and no time constraint. It is the perfect place to expose the corrupt judge, hopefully blocking him from moving any further up the official court hierarchy.

Let’s start at the beginning of the order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Portfolio Recovery on all claims, docket number 173.

“CONSOLIDATED ORDER1“

Judge Rudofsky made ample use of footnotes. There are two things I look for when I am digging for deception. One is footnotes. (You’ll need to return for the next installment to find the other indicator.)

Footnote 1: “The Court is issuing two versions of this Order. The Court will file a redacted version on the public record. The Court will file an unredacted version under seal. Only Ms. Hammett, PRA, LLC, and PRA, LLC’s counsel may view the unredacted version of this Order. Neither party may share the unredacted version with anyone else or reveal the contents of the redacted information. If there is an appeal in this matter, the unredacted version of this Order should be filed under seal with the Eighth Circuit, unless the Eighth Circuit concludes otherwise.”

Star Chamber anyone?

Judge Rudofsky denied my right to have a jury as fact finder, then he cloaked the supposed facts in secrecy.

Out of fear of incarceration, I will honor the judge’s order until, hopefully, the Eighth Circuit overturns it. (A news agency, citizen’s group or the Democratic Party might want to file a stand-alone suit asking for declaratory relief that the top-secret documents be unsealed.)

In the meantime, it is not contemptuous to tell you what is not in the blacked-out text.

Let’s look at the first block on page 4, footnote 30, referenced in the main body text:

“PRA, LLC also tried to contact Ms. Hammett by phone.30“

sshhhhhhh. The blacked-out text is super-secret. What the judge shares publicly is that he pulled words or ideas from other documents. The first was from my response to PRA’s statement of facts, paragraph 36. The other secret sections are from PRA’s “Dreano” declaration as an exhibit to PRA’s statement of facts, all under seal.

Judge Rudofsky, in deciding that there were no genuine issues of material fact that preclude granting PRA’s motion for summary judgment, failed to acknowledge that I reasonably disputed the “facts” from PRA’s statement of facts that are under seal.

Rudofsky finished the footnote paragraph: “As will be discussed below, these processes are not full proof.” (Perhaps a Freudian slip for “fool proof”.) “In this case, for example, there are two occasions in which Ms. Hammett was called after 9:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.”

Judge Rudofsky himself let the cat out of the bag. He told the world that the blacked-out text discusses “processes” meant to deter the debt collector from calling after 9 p.m. The processes under seal were not full proof. They were not even partial proof. Nowhere under seal or publicized did PRA prove, nor did I admit that PRA maintained any procedures reasonably adapted to avoid calling after 9 p.m.

Judge Rudofsky said that “these processes” are not perfect. The implication is that they are reasonable.

I love math. I love teaching math. Weird. I know.

I love to “proof”, to figure out in which step someone went wrong to come up with the wrong answer.

“Oh! You added where you should have multiplied.”

From there out, my student could adapt his behavior, and multiply instead of add.

The sealed information did not explain why two calls were made outside the 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. time frame.

PRA never tried to figure out why they got the wrong answer. Therefore, they could not adapt the processes to be effective.

Don’t let Lee P. Rudofsky fool you into thinking there was a reasonable explanation where there was none.

doc-173-consolidated-order-pra-1Download
March 19, 2024  

Compare Trump Judge with Obama Judge in Cases Against Portfolio Recovery Associates

Today you get two FREE Docs of the Day. OK, one is a repost.

It is just so interesting to compare the court opinions on two motions for summary judgment filed by Goliath Debt Buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. (This is a wholly owned subsidiary of publicly traded PRA Group Inc. [PRAA])

Judge McNulty was nominated by Barack Obama. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky was nominated by Donald Trump.

Judge Rudofsky went out of his way to alter or misstate the record in favor of the big business interest. In fact, I’m going to repost two more docs for you today, my appellate brief and reply, which enumerate a few of the most egregious lies told by the judge.

If the Eighth Circuit reverses and remands my case, I hope to find an attorney to represent me at trial. Feel free to contact me if you are interested. My contact info is on the briefs.

pazymino-v-pra-order-denying-msjDownload
doc-173-consolidated-order-praDownload
appeal-filed-appellant-briefDownload
filed-appeal-reply-brief-portfolio-recovery-associates-1Download

It is a bit lackluster and full of stupid lawyer tricks, also, but here is the responsive brief filed by PRA’s team of attorneys. (Lead appellate attorney, Misha Tseytlin, is a former State Solicitor general and is in the Federalist Society Cabal with Lee Rudofsky.)

appeal-brief-response-praDownload
March 18, 2024  

Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Orders Challenged by Reply Brief

FREE Doc of the Day

filed-appeal-reply-brief-portfolio-recovery-associatesDownload
March 15, 2024  

FREE Docs of the Day: Pro Se plea against qualified and absolute immunity, discrimination against nonlawyers

Some jurisdictions deny self-represented litigants from filing electronically. The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas is one of the discriminatory courts. The Northern District of Florida is another.

Opposing council on one of my appellate cases, former Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin, applauded the practice of making pro se litigants file four paper copies of all documents in their case at the courthouse. He pointed out a Florida case where the nonlawyers were denied the right to file from the comfort of their own homes, like the attorneys who get paid hundreds of dollars per hour and usually have clerical help to do the filing anyhow.

The motion is not well written. But the sentiment is good.

The order of denial makes the judge sound like a pompous ass.

The 169-page complaint in the case against Desantis, Trump, Biden and a list of other government workers is …. long. I’m working on an appellate brief and don’t have time to read it all. I wish I did.

The complaint seems legitimate to me. Basically, it calls out the corrupt who bestowed immunity from civil prosecution on themselves, then abuse that immunity by pilfering the property from elderly and forcing murderous “guardians” on the victim under the color of law.

I know for a fact that Judge Susan Weaver of Arkansas intended to transfer all my property to her attorney friend and his client. So far, she got away with transferring $200,000 of my property that was held in trust. I appealed her decision 16 months ago, and still no word from the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The money is probably spent and Judge Weaver will not be held accountable. It is difficult to get the public corruption unit of the FBI to do anything. It would be impossible for them to keep up with the corruption created systemically.

Well, I hope you find something here to inform and inspire you. Get loud.

filed-complaint-steal-and-kill-seniors-racket-against-desantis-trump-bidenDownload
filed-motion-pro-se-leave-to-file-electronically-against-desantis-trump-bidenDownload
filed-order-denying-electronic-filing-to-pro-se-against-desantis-trump-bidenDownload
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »