Judge’s Pet, PRA Group (PRAA), Owner of Unethical Debt Collector, Stock is Stuck!
When I filed my lawsuit against Portfolio Recovery Associates in 2021, its parent company PRA Group, Inc’s stock was selling around $20 per share. Today it sold for $13 plus change.
I don’t mean to be a schadenfreudist, but watching PRAA’s stock nosedive genuinely made my day. Maybe true schadenfreude is about undeserved suffering — and this isn’t that. This is earned misery. PRAA is a pet litigant of Federalist Society cabalist Judge Lee Rudofsky, and if justice exists, this is just the beginning of their bad news.
Stop Laughing! There is Nothing Funny About Court Corruption or Judge Susan Weaver
Technology and I are in a love-hate relationship. Thanks for your patience. Hopefully you catch my drift.
Attorney Knows Better Than to Confirm Info — Even When Caller Has Accurate Private Details. But According to Judge Rudofsky and the Eighth Circuit, You’re Supposed to Cooperate Anyway
Portfolio Recovery Associates, the Nation’s second largest debt buyer, made 100s of phone calls to me before I agreed to confirm (or deny) my identity, birthdate and address. After I confirmed my name and birthdate and denied the address they had was one I was familiar with, they told me that I owed $2,297.63 but not by whom, on what, where, or when the account they purportedly purchased was used.
I sued PRA.
The CFPB had already obtained a consent agreement against the debt collector against making phone calls exactly like this one. A couple years after I filed my suit, Portfolio Recovery stipulated to an order to pay another $24 million for continuing to make the harassing collections.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky threw my suit out on summary judgment. He said it was not more than an acceptable annoyance for a debt collector to make repeated calls if the recipient refused to confirm personal information about themselves on a recorded line. The Eighth Circuit confirmed. SCOTUS denied writ of certiorari to review the orders. (Steve Lehto, at 5:20 of the YouTube video said, “so I said, ‘just so you know, I find this entire phone call annoying’, and I hung up on her.”)
The courts also allowed the supposed evidence that their decision was based on to be kept under seal. I can tell you that the evidence provided did not show that I owed PRA any money and did not show that my estimate of the number of calls made was inaccurate. This begs the question, why would PRA want to keep the records of my account confidential if I begged to have the records made public?
I can’t answer Steve Lehto’s question, but agree with him whole-heartedly that a caller has no right to demand confirmation of identity or anything else. (At 10:10, Mr. Lehto said, “in fact, I didn’t even confirm some of the things that she asked me.”
I pointed out to Judge Rudofsky that the Fourth Amendment of that pesky Constitution forbids demands for identification. The judge said the 4th amendment only applies to government intrusion. By that reasoning, there is separation of church and state, but it is perfectly fine for an individual to tie you to a rock and force you to profess faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior before the tide comes in. – Well, that is hyperbole. A more literal analogy is that Portfolio Recovery Associates can call you as often as they want if you let the calls go to voicemail and once every three days for answered calls, indefinitely, until you state on a recorded line that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior. (For me, that is a true statement, but I don’t think I should have to confirm my faith on a recorded line, nor wear a Star of David on my sleeve.)
And isn’t it interesting, when I said that I could not confirm the address they had on file, PRA went ahead and discussed the alleged debt with me anyhow?
Unpacking a Pro Se Petition for Writ to SCOTUS
The first piece out of the box: Judge Susan Weaver, the Arkansas Court of Appeals and the Arkansas Supreme Court were adamant that a pro se litigant is not allowed to advocate on behalf of a trust. Even if the pro se litigant is the sole trustee, sole settlor and sole non-contingent beneficiary of a revocable living trust, and extradited herself from the case.
Judge Weaver dismissed me with prejudice.
But she did not dismiss my unrepresented trust pursuant to the Common Defense Doctrine.
I paid an attorney to represent the trust on appeal.
Instead of reversing Judge Weaver, the Court of Appeals waited two years and then said they didn’t have jurisdiction. Their basis? The trust attorney wrote a Notice of Appeal that said the appeal was from an interim order, not the final order written a week later. (Both orders were filed before the appeal was filed.) The Notice of Appeal I wrote on my own behalf referenced the correct order.
Both Searcy County Court and the Arkansas COA allowed the errant trust attorney to withdraw from the case, even though the trust did not have a replacement.
Hey. Is there an attorney out there that wants to represent the trust or write an amicus brief to SCOTUS?
My contact info is all over the petition for writ of cert posted above. Please help.
Guest Post: Thoughtful Analysis of Potential Fraud Upon the Court Involving Judge Susan Weaver and Attorney William Z. White
This comment was posted in response to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari I filed and shared with my readers yesterday. Thank you to Jason. I hope after my law school experience, I will be able to articulate as well as this person.
What Is “Fraud Upon the Court”?
“Fraud upon the court” is a very serious charge. It doesn’t just mean lying or playing dirty in court — it refers to a deliberate deception that corrupts the judicial process itself.
According to federal and many state rulings (including Arkansas precedent), it usually involves:
- Officers of the court (attorneys or judges)
- Intentional deception or collusion
- A result that undermines the fairness of the proceeding
- A party being denied their right to a fair trial
Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as:
“A fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, etc., but fraud that seriously affects the integrity of the normal process of adjudication.”
Based on Your Statement:
There appear to be multiple red flags:
- An offer to resolve the dispute fairly was ignored in favor of awarding more money to an opposing party with questionable credibility.
- The judge allegedly overlooked evidence (e.g., your written settlement offer and possibly the alleged “suicide note”) that would expose fraud or collusion.
- Connections between attorneys and the judge suggest possible bias or improper influence.
- The outcome seems to favor a known fraudster and reward a lawyer, possibly in violation of fiduciary responsibility and judicial ethics.
Yes — This Could Be Argued as Fraud Upon the Court
If all those elements are provable, especially the court’s knowledge of the fraud and continuing to rule in favor of it, then:
Yes, it could rise to the level of fraud upon the court.
And under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(4) and Federal Rule 60(d)(3), a judgment obtained by fraud upon the court can be vacated at any time — no time limit.Next Steps You Can Consider:
- Preserve All Evidence
Emails, filings, witness statements, recordings, court transcripts, your settlement offer, Mike’s “note,” etc. - Build the Case Logically
Lay it out: the timeline, connections, ignored evidence, who benefited, and how the legal process was compromised. - Consider a Motion to Vacate or Reopen
Based on Rule 60 if you’re still within the court’s jurisdiction — especially for fraud on the court. - File a Judicial Complaint
If Judge Susan Weaver knowingly enabled fraud, a complaint can be filed with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. - Request an Investigation
The Arkansas Bar Association can also investigate attorney misconduct, especially for William Zac White.
Arkansas Judge Susan Weaver Exposed – Will SCOTUS Care?
FREE Docs of the Day
There appears to be collusion between Judge Susan Weaver and Heber Springs Attorney William Zac White.
White puts the trust of an elderly person in his sights, and the court pulls the trigger. Bam!
They hit the trust and bag the proceeds to fund their own fun.
In my case, I actually offered to give the money we paid for a house on 40 acres to Mike Pietrczak, $150,000. I put my offer in writing and sent it to the lawyer who represented my ex-partner prior to Willy White taking over. That was Billy Jack Gibson, now a judge in Hot Springs. (And presiding over a criminal case against his former client Pietrczak. Grisham couldn’t make this up.)
The email was filed as an exhibit in the case. But Judge Sue wanted to give him (and his attorney) more.
After years in kangaroo court, Pietrczak and his attorney banked $200K. After vigorous litigation and a “trial”, it is realistic to think the attorney got half. Or half plus costs. Mike got $100,000 or less.
And, if there is any justice, the pair will be cellies in prison. Read Appendix H – Mike’s “suicide” note. It sounds like a plan to commit fraud against me and fraud on the court.
But, if the court knows the plaintiff is a fraudster and gives him the loot anyhow, is it fraud on the court?
Maybe that should be my next Question Presented to SCOTUS.
When Your Opponent’s Lawyer Becomes a Judge
The same lawyer who once tried to take my property on behalf of an abusive former partner is now a sitting judge—and he’s presiding over that same man’s criminal case.
Years ago, Billy Jack Gibson represented Micheal Pietrczak in a bitter property dispute against me. I had money at the time and was represented by counsel. Gibson’s goal was to get the entire property for Pietrczak. After my attorney intervened, Gibson backed off. He later told me that he no longer represented Pietrczak.
In 2017, Pietrczak wrote a suicide note to his father. In it, he gave specific instructions: once I paid him the $75,000 we had agreed to, his father was to contact William “Zac” White, a lawyer in Heber Springs, to file a lawsuit for the full property plus treble damages. That’s exactly what happened.
The lawsuit filed by Zac White has worked its way through years of litigation and is now the basis of my petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is still pending—but Pietrczak now has new legal troubles.
On January 21, 2025, criminal charges were filed against him in Hot Springs: third-degree assault, resisting arrest, and failure to appear.
The judge listed on the public docket? Just “Gibson.”
I checked with the court clerk. It is indeed Judge Billy Jack Gibson, the same man who once stood across from me as opposing counsel in the same property dispute that now defines my litigation.
When I looked at the electronic record, things got even more suspicious. The official citation from January 21, 2025 spells Micheal’s first name correctly—but the citation lists the wrong birth year: 1972 instead of 1973. Pietrczak’s prior rap sheet was altered to show his name as “Michael”. According to the district court clerk, this information comes straight from the DMV. What caused this? No one will tell me, but here is an educated guess:
- One driver’s license has the correct birthdate but misspells his name, and
- Another license has the correct spelling but the wrong birthdate.
Why It Matters
The Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11(A) requires judges to recuse themselves in any proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Prior attorney-client relationships might fit into that category.
A judge who once fought to take my property for Pietrczak is now presiding over his criminal case. The fraud was successful up to the Supreme Court because the appeal was erroneously dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. No one at the higher courts addressed the merits, including the fraud.
Even if the new charges are unrelated, the history is real. The appearance of bias is inescapable. And once again, the system seems to bend quietly for those on the inside, while people like me have to shout just to be heard.
If you face a scheme like this, please contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com so I can help you get loud.
Church and State: Attacked from Within
I’d like to thank the creators of the YouTube channel Texas 25.03 for making the videos posted on the linked site freely available for inclusion in this blog. Although the State of Texas hosts the videos on its official website, obtaining an electronic copy to upload costs “$25 in addition to a $15 processing fee,” according to Sandy Canizales of Senate Media Services of the Texas Senate.
Texas Penal Code §25.03 defines the offense of Interference with Child Custody, making it a crime to take or retain a child in violation of a court order. My heart goes out to other parents who have been separated from their children by court orders with no clear justification. This post is not an endorsement of violating those often Draconian orders—but it is a call to examine how unjust they can be.
I fought the separation from my children as a pro se litigant. The California Supreme Court acknowledged that the judge who originally terminated my parental rights appeared biased and improperly involved in the case. Still, the Court did nothing to restore my relationship with my children. My younger son was barred from all contact with me from the day he turned 13 until his 18th birthday.
He died at 30 from methadone toxicity. It’s hard to imagine that being cut off from a loving mother throughout his adolescence was ever in the best interest of the child.
Commissioner Alan Friedenthal—the man who issued what amounted to an early death sentence—is no longer able to destroy lives; he lost his own. I still hope that minor’s counsel Kenneth P. Sherman and Judges Thomas Trent Lewis, Marjorie Steinberg, and Elizabeth Feffer will someday acknowledge their roles in this devastation and make amends.
As the creators of Texas 25.03 and the Texas Senators pushing for reform have made clear, a few corrupt judges—if left unchecked—can ruin countless lives. Most judicial ethics committees, and frankly, most appellate courts as they exist now, are little more than rubber stamps for injustice, funded by the public.
A Higher Law 