Addition to Cert Petition on Conference of Feb. 21st
Sent overnight.
Four orders relevant to this Petition for Writ of Certiorari were issued after briefing. The final one, Doc. 318, was entered on January 21, 2025, with related motion practice concluding on January 29, 2025. (Appendix AA)
Hammett intended to introduce the documents discussed below earlier. However, her 30-year-old son passed away on January 27, 2025. Combined with other personal challenges, this tragic loss made it difficult for the pro se petitioner to focus on her public service efforts—her fight for justice to be done and to appear to be done.
Hopefully, the Justices of the Supreme Court will forgive Hammett’s delay and perhaps appreciate her brevity.
Post-Judgment Motion Practice and Recusal
On December 20, 2024, Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) filed an “emergency” motion seeking to take down Hammett’s blog, A Higher Law (www.court-corruption.com), and requesting sanctions. Notably, PRA waited nearly a week after discovering the alleged misconduct to file the motion. The Court ordered Hammett to respond by December 27, 2024, requiring her to work through Christmas.
Ultimately, a newly assigned judge denied PRA’s motion for sanctions, attorneys’ fees, and costs. (Docs. 317, 318)
Before that, however, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky conducted an ex parte review of Hammett’s blog before recusing himself. (Doc. 310) He did not recuse himself due to the appearance of bias inherent in independently seeking out evidence. Instead, he claimed that Hammett’s blog was so insulting that a reasonable person might believe reading it could cause bias. The Court thus confused cause and effect.
This post-judgment motion practice and recusal highlight how the appellant’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by affording undue weight to the district court’s opinions.
PRA’s Deceptive Motion to Remove Hammett’s Work
Hammett, as a pro se litigant without electronic filing access, discovered PRA’s motion only by chance when checking her emails on December 22, 2024.
PRA’s motion sought to erase 15 years of Hammett’s work from the internet, a undue cost consistent with the CFPB’s findings that PRA often uses deceptive practices. PRA alleged that Hammett’s public disclosure of [] was malicious, even though the Supreme Court had apparently granted her motion to unseal in full. (24M44, “Motion Granted,” Dec. 9, 2024)
Hammett’s investigation required by order (TEO 317) showed PRA discovered the disclosure no later than December 12, 2024; yet PRA waited until December 20 to file its motion. Meanwhile, Hammett had already removed [] from her blog on December 10, 2024, following a discussion with SCOTUS staffer Laurie Wood. However, a technical issue allowed those with the original URL to still access []. On December 21, 2024, Hammett’s hosting provider informed PRA’s attorneys that they could assist Hammett in fully severing access. PRA withheld this information from Hammett until January 6, 2025—demonstrating that destroying Hammett’s life’s work was more important to PRA than maintaining confidentiality.
Disparate Treatment of Deadlines
The Court granted Hammett, a pro se paper filer, only seven days to respond to PRA’s post-judgment motion (TEO 300), yet gave PRA’s team of attorneys 11 days to file their reply. (TEO 306) This inequity further supports the need for Supreme Court review of the entire proceedings.
CONCLUSION
The post-judgment documents in Appendix AA, BB, and CC provide further evidence that this Court should grant certiorari.
Did Judge Susan Weaver Contribute to the Tragic Death of a 30-year-old man, Buddy Lynn? She doesn’t give a sh*t.
Susan Weaver transferred property and wrote that she would do whatever was necessary for the county recorder to carry out her order, before there was a final order in the case of Pietrczak v. Laura Lynn.
She gave the property to a man who used to get high with my son, the deceased, when he was 18.
Other corrupt judicial officers had cut off all communication between me and my son from the time he was 13 until his 18th birthday.
My ex-boyfriend, Mike Pietrczak, was sober for our first year together. I should have dumped his ass when he lost his sobriety, but I took our commitment to be “married in the eyes of God” seriously. Both Pietrczak and my son continued to abuse substances until Pietrczak lost the use of his limbs and my son lost his life. (Pietrczak might still be abusing, but you the taxpayers are paying millions for his prescription drugs and other care for the rest of his miserable life. If he was sober, he would probably abide by the agreement we had to split the property we used my capital and my labor to accumulate.)
I will always wonder if my son would have regained sobriety if he spent time at the property I called PTSD for Peace Tranquility Serenity Divinity that was taken out of the Rural Revival Living Trust.
Susan Weaver knew Mike Pietrczak and his Attorney William Zac White were committing fraud on the court when she transferred the property. Her motivation for making bad calls is the evidence that she hates truth and justice.
If there are “ghosts”, I hope Buddy’s haunts Judge Susan Weaver forever.
New America for the People
My son Buddy Lynn passed away two days ago. I am trying to write and file documents required in my various lawsuits and make time to celebrate Buddy’s life.
Buddy had just started a group called New America for the People. I couldn’t be prouder than to have a son who was passionate for social justice.
One idea I have to honor Buddy is to use New America for the People as a name for a 501 C3 organization or my YouTube channel that is now @LauraLynnHammett.
Sorry this blog was disrupted last week when Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC failed to tell the court that a problem they complained of was cured. Now, I will probably not write again until Tuesday, February 4th.
Please look through past posts, download FREE documents, comment and share.
If you are moved to, send links or write your own letters to the committees on professional conduct or Judicial discipline about the legal injustices discussed.
I plan to come back again, stronger and more purposeful…to help those like Branden Joseph Lynn “Buddy”, whose lives are destroyed and disregarded by bad judges and the oligarchy of Big Business Billionaires.
Buddy Lynn, my son, left this world too soon.
Scroll the arrows to the right of the black boxes and click the opening sentences, not hash tags.
This next one is not an endorsement. It is documentation of what the common man wants to say.
Shalom my love. My heart is broken for all the conversations we won’t have.
Introducing “A Rudofsky”: The Art of Judicial Gymnastics
He is a textualist—when it suits the narrative he wants to create. But when the text stands in his way? He is a Rudofsky.
He truncated a subordinate clause to distort the meaning of a sentence. He was a Rudofsky.
He ordered documents to be sealed, then misrepresented what they contained. He was a Rudofsky.
The term “Rudofskyist” might soon find its place in the legal lexicon, expanding beyond the conduct of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky himself. If we take a descriptivist approach, it can encompass any stupid attorney trick—any legal sleight of hand designed to mislead, conceal, or manipulate under the guise of procedural neutrality.
It’s not just about one judge. It’s about an entire mindset—one that bends the law to fit an agenda, rather than letting the law dictate the outcome. And when the law doesn’t cooperate? A Rudofsky will make sure the record says something else.
USCourts.gov Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts Section on Sealing the Record
A Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts Annotated
Federal judges and the journalists who cover them share an important goal: They want the public to receive accurate and understandable information about the federal courts and their work. Hahahahah ha.
The media perform an important and constitutionally protected role by informing and educating the public. The media also serve a time-honored role as the public’s watchdog over government institutions, including the courts. Likewise, courts uphold many of the legal protections that enable journalists to perform their jobs. Handing out sealing orders like candy? A Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts is intended to assist reporters who cover appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts – the cases, the people, and the process. It also offers basic information for journalists writing about the federal court system as a whole. The guide does not discuss the Supreme Court of the United States. Go to the Supreme Court website for helpful resources. SCOTUS doesn’t even describe documents properly. For example, 24M44 is described as a motion to file documents under seal, but it was really a motion to unseal those documents that were sealed at the District Court.
The Guide is intended to help working reporters perform their professional duties; it is not a comprehensive overview of the federal courts. Find additional online resources about the federal Judiciary.
The Guide does not constitute a statement of Judicial Conference policy and is not binding on any federal court or its judges or employees. Individual courts have varied approaches to media relations. Journalists should familiarize themselves with the customs, practices, and rules of the courts they cover.
Sealed Documents and Closed Hearings
Some documents are not ordinarily available to the public. As noted in Privacy Policy for Electronic Case Files these include unexecuted summonses or warrants; pretrial bail and presentence reports; juvenile records; documents containing information about jurors; and various filings, such as expenditure records, that might reveal the defense strategies of court-appointed lawyers.
In certain circumstances, judges have the authority to seal additional documents or to close hearings that ordinarily would be public. Reasons can include protecting victims and cooperating informants, and avoiding the release of information that might compromise an ongoing criminal investigation or a defendant’s due process rights.
Some examples:
- Courts sometimes seal documents that contain sensitive material, such as classified information affecting national security or information involving trade secrets. Or basic business data which would show that the court and the big business defendant lied in unsealed documents.
- Criminal case documents and hearing transcripts are sometimes sealed to protect cooperating witnesses from retaliation.
- The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for protective orders during discovery to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The are often used by Big Business Billionaires to increase the cost of litigation for ordinary plaintiffs.
- Bankruptcy court records are public, but under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the court may withhold certain commercial information, any “scandalous or defamatory matter,” or information that may create an undue risk of identity theft or other injury.
Generally, when a party to a case moves to seal a document or to close a hearing, a record of the motion can be found in PACER. Look at a few that were granted. For example, in 4:21-cv-00189 (E.D. AR) Judge Lee P. Rudofsky rubber stamped numerous motions to seal made by Debt Guyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. As noted in Media Access in Brief, media organizations sometimes file motions opposing such requests.
Civil litigants may ask judges to issue a protective order forbidding parties from disclosing any information or materials gathered during discovery. Deposition records often remain in the custody of the lawyers, and the media do not have a right of access to discovery materials not filed with the court.
When a civil case is settled, that fact is usually apparent from the public record. However, the terms of settlement and any discovery records may remain confidential. I have seen lawyers write settlement agreements that say that the fact that a settlement was reached is confidential. Now, how is the docket to appear in that case?
The Federal Judicial Center provides comprehensive explanations of these issues in two downloadable booklets: Sealing Court Records and Proceedings: A Pocket Guide and Confidential Discovery: A Pocket Guide on Protective Orders.
Portfolio Recovery’s Legal Attack Fails—Fresh Judge Allows Blog’s Comeback
The Honorable Brian S. Miller delegated the job of collecting analytics about who has a copy of documents I filed on this site on December 9, 2024 to me. So, my time is short.
Before I have a chance to fill in the details of the behind-the-scenes proceedings over the last week, since Judge Miller issued a temporary order to take down the blog, please enjoy reading the petition for writ of certiorari at the bottom of the post that is distributed for the conference of February 21, 2025.
Portfolio Recovery Associates let it slip during the hearing on sanctions this morning that the petition was distributed. The Supreme Court quit sending me notifications on December 9, 2024. I did not get a notification of PRA’s waiver to respond, nor the distribution for conference. Here is a screenshot of a search for all my Supreme Court notifications.
Here is a screenshot of the docket for case no. 24-6113.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
A Higher Law 