Does the Federal District Court in Southern California Deny Equal Access to Justice to All Except the Moneyed Elite?
The following is cut and pasted from an informal appellate brief I filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit does not require pro se litigants to cite caselaw, so I used more of my page allowance to describe the facts of the case in enough detail that the court should know dismissal without leave to amend was an error.
ISSUE:
- Whether the Southern District of California exhibits a bias against pro se litigants, including me, denying the benefit of co-counsel, not allowing for an alternate advocate if the pro se litigant is ill, and misconstruing caselaw to mean that non-attorneys must communicate as artfully as their adversaries’ hired attorneys. Denying Co-Counsel and putting form above substance is inconsistent with some other districts in circuit and nationwide and with this appellate court.
For example, before the Defendants filed any response, I moved for leave to hire an attorney to help me with specific acts, including explaining derivative actions to me, giving me practice tips, working on issues that have a fee shifting provision, and standing in for me when I was too ill or the cost of travel was prohibitive. Doc. 11. I filed a second motion to hire an attorney for the distinct task of writing a motion for reimbursement of costs of service of summons on the Shermans Doc. 146, and the court denied it, Doc. 148.
Examples of the harm: It would cost me more in time and aggravation to write the motion myself than the costs of service; A motion for Rule 11 sanctions against several attorneys for filling MTDs with misstatements of what I wrote in the complaint would cost me even more in time and aggravation, so I did not avail myself of that powerful tool to sanction the misconduct; I was not able to hire a paralegal because they are not allowed to work unless directed by a licensed attorney, so I struggled for countless hours with work that attorneys delegate to paralegals; I had to work while sick, in pain and medicated.
Denying me the right to hire counsel for the derivative causes was un-Constitutional on its face and as applied. Effectively, only the moneyed elite, those who can afford the legal fees, are allowed to bring mixed individual and derivative claims in CASD.
I was not alerted to the fact that courts treat derivative causes of action as void ab initio when written by a non-attorney, as discussed more in questions 6 and 8, section V below. The court should have, in the least, granted leave to hire an attorney for only the derivative causes of action, because I was not allowed to advocate on them.
When an attorney is ill, he can have another attorney step in for him or at least write a motion for a stay or appropriate extensions of time. In response to seeing some court related emails come through, but not being able to concentrate enough to understand much of it, I sent the following email to judge Linda Lopez and three attorneys on the case on October 1, 2022: “Subject: Hammett incapacitated //Dear Court,// I have COVID and an autoimmune disease. I thought I would be able to write a proposed order for stay of proceedings, but took a turn for the worse quickly today.// I am turning off electronics.// Please extend my time to respond to anything until I am able to function.// Thank you, // Laura Hammett” I was highly medicated, hadn’t eaten for days, could not lift my head, and wrote laying prone.
Three days later the court sent an email: “Good Afternoon,// The email you recently sent to efile_Lopez@casd.uscourts.gov will not be considered by the Court because the communications contained therein were not authorized by the Court and, therefore, are improper. Any motions, applications, requests, or notices must be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rules for the Southern District of California.// Chambers of Judge Linda Lopez”. (Bold theirs)
This illustrates how the rule that pro se litigants must work alone denies a level playing field and caused me individualized harm. I was physically unable to file a motion and was not allowed to have an attorney do it for me.
The court cited caselaw that permits the court to hold a pro se litigant to the same legal standard as a represented litigant. The court, probably purposefully, ignored the bountiful caselaw and Judges’ Bench Books on Pro Se Litigants that differentiates between following the law and presenting a case eloquently.
When the court, as the district court did here, misapplies the technical nuances of the law and legal procedure as a weapon against laymen, i.e. you can’t advocate a derivative action because you are unauthorized to practice law, but you can only bring this cause as a derivative action, and you can’t hire an attorney for that distinct purpose, …the common person will become highly discouraged from seeking redresses in a court of law.
I suffered personal harm caused by the defendants conduct. With limited scope representation, motion practice would be easier and should have produced the desired result of proceeding to discovery. But maybe it would not, because…
[followed with a description of the bias the court appeared to have against me personally]
LAW:
- Right to Limited Scope Representation – The fundamental right to equal protection provided for in the United States Constitution. All classes must be able to present grievances effectively, not only the class that has the most money.
The various courts throughout the country should endeavor to be consistent. Especially within the same circuit, district courts should be consistent.
The Southern District of California is inconsistent with its sister court to the north about the right to limited scope representation. Worse, CASD is inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit.
Ninth Circuit rules allow pro se litigants to write an informal brief without excerpts, citation to the record, and discussion of the standard of review. The district court claims discretion to ease the technical requirements, but in this case, did not. For example, the court denied my motion to exclude the redline copy with my amendments. But the district court in the Eastern District of Arkansas gives a blanket exemption to that requirement to pro se litigants.
The Ninth Circuit allows pro se litigants to hire an attorney for a distinct task. I retained and paid attorney LaToya Redd to represent me in my proposed interlocutory appeal on the limited issue of the attorney fee award. I was going to argue the failure to enter default against Linda Kramer on my own. But Ms. Redd refused to represent me on any partial representation in district court until I obtained leave of the court, because she had been reprimanded by the district court in Southern California for giving another pro se litigant partial representation.
Of course, had Mr. Early continued to represent me, or if Ms. Redd was allowed to give me limited scope representation, there would probably have been a different outcome. The case of Schrage v. Schrage in the California Central district had a similar fact set to this one. The difference was that the Schrage brothers were fighting over significantly more money than the SSP sisters. The lone plaintiff brother was able to afford to retain a top-notch law firm. The plaintiff prevailed on the issue of dissolution and was reimbursed his attorney fees. He prevailed on breach of fiduciary duty at the lower court but was overturned at the Cal. Sup. Ct. because he did not bring the cause as a derivative action.
The court here found much of the harm to be not individualized, and therefore would require derivative pleading. The court also forbid me from hiring an attorney for the limited issue of derivative causes. This is a violation of my right to file a grievance based on my economic class.
In fact, the caselaw interpreting that an attorney represent a sole minority shareholder in a tightly held corporation when the other shareholders give themselves distributions that are not made to the sole member enables the other members to plunder the company coffers for their own personal use, unless the sole member has enough money to hire an attorney.
The fee shifting provisions have been rendered meaningless for self-represented, because courts routinely disallow payment of attorney fees to pro se litigants, even when the legislature did not write the word “incurred” in the fee shifting statute. This is another huge bias against pro se litigants.
Steppingstone to SCOTUS
Did you miss me?
I’ve spent the last seven days writing an informal appellate brief for the Ninth Circuit.
The 9th accommodates pro se litigants. They have a form to fill out that does not require a table of contents, a table of authorities,,,heck, they don’t even require a layperson to include citations to caselaw.
I’m not aware of the statistics for how many pro se appeals are successful at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals compared to other courts around the country. At least they don’t waste our time, energy and money as badly as say, the Eighth Circuit.
I filed a notice of appeal at the 8th, paid the filing fee and those rat bastards denied me summarily. It was a case against judge Susan Weaver that was denied at the Eastern District of Arkansas by Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Injustices Steven M. Colloton, Raymond W. Gruender and Bobby E. Shepherd didn’t wait for me to file a brief. Zippity-zip, they affirmed the pack of lies old man Wilson wrote when he threw my case out in favor of all defendants before co-defendant Attorney William Zac White even filed a motion to dismiss.
The system is rigged against pro se litigants, meaning the common person who can’t afford to hire an attorney.
I’ve been ill these last few years. I haven’t had the energy to fight.
When the 8th circuit denied my appeal without letting me file a brief, I should have filed a motion for reconsideration and then a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. I didn’t.
I’m sure I will get another chance.
In the meantime, here is the informal brief that kept me too busy to visit with you, my dear reader.
“And/or” is not a word, silly lawyers.
If you could permanently ban a word from general usage, which one would it be? Why?
– Question proposed as a writing tool by WordPress.com
Many lawyers and judges use the character chain “and/or” like a tic, and leave us guessing if one, both or one or both antecedent and subsequent terms apply.
Attorneys for Portfolio Recovery Associates Lie
When an attorney signs a court document or contributes to the advocacy of that document, the attorney is certifying that “the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.” This is found in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11, and most state courts have a similar rule.
I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice, but what it means to me is that an attorney is not allowed to knowingly lie on court documents.
I filed a lawsuit against a debt collector named Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC because PRA called me hundreds of times from neighbor spoofing telephone numbers, wouldn’t say the company name or what it was about unless I agreed to a tape-recorded interrogation beforehand, and (not that it should matter), I did not owe the alleged debt they were calling about.
Attorneys for Portfolio Recovery, David Mitchell from Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, John “Jed” Komisin and James Trefil of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders in Virginia responded by saying, among other lies, that I owed $2,297.63 when the calls were made and that PRA waived the debt “in light of” the litigation I filed.
This is preposterous on its face. Why would a debt collector waive a debt because someone filed a lawsuit and not use the waiver as a bargaining chip for a settlement? They wouldn’t.
Interestingly, a Trump appointed judge named Lee P. Rudofsky accepted the silly lie by PRA’s attorneys as true.
At the time the lawyers wrote and filed their lie, PRA had no documentation of the alleged debt. They did not even produce the alledged portfolio that allegedly had a single line item on a list of millions of debts. PRA could never find documentation of what or where a purchase was made with the credit card associated with the account. They could find no contract between me and the credit card company that they were willing to share. (That may be because the credit card agreement, if it existed, had an arbitration clause and PRA does not like to arbitrate against self-represented litigants.)
The first form letter PRA sent to me which showed a balance of zero had someone else’s name and account number on it. Supposedly there was a clerical error inputting data. Does anyone else see the irony? Attorneys are defending the legitimacy of an alleged debt and in the same breath, claiming there was a simple data entry error made on the account, where someone else’s data was swapped in for the data on my account.
Portfolio Recovery is notorious for trying to collect debts from portfolios they and their attorneys know are riddled with errors.
The CFPB has obtained multi-million-dollar settlements against PRA for the exact conduct. In fact, the debt they tried to collect from me was from one of the portfolios that resulted in a settlement in 2015. After this post was originally written, PRA settled with the CFPB for another $24 Million for allegations that PRA violated the 2015 consent agreement against hundreds of thousands of people.
The problem is plaintiff’s attorneys are not willing to take Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases to trial. They encourage the victims to settle for a pittance. I am posting one settlement of a class action against PRA below. The 74 class members received about $135 each. The attorneys requested $25,000 for themselves as fees.
Until the debt collector is required to pay significant punitive damages for its conduct, it will not comply with the law and the attorneys will continue to lie in court, inflicting even more emotional distress on the victims. The 2015 settlement had a punitive element of $8,000,000. That did not stop PRA from repeat offending. The 2023 settlement had a $12,000,000 fine. But PRA still refuses to come clean on our case and let a jury decide what it is worth based on the facts.
My suggestion, if you are receiving calls where the caller says “this is John Smith calling for Your Name” and then asks you to verify your identity by answering questions like your birthdate and address, tape record the calls. The newly activated “Regulation F” requires debt collectors to abide by a verbal cease and desist request if their communication is verbal. Record your calls because PRA lies about how many times they called a person. Take screen shots of calls coming to your phone. Call the numbers back and record the message that tells you whose phone you are calling.
Document, document, document.
You may be able to file a suit on your own behalf by using an existing suit as a template. Otherwise, you can go to the CFPB and contribute to the next action the government agency takes against PRA. If you have solid evidence that the defense attorneys lied on their documents, you may be able to win a motion for sanctions according to Rule 11. A better option is reporting the unethical conduct to the State Committee on Professional conduct AKA the Bar.
Don’t let these guys bully you. Get loud.
Punctuation matters. Period. End of story.
If this conduct by Goliath debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and Trump appointed Judge Lee P. Rudofsky was not so evil, it would be humorous.
So, I’ll start with one of my dad’s favorite jokes.
He wrote words on a piece of paper exactly like this:
Sex Sex Sex
Worry Worry Worry
Then he told his audience to punctuate the words correctly.
You try.
Sex Sex Sex
Worry Worry Worry
Should I help you?
Sex. Sex. Sex
Worry Worry Worry
Speak the punctuation outloud.
Sex, period, Sex, period, sex, no period. Worry Worry Worry. lol
Seriously, the placement of a single period or comma can change the meaning of a sentence completely.
For example, there is a case Portfolio Recovery loves called Facebook, Inc. v Duguid. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that dialing systems like those used by Portfolio Recovery are not an “auto dialer” subjecting their obnoxious calls to the TCPA. The decision is 13 pages long, focused primarily on the placement of a comma in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act statute.
“When interpreting a statute, a qualifying phrase separated from antecedents by a comma is evidence that the qualifier is supposed to apply to all the antecedents instead of only to the immediately preceding one.” Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 209 L. Ed. 2d 272, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021)
If you don’t fear death by boredom, read this entire paragraph: “(a) This case turns on whether the clause ‘using a random or sequential number generator’ in § 227(a)(1)(A) modifies both of the two verbs that precede it (‘store’ and ‘produce’), as Facebook contends, or only the closest one (‘produce’), as maintained by Duguid. The most natural reading of the text and other aspects of § 227(a)(1)(A) confirm Facebook’s view. First, in an ordinary case, the ‘series-qualifier canon’ instructs that a modifier at the end of a series of nouns or verbs applies to the entire series. Here, that canon indicates that the modifying phrase ‘using a random or sequential number generator’ qualifies both antecedent verbs, ‘store’ and ‘produce.’ Second, the modifying phrase immediately follows a concise, integrated clause (‘store or produce telephone numbers to be called’), which uses the word ‘or’ to connect two verbs that share a common direct object (‘telephone numbers to be called’). Given this structure, it would be odd to apply the modifier to just one part of the cohesive clause. Third, the comma in § 227(a)(1)(A) separating the modifying phrase from the antecedents suggests that the qualifier applies to all of the antecedents, instead of just the nearest one. Pp. 1168 – 1170.” Ok, WAKE UP!
Judge Rudofsky created a “fact” in my litigation against Portfolio Recovery Associates by claiming that I admitted to owing a debt to PRA. He based that “fact” in major part on a sentence he claimed I wrote.
“I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on
a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001.” – see footnote 463 on the consolidated order granting PRA’s motion for summary judgment.
The actual sentence I wrote: “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food and other consumer items.”
I could have said “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001, as I had not borrowed money for business prior to 2013 when PRA allegedly bought the alleged debt.” Still, Judge Rudofsky would still truncate the sentence without indicating the clause removed.
I explained this in a later document, my opposition to PRA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment. I accidentally attributed the misquotation to the defendant instead of the judge. It is so difficult to remember who said something when the judge is creating arguments for a favored litigant.
Yesterday, PRA filed an opposition to my motion for reconsideration or alternatively to compel production of the credit card agreement that was necessary to create an obligation to pay. PRA admitted there is no record of an agreement, written or oral.
Unbelievable as it may seem, PRA repeated Judge Rudofsky’s misquotation of the sentence. But, like a child who looks around furtively and then interjects another lie to try to cover-up for its previous lie, PRA added two characters around the period. “[.]” Here is PRA’s version of the sentence:
“I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001[.]”
OOOOhhh… Lawyers James Trefil of Troutman Pepper and David Mitchell of Rose Law Firm were trying to not lie. The straight parentheses mean something was changed. They changed the comma to a period. But a person filing documents is subject to Rule 11, that they reasonably believe what they write is accurate. The change PRA made by straight parentheses is not accurate.
For instance, if quoting case law that says “Facebook, inc. is right” the filer writes “[Duguid] is right”, the filer has made a statement he knows is false. Otherwise, lawyers would riddle their points and authorities with straight parentheses that change the meaning of the caselaw completely. Don’t like caselaw? Just change “shall” to “[may]”.
Clever, clever children.
If you had a period after the last “sex”, you might not need the worry, worry, worry, either.
Did Portfolio Recovery Associates Hold a Secret Deposition?
The behavior of the Goliath debt buyer becomes more bizarre and the conduct of PRA’s attorneys seemingly more unethical.
Twice now I have told them the names of independent contractors who were or intended to assist me in administrative and public relations functions during my legal proceedings against them. Both times, the contract employee ghosted me soon after.
Recently, one of the contractors, Robert Paisola, suddenly resumed talks with me.
I felt we were moving forward in a collaboration to turn the attention of the CFPB and legislature toward the notorious debt collector.
Then Robert forwarded an email to me that he had sent to the defendant and defendant’s attorney in my case the day before.
Robert claimed in writing to having been deposed on my case. I never deposed him and I never received a notice of deposition from PRA.
I listened to the recording of Robert Paisola and a few PRA representatives that happened yesterday, February 20, 2023. At about 37 minutes in, Robert Paisola said he had given testimony for the defendant in my case. I was not aware of any testimony or declaration given by Robert Paisola. (I keep typing his full name because he calls himself “Dr. Paisola” and I am uncomfortable using that title with him, as I have not seen any evidence that he holds a doctorate in anything.)
I am certain Robert Paisola has effective SEO skills. He came up at the top of my search for other victims of Portfolio Recovery’s abusive practices. He claimed that PRA gave him a settlement that is 10 times as much as the offer of judgment PRA gave me. I know that the only debt collector bigger than Portfolio Recovery says it won’t “deal” with Robert Paisola – which deserves respect. Debt collectors have the tenacity of Satan and live to fight. Instead of paying me $50,000, PRA decided to spend a million on legal fees because its collective mind thinks it can win against an old lady who has PTSD and an autoimmune disease.
I inquired of PRA and its attorneys about the alleged deposition testimony. PRA did not respond. [UPDATE: 2/28/2023, one week after my inquiry, PRA responded. “PRA has had no contact with Mr. Paisola regarding your case and has never deposed him, in Case No. 4:21-cv-00189 or otherwise, nor does it have any “testimony” from Mr. Paisola other than the recent email from him that you have already seen.” PRA did not explain why it failed to contradict Robert Paisola during the recorded call at approximately 37:00, and took a week to deny any other communications, deposition or testimony.]
This is all so strange.
Fwd: Followup to Conversations and Notice to Counsel (CFPB 1, 2, 3 ) Suicide Video 1, 2, 3
Inbox
| Robert Paisola | Feb 20, 2023, 6:20 PM (22 hours ago) |  | |
| to me, Robert | |||
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Robert Paisola <paisola7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 4:17 PM
Subject: Followup to Conversations and Notice to Counsel (CFPB 1, 2, 3 ) Suicide Video 1, 2, 3
To: <james.trefil@troutman.com>, <pra_disputes@portfoliorecovery.com>, <dmitchell@roselawfirm.com>, <john.komisin@troutman.com>, <mjames@herbertsatterwhite.com>, <larry.pino@wcilaw.com>, <james.daniels@wcilaw.com>, Robert Paisola <Robert.Ceo@wcilive.com>, Robert Paisola <paisola7@gmail.com>
RE: CAPITAL ONE 4898- PURCHASED 3-19-2021
AMAZON 5016- PURCHASED 3-19-2021
CAPITAL ONE 0507 – PURCHASED 3-19-2021
CAPITAL ONE 1036- PURCHASED 3-19-2021
WAL MART 1018- PURCHASED 1-22-2020
WELLS FARGO- UNKNOWN DATA- SEE COMPLAINT
Counsel
This is a portion of a complaint that was filed with the CFPB against your client and the supporting legal data:
There are 6 Accounts that your client, Portfolio Recovery Associates, has that were resolved and are now back on my credit report.
The Accounts are under ROBERT PAISOLA, The Deposed of Hammett v PRA and CEO AND PRESIDENT of Western Capital
Because of your clients’ actions, a 2 Million Dollar Home is now at risk because of the data that your client has re-entered into my personal (9179) Credit Files. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THESE ITEMS BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY TO REMEDY ANY FURTHER IRREPRABLE HARM.
Many calls and letters have been submitted to no avail.
These are three of the recent calls with your client that will explain the issues at hand.
2 https://on.soundcloud.com/RW7ex
PAISOLA V PORTFOLIO RECOVERY VIDEO 1 of 3
PART 1 of 3 “I JUST WANT TO DIE” ROBERT PAISOLA V. NATIONWIDE CREDIT” Case 4:21-CV-00189-LPR WORLDWIDE RELEASE- CLIENT SUICIDE
1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouXFQk1KOPg
2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjOUyzxBuZk
3.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngu4ua00lxM
Please advise within 72 Hours
Thanks & Regards,
Robert Paisola
Chief Executive Officer Scan Now:
Western Capital Automated Credit Repair Site
Western Capital Investment Bank
Western Capital International USA
Western Capital Financial Services
Bain Capital Management
6330 S. Sandhill Road 4-20002
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
Toll Free 1-800-373-8913
Local 702-219-3624
Click Here to Set Up An Appointment to Meet With Me
WesternCapitalAbout WCI FacebookInstagramLinkedinAmazon Author
*Investing involves risk, including loss of principal. Past performance does not guarantee or indicate future results. Any historical returns, expected returns, or probability projections may not reflect actual future performance. While the data we use from third parties is believed to be reliable, we cannot ensure the accuracy or completeness of data provided by investors or other third parties. Neither Robert Paisola or Western Capital nor any of its affiliates provide tax advice and do not represent in any manner that the outcomes described herein will result in any particular tax consequence. Offers to sell, or solicitations of offers to buy, any security can only be made through official offering documents that contain important information about investment objectives, risks, fees and expenses. Prospective investors should consult with a tax or legal adviser before making any investment decision.
For additional important risks, disclosures, and information, please visit https://mycollector.org/disclosures
All rights reserved © 2021 Western Capital
This email message may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received it in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and then delete this email message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in this email message to or by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Western Capital International, Inc. or its subsidiaries. This email does not constitute an agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means and does not create any legally binding contract or enforceable obligation against WCI in the absence of a fully signed written agreement.
Attachments area
PART 1 of 3 “I JUST WANT TO DIE” ROBERT PAISOLA V. NATIONWIDE CREDIT” Case 4:21-CV-00189-LPRPreview YouTube video PART 2 of 3 “I JUST WANT TO DIE” ROBERT PAISOLA V. NATIONWIDE CREDIT” Case 4:21-CV-00189-LPRPART 2 of 3 “I JUST WANT TO DIE” ROBERT PAISOLA V. NATIONWIDE CREDIT” Case 4:21-CV-00189-LPRPreview YouTube video PART 3 of 3 “I JUST WANT TO DIE” ROBERT PAISOLA V. NATIONWIDE CREDIT” Case 4:21-CV-00189-LPRPART 3 of 3 “I JUST WANT TO DIE” ROBERT PAISOLA V. NATIONWIDE CREDIT” Case 4:21-CV-00189-LPR
| Laura Lynn Hammett <thenext55years@gmail.com> | 8:25 AM (8 hours ago) | | |
| to James, John, David, PRA_Disputes, mjames, larry.pino, james.daniels, robert.ceo, Robert | |||
Dear Counsel, PRA Disputes and Robert Paisola,
Robert Paisola is not currently employed by me. He consulted with me briefly, but ceased communicating with me before we signed a contract establishing his employment.
Robert Paisola recently reached out to me and I hoped to coordinate our parallel efforts to bring Portfolio Recovery Associate, LLC’s violations of the 2015 Consent Agreement, FDCPA and Regulation F to the attention of the CFPB.
In the correspondence he had with each of you that he forwarded to me yesterday evening, attached, he claims to have been “deposed” in my case, Hammett v. PRA in the Federal District Court of Eastern Arkansas. This is the first notification I have received that any deposition occurred. It is my understanding that our proceedings are stayed.
Robert Paisola made another claim at about 37 minutes into the recording of February 20, 2022. “There’s a case that I testified for on the defense…” referring to our case presided over by Judge Rudofsky.
Again, I am unaware of any “testimony” given by Robert Paisola. I am concerned that Robert Paisola apparently believes he was working for PRA. As I wrote in the past, I already suspected that PRA through its attorneys contacted two independent contractors who did work for me soon after learning the individual’s identities, because both quit performing their agreed upon duties without explanation soon after I disclosed their names to PRA. Then, when I had a bad case of COVID, PRA’s attorneys tried to convince me to give them a list of all my employees. I am busy for two weeks, but will then analyze whether contacting my employee and prospective employee is an interference with a business relationship and interference with a prospective business relationship. It seems likely.
Please provide me with copies of recordings and transcripts of any deposition and testimony involving Robert Paisola concerning USDC Case No. 4:21-cv-00189.
Thank you,
Laura Hammett
How Portfolio Recovery Associates Tries to Turn the Tables When You File a Lawsuit Against the Dirty Debt Collector
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, a subsidiary of publicly traded PRA Group, Inc, is notorious for making incessant phone calls to alleged debtors, even though PRA knows the lists of debts it purchased from credit card companies like Capital One Bank are riddled with errors.
PRA is repeatedly sued for violations of the FDCPA, the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. In the Podunk federal district court of Eastern Arkansas alone, there are about 40 such cases, some being class action.
My experience is that PRA will offer $1,000 or $5,000 to settle the litigation. Most of the attorneys I called in the hopes of obtaining representation said they would settle for that amount plus attorney fees. The data I collected on the non-confidential settlements show that there are rarely higher settlements.
The problem with settling for $5,000 is that the goliath company rakes in hundreds of millions per year of pure profit. The majority of their take is from default judgments, and most of the alleged debtors do not know how to defend themselves. If PRA only has to toss a bone once in a while, it makes economic sense for the company to continue using the same obnoxious tactics.
I did find one person online who wrote that he received $50,000 in settlement from Portfolio Recovery Associates. I normally would post the litigant’s name for verification purposes. In this circumstance, the litigant asked not to be identified. The reason he does not want to be identified is that I am discussing the litigant’s past bad behavior. He is a felon.
My original contention was that PRA should offer me at least as much as it offered a convicted fraudster and sexual predator.
But that is falling into the trap PRA hopes judges and juries will fall into.
In my case against the notorious debt collector, the attorneys could not find anything particularly reprehensible about my character. So, they lied. They invented gambling debts for me, based on my passion for playing poker. (I mostly play for fake money on Zynga and Poker Bros. When I do play for real money, I limit my losses appropriately and usually win enough to pay for my trip.)
On top of lying, the lie is not even relevant. The attorneys for PRA said that I only sued PRA because I wanted to replace money that I lost in other ways that don’t have to do with Portfolio Recovery. I actually did lose a lot of money when the stock market crashed in March 2020. So?
PRA and its army of attorneys, persons that file thousands of lawsuits per week in the hopes of filling their bank accounts, propose that we close access to the courts to anyone who is not of significant financial means. If a person has a gambling addiction, violate her rights in any way you choose. If a person was convicted of a felony 20 years ago, make his life miserable by filing false statements about him with the credit bureaus.
The PRA Attorneys are unclear about what infirmities of character should cause the court doors to slam closed on a person. One attorney representing the alleged debt buyer on my case borrowed so much money that he could not pay it back. Then he filed for bankruptcy. I don’t think Mr. Attorney’s bad fortune should slam the door to justice in his face. I do think he and PRA are hypocrites for suggesting that someone else’s poor economic state should bar her from availing herself of our legal system.
If a debt collector called me over and over, from different neighbor spoofing numbers each call, refused to tell me what company was calling until I agreed to let them tape record an inquisition and refused to quit claiming I owed money to them until after I filed a lawsuit against them, I would not settle for a $5,000 payment. Even knowing the creeps would dig into my private life and, if they could not find anything juicy enough to gossip about, that they would invent sins to attribute to me.
Really, there are people who could find a reason to crucify Jesus Christ himself. I am not going to withstand scrutiny, and neither will you. That does not give the moneyed elite the right to purposefully annoy, abuse or harass any of us.
Judges Who Are Dumb Enough to Make Unethical Comments On The Record
There are a few good attorneys. Steve Lehto seems to be one of them.
He discusses crazy court decisions and stories that would be funny if they were not so serious. Click here to watch a video about a judge who made sexist and disturbing comments from the bench and actually was disciplined (lightly).
One of the points Mr. Lehto makes is that the man is too dumb to be a judge if he doesn’t realize there will be a record of his inappropriate comments. I agree.
Now retired and deceased California Commissioner Alan Friedenthal did the same thing while presiding over my case. He said he read my blog and went through a list of what he disagreed about. He eventually was disciplined with a figurative slap on the wrist for what he did to me and many others. Fox News covered the story and featured me in a segment called “Lost in the System: Imbalanced Justice”.
Al should have gone to Arkansas Judge Susan Weaver for advice. When Suzy says things she does not want the public to hear or lets her favored attorneys cuss at old ladies in court, the judge has her old friend and colleague Court Reporter Jana Perry make an inaccurate transcript. Then Judge Weaver refuses to make the actual recording of the hearing available to the public.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals and the Judicial Disciplinary and Disability Commission are aware of my allegations and have not taken any action to correct the wayward judge thus far.
Maybe they figure that Susan Weaver is smart enough to cover-up her bad behavior, so she is smart enough to be a judge.
Looking for Plaintiffs Against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC to Inform the CFPB
My most recent settlement proposal to Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is posted below.
I would like to discuss any unethical litigation practices PRA’s team of attorneys used against you in response to your complaint of violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, AKA FDCPA, and Regulation F.
The Debt Buyers excuse for lying in court seems to be that litigation where the debt collector is defendant is not subject to the same rules of honest conduct and fair dealing as in litigation where Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is suing you.
Leave a comment or email your opinion to me. Thank you.
February 15, 2023
Dear Counsel,
I am bringing my settlement offer back to $1,000,000.
First, there was a recent award of damages based on abusive litigation practices similar to yours and your client’s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfboMCsDcno
Second, I have researched Hashimoto’s Disease. I have a wonderful team of health care professionals, and as with law, I am allowed to take an active roll in my healthcare.
I have not retested a thyroid panel for several months, but I am confident my numbers are returning toward an acceptable range.
My digestion is improving. My energy level is improving. My ability to concentrate is improving. My mood is improving. My new mantra is “work, don’t worry.” It is easier to do my legal work now that I can sit up for extended periods and my immune and autoimmune systems are not so out of whack.
After the stay is lifted and any appeal that may be required, I will move the court to allow me to introduce expert testimony about Hashimoto’s and the impact of stressful litigation on it. PRA already agreed that it changed my alleged balance to zero only after I filed a lawsuit. It is clear that the gaslighting was not going to stop otherwise. PRA even realleged a debt and invented completely unsubstantiated gambling losses for me during litigation.
I have not gone to the CFPB yet because they say a person can only file one complaint. I believe that when the CFPB investigates, they will agree with my contention and uncover evidence that PRA lied about not calling me in the months leading up to November 14, 2020. They will see that, as they suspected, PRA did not follow the 2015 consent order. And they will agree that PRA’s conduct within litigation as a defendant is also in violation of the FDCPA and regulation F.
Sincerely,
Laura Hammett
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
Often violated; seldom enforced.
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same [] they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice. I am just letting you know what this law means to me and how it was not enforced against my oppressors…yet.
This law says two or more persons. It does not specify that the persons be acting under color of law, as in 42 USC 1983. But it does not exclude judges and other government actors.
This law should apply to a judge like Federal District Court Judge Janis L. Sammartino. Judge Sammartino threatened and intimidated me for filing a grievance concerning a deputy court clerk named Jude who made a purposefully inaccurate record of a civil suit I filed. Judge Sammartino said she would not “countenance” claims like mine, but wrongly intimated that I had no evidence. (I had documentation that I presented, there was better documentation available to those with access to the docket entry history, and my testimony is evidence.)
This law should apply to Searcy County Circuit Court Judge Susan Weaver, attorney William White and Walter and Mike Pietrczak. The group conspired to oppress, threaten and intimidate me in the free exercise of my right to plead my case in kangaroo court on March 17, 2022. I was threatened with incarceration if I tried to protect my right to use of real estate and protect against improper seizure of my personal property.
There is common law invented by judges, not the legislature, that says a victim of a corrupt judge cannot sue that judge for civil damages. It is called absolute judicial immunity. The common law does not shield judges from criminal prosecution. Yet.
Good luck getting anyone to enforce the criminal law against a judge though.
A Higher Law 