Republican Appointed Eighth Circuit Approves of Star Chamber Shenanigans
An appeal of orders that benefitted debt collector Goliath Portfolio Recovery Associates was shot down by the Republican appointed Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals today.
Circuit Judges Raymond W. Gruender, appointed by G.W. Bush, Ralph R. Erickson, appointed by Donald Trump, and David Stras, appointed by Donald Trump, gave a unanimous, though unsupported opinion. The most troubling point from a Constitutional perspective, was that the company business records about the account were inaccurate on their face and both District and Circuit court agreed the records should be kept under seal.
Here is a conversation I had with ChatGPT about the 8th circuit judges unsupported opinion:
Is a federal circuit court of appeals required to give reasons in an opinion, or are the circuit judges allowed to give a blanket reason such as “the appellant was wrong about all her arguments”?
ChatGPT
In the U.S. judicial system, federal circuit courts of appeals are generally expected to provide reasons for their decisions in written opinions. The requirement for reasons is rooted in the principles of transparency, accountability, and fairness in the judicial process. Here are some key points:
Common Practice
- Detailed Opinions: Federal circuit courts typically issue written opinions that explain the legal reasoning behind their decisions. These opinions provide a detailed analysis of the arguments, applicable law, and how the law applies to the facts of the case.
- Per Curiam Opinions: In some cases, the court may issue a brief, unsigned opinion known as a “per curiam” opinion. These opinions are often used in cases that do not involve new or complex legal issues and can be brief, but they still usually provide some reasoning.
Legal Requirements
- Judicial Transparency: The requirement for reasons is not explicitly stated in the Constitution or in any statute, but it is implied by the need for judicial transparency and the appellate process. Detailed opinions help ensure that the parties understand the basis for the court’s decision and provide a basis for further appeal, if necessary.
- Judicial Precedent: Detailed opinions contribute to the development of case law, which is essential for consistency and predictability in the law. Future courts and litigants rely on the reasoning in these opinions to understand and apply the law.
Blanket Rejections
- Not Typical: A blanket statement such as “the appellant was wrong about all her arguments” without any further explanation would be highly unusual and generally not acceptable. It would likely be seen as insufficient to meet the standards of judicial reasoning and could be challenged as lacking in due process.
- Potential Repercussions: If a court were to issue such a statement without providing reasons, it could undermine the legitimacy of the decision and might lead to further legal challenges. The appellate process relies on reasoned decisions to ensure fairness and accountability.
Conclusion
Federal circuit courts of appeals are expected to provide reasoned opinions when deciding cases. While there is some flexibility in how detailed the reasoning must be, a blanket dismissal of arguments without explanation would not meet the standards typically upheld by the judiciary. If you ever find yourself dealing with a case where the court has not provided sufficient reasoning, it may be grounds for seeking further review or appeal.
I will ask for review and then appeal. Any contributions of legal expertise and money to cover filing and printing fees will be appreciated. Contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com if you can help.
Here is my appellate brief.
What You Can Do to Counter Court Corruption
Empowerment.
If you found this blog, chances are you have experienced court corruption, or unfortunately, are the corrupt.
My personal first experience as the victim of systemic corruption was when I was subjected to the anti-family court in California. I decided to divorce an abusive man in my early 30s. When Commissioners Robert Zakon and Alan Friedenthal got involved, I was like a deer in the headlights. My protectors were worse abusers than my ex could be. They got me in their sights and opened up on me.
I was unequipped to protect myself or my children.
A question I ask often: How do African Americans handle the kind of injustice that is prevalent in our legal system?
I love the YouTube video posted above. Empower yourself. I think every person should be taught law, just like we profess to teach each person to read. Anyone who is willing to expend the time should leave school able to take and pass the bar, without being saddled with student loans. Each person who is able to pass the bar should be required to log a significant number of hours of pro-bono representation.
When lawyers are as numerous as plumbers and teachers, hourly rates for lawyers will come down.
Perhaps some of the hours giving back for the free education should be spent reviewing cases that never made it to appeal. Suspect situations should be brought to the attention of the relevant judicial ethics commission.
We must stop accepting corrupt conduct from officers of the court. We must provide justice for all.
Empower the people.
Evil Witch (Judge) Susan Weaver Makes Case Disappear with a Wave of Her Wand (Gavel)?
This is the online docket caption of an appellate case challenging Arkansas Judge Susan Weaver that has been briefed on appeal for 18 months:
Here is the corresponding Circuit Court docket caption:
Ok. People make mistakes. But court clerks have one purpose in life; to keep an accurate record.
The clerk supervised by Judge Susan Weaver managed to change “Micheal” (a German name) to “Michael”, and “Pietrczak” (a Polish name) to “Peitrczak. The trust involved in the case is named the “Rural Revival Living Trust”. Close enough to “Rural Living Trust” for government work.
Now, while we all wait with bated breath for an opinion from the COA, Weaver’s Witchling is threatening to “dismiss” the case.
Here is the application showing good cause to keep the case on the docket that I asked the clerk to file late last night. I may be away from my desk through the weekend and will try to switch to the file stamped copy next week. Assuming it is approved for filing. I notice that I made two errors, myself. Paragraph 2 should say, “The Court filed a final judgment on April 7, 2022.” And I misspelled the misspelling of “Peitrczak”, using the correct spelling “Pietrczak”, on footnote 1. There is some irony in that.
Guest Post: Corruption Alleged in Case Against Minor’s Counsel William Spiller, Jr.
Thank you to the Post Modern Justice Media Project. Click on the link.
A Good Attorney Helps Return Integrity to the Legal System
“Pro Se. I want to encourage you today. Remind you that as difficult as litigation is, you can do it. You have a part to play, and this video reminds you of your part, including what’s expected of you. Prepare yourself for litigation. Because there are truths about litigation that are unfortunate. And, this video looks at them. But, in light of these challenges, stay encouraged and stay focused.” – Advocate Lucinda, your empowerment lawyer
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Ignored Obvious Mistakes in a Private Hire Court Reporter’s Transcription
Read along with the transcription Portfolio Recovery Associates bought and paid for. My transcription of the supposedly “unintelligible” sections is posted below theirs. It is crazy that Judge Lee P. Rudofsky said no reasonable juror could find that calling me again several times after this was not a violation of the FDCPA, annoying or harassing.
·2-1-21_1_1_6924407499947839669_1_150.wav
·2
·3· · · · ·Q.· · Thank you for calling Portfolio Recovery
·4· ·Associates.· My name is Ebadia Lydia (phonetic).
·5· ·Who do I have the pleasure of speaking with?
·6· · · · ·A.· · Hi.· I’m the owner of a telephone of the
·7· ·telephone — with the telephone number (760)
·8· ·966-6000.· I just received a phone call and from
·9· ·what I’m — (unintelligible) — I received a number
10· ·– from the number on the (unintelligible) which was
11· ·you — (unintelligible) — I’d be able to turn on my
12· ·tape recorder, as well.· What I would ask is to not
13· ·be called on a tape recorded line, and I’ve received
14· ·probably (unintelligible) calls since that time.
15· · · · · · · ·Each time, the person identifies
16· ·themselves by their name and says they’re calling on
17· ·a recorded line for Laura Lynn.· So I would like to
18· ·have this number removed from your calling list.
19· ·Once — on any — (unintelligible) and the court –
20· ·(unintelligible) — the person — hello?
21· · · · ·Q.· · Yes, ma’am.· I’m there.· I’m sorry.
22· ·It’s breaking up quite a bit.· I do believe I heard
23· ·the gist of what you were saying.· You don’t want to
24· ·be recorded, and you keep receiving calls after you
25· ·stated that you did not want to be called on a
·1· ·recorded line.· Was that correct?
·2· · · · ·A.· · Correct.
·3· · · · ·Q.· · Okay.
·4· · · · ·A.· · And I did say — (unintelligible) — for
·5· ·the call that I requested that in, and I am tape
·6· ·recording this call.
·7· · · · ·Q.· · And that’s no problem at all.· Now, you
·8· ·– you mentioned the name Laura Lynn.· Is that you?
·9· · · · ·A.· · That is the person that they keep asking
10· ·for and –
11· · · · ·Q.· · I see.
12· · · · ·A.· · — it is not my policy — it is not my
13· ·policy to give any information whatsoever about my
14· ·personal being with random people who call my
15· ·telephone number.
16· · · · ·Q.· · I understand.
17· · · · ·A.· · So who — who I am is none of their
18· ·business until they could identify who they are, why
19· ·they’re calling, and then if I want to discuss who I
20· ·am with them at that time, I will.
21· · · · · · · ·If not — (unintelligible) — a court
22· ·order that requires me to disclose who I am and I –
23· ·I am going to file suit against your company for
24· ·these calls that are to a number that is clearly on
25· ·the do-not-call-list.· I have no business with this
·1· ·company that I am aware of.
·2· · · · · · · ·Your — the telephone call — I am
·3· ·writing down — (unintelligible) thousands of
·4· ·dollars — phone call penalty because I am on the
·5· ·do-not-call-list — (unintelligible) name –
·6· ·permission — it is illegal.· It is a criminal act.
·7· · · · · · · ·And each time that they call me and say
·8· ·”I’m calling on a recorded line,” they — when I
·9· ·speak before they tell me that it’s a recorded line,
10· ·they are violating a criminal law.· You need to ask
11· ·the people first if you can record them before you
12· ·start recording.
13· · · · ·Q.· · What is there — (unintelligible).
14· · · · ·A.· · Hello?
15· · · · ·Q.· · Yes, ma’am.· I’m still here.· I do
16· ·apologize.· I was informing my manager what you were
17· ·telling me, just letting her know what was going on.
18· ·So I definitely understand that, and I do apologize.
19· · · · · · · ·Now, we don’t actually have a
20· ·do-not-call list.· It could be that we are actually
21· ·trying to reach the wrong — excuse me — the wrong
22· ·person.· The number that you did call in, the (760)
23· ·9666-000, that did populate something here.
24· · · · · · · ·Now, in order for me to, you know, mark
25· ·it as a wrong number, I would need to know who I’m
·1· ·calling — who I’m speaking with.· I do apologize.
·2· · · · ·A.· · No, the number is on the do-not-call
·3· ·list for the national registry.· That’s a number –
·4· ·a registry that you’re required to look at, and I
·5· ·have made a request that you do not call this
·6· ·number.· Anything that you have to say to the person
·7· ·that you are trying to reach should be put in
·8· ·writing.
·9· · · · ·Q.· · Yes, ma’am –
10· · · · ·A.· · (Unintelligible) — your company has
11· ·disrupted telephone calls that — I have been on the
12· ·phone with lawyers.· I have been on the phone — no,
13· ·it’s — doctors, and they have disrupted telephone
14· ·calls and disrupted my sleep.
15· · · · · · · ·And I have requested that –
16· ·(unintelligible) — of that telephone number gets –
17· ·(unintelligible) and for the owner of that telephone
18· ·number that you believe is the owner of that
19· ·telephone number.· So you’re — (unintelligible) –
20· · · · ·Q.· · I’m sorry, ma’am.· You’re breaking up
21· ·quite a bit.
22· · · · ·A.· · Okay.· Well, I’m sure that my tape
23· ·recording will be very clear when it’s brought in as
24· ·evidence.· So I just ask that you stop making
25· ·telephone calls to this number.
·1· · · · ·Q.· · Yes, ma’am.· I have to –
·2· · · · ·A.· · (Unintelligible) — (760) 966-6000 any
·3· ·longer.· Thank you.
·4· · · · ·Q.· · Yes, ma’am.· And it’s not me that’s
·5· ·called you.· We do have call centers — ending the
·6· ·call due to non-response.
Here is my transcription of the “unintelligible” sections:
I just received a phone call and when I said hold a moment please, they hung up, um, I received a number from the number I just dialed to reach you, and, um I wanted to be able to turn on my tape recorder as well.
I have asked in the past that uh, this number not be called on a tape recorded line. And I’ve received several calls since that time, the person identifies themselves by their name and says they’re calling on a recorded line for Laura Lynn. So I would like to have this number removed from your calling list. And, um, any correspondence that you have with this person should be made in writing, and um, hello?
[Skip down to the next supposedly “unintelligible” section.]
And I did tape record the call that I requested that in, and I am tape recording this call.
[Skip down to the next supposedly “unintelligible” section.]
If not, then I suggest that they get some kind of a court order
[Skip down to the next supposedly “unintelligible” section.]
So every time I get a call I am writing it down and I am going to enforce the $500 per call penalty because I am on the do not call list. I also believe that tape recording without permission is illegal, it is a criminal act, and each time that they call me and say I am calling on a recorded line, when I speak before they tell me that it is a recorded line, they are violating a criminal law.
[Skip down to the next supposedly “unintelligible” section.]
It is an annoyance, your company has disrupted telephone calls that I have been on the phone with lawyers, I have been on the phone with um, doctors, and they have disrupted my telephone calls, and they’ve disrupted my sleep, and I have requested that anything you have to say to the owner of that telephone number get put in writing, and be sent to the owner of that telephone number that you believe is the owner of that telephone number.
[Skip down to the next supposedly “unintelligible” section.]
I just suggest that you stop making telephone calls to this number. Do not call 760-966-6000 any longer. Thank you.
Arkansas Judge Susan Weaver’s Poker Face
There is a small scrap of paper next to my keyboard that says “Be A Word Warrior.”
Law is language based.
But communication is so much more.
Communication is tone of voice. Cadence. Facial expressions. Body language.
Yesterday in court, Judge Susan Kaye Weaver expressed herself with non-verbal communication, loud and clear.
I don’t need to speculate about whether the non-verbal communication was purposeful or involuntary tells.
The message was the same.
Pro se litigants are not welcome in what Judge Weaver refers to as her courtroom.
Yesterday was my first observation of Judge Weaver working on someone else’s case. The three hearings in my cases in front of Judge Weaver were scheduled with no other cases heard that day. Judge Weaver was a scowling, bitter woman to me at each event and friendly to opposing counsel.
Yesterday, I went to observe a disabled pro se litigant attempt to gain the court’s assistance in proving or disproving that US Bank illegally confiscated the litigant’s money.
There were two other matters argued by attorneys before the one with the unrepresented party.
At first, the judge looked gentle and kind. She smiled and even laughed with the attorneys. I thought Judge Weaver had a change of heart, perhaps a religious awakening. But I experienced cognitive dissonance. My appellate brief of her ludicrous and probably illegal orders against me was filed November 2022. The appellate court has not addressed it yet and Judge Weaver has not taken advantage of the long pause to repent of her conduct without supervisory intervention.
When it was time to address the disabled pro se litigant, Judge Susan Weaver’s triangle of shiny white teeth that lit up the room turned to a scowl. It is amazing how one’s facial expressions change the way they are seen. Susan Weaver went from being an attractive middle-aged woman to an ugly witch.
Even when Judge Weaver said words that might translate to paper as asking if the litigant wanted to hire an attorney to represent her, it sounded to me like the judge was threatening to have the pro se litigant involuntarily committed to a behavioral health facility or have a conservator appointed.
Try speaking softly. “Are you incompetent to represent yourself?” Now growl loudly, “Are You INCOMPETENT to represent yourself?” (Remember the SNL skit where two characters were debating, and one says “Jane, you ignorant slut…”)
The pro se litigant is not irrational. She has a language impediment, aphasia, caused by a Traumatic brain Injury. The judge did not offer to allow the woman a non-attorney accommodator, pursuant to the ADA.
Threatening to take the woman’s right to autonomy was like telling a deaf person they must be institutionalized because they cannot hear.
There was an out-of-area attorney in the second case on the docket yesterday. He marveled out loud at how friendly the judge was toward him.
The self-represented litigant left in tears.
Arkansas Judge Susan Weaver Ignores the Fraud in Front of Her Face – Again
Pro Se Plaintiff Betty Figueroa tried to present a police video showing US Bank employees defrauding her on behalf of the bank during a hearing this morning. Judge Weaver would not allow the disabled litigant to bring her phone into the Courthouse.
Mrs. Figueroa told Judge Weaver that she gave the court a copy of the video on CD a few days ago and asked her to watch it. Judge Weaver sternly admonished Betty that she was not allowed to introduce evidence that way.
The video is undeniable evidence that US Bank instructed Mrs. Figueroa, with the police as an intermediary, to mail her summons and complaint to the “Customer Care Unit” instead of their “registered agent for service of process”.
US Bank argued that service was improper because it was mailed to “the Customer Care Unit”. Judge Susan Weaver agreed and dismissed the case.
Technically, Mrs. Figueroa, who has aphasia from a traumatic brain injury and therefore has impaired language skills, had the summons addressed to the wrong person – but only because that is who and where the bank employee wrote on the deposit slip was proper service.
If US Bank did the same thing to me, I would pursue relief based on fraud. I would also report Judge Weaver to the JDDC for her apparent lack of concern that US Bank, represented by Rose Law Firm, allegedly used fraudulent tactics to trick the brain damaged woman into sending a faulty summons and complaint.
Let’s back up a bit. This is a case filed by Betty Figueroa against US Bank. Mrs. Figueroa claims she opened an account before her injury. She said she added money to the account several times. “They have $50,000 in my bank account that they won’t give me.”
US Bank employees told police, as seen on video, that the “social security number she is using is compromised.” The officer, based only on the word of the bank employees, said Betty “provided them with a fraudulent social…”.
The video would be comical if it was fiction. I will obtain it through a FOIA request and post it here in my free time. lol.
The two Conway Police Department officers did not know what “In Forma Pauperis” meant, even in the context of a motion to file in forma pauperis denied by Judge Weaver. The stooges had no clue how to pronounce the Latin term. Popposerous, formpopoisis, inposisis?
Mrs. Figueroa has a hard time proving she owns the account without discovery. She doesn’t have much paper documentation. She said she used online banking and was blocked out by US Bank.
The reasons I tend to believe Mrs. Figueroa is telling the truth are many. If she was trying to access the account fraudulently, the police were called by US Bank who Mirandized Mrs. Figueroa and detained her, why wasn’t she arrested? It seems like a slam dunk. Woman walks into bank, several times, demanding access to a specific account, the bank claims she had no right to the account and the bank has law enforcement and the court’s ear. Why would US Bank fight presenting evidence in discovery? Why didn’t they slap the cuffs on her when they had the chance?
Also, I know Judge Weaver is a liar and cheat. She regularly had Court Reporter Jana Perry fictionalize transcripts in hearings on my case. Then Judge Weaver said she listened to the tapes and the transcripts were correct, but the public cannot hear the tapes. Trust her and Nixon.
I know Judge Weaver saw a hand-written, signed note by represented litigant Mike Pietrczak that describes how he and attorney William Zac White intended to defraud me of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and she transferred my property held in trust to the fraudsters without allowing me to present a case. (Appeal of that order was fully briefed about 16 months ago, but is still sitting on someone’s desk, so to speak. Pietrczak moved to Washington State and it will cost me and the government about $2 million of court resources to have the value of the property restituted and the attorneys involved disbarred.)
It is inconceivable to me why the People of the State of Arkansas continue to allow our resources to be wasted by Susan Weaver and the court click that is so openly contemptuous of the common citizen.
Who is US Bank and Rose Law Firm Afraid Of?
US Bank brought in four attorneys from Rose Law Firm of Hillary Clinton Infamy to protect them against Betty Figueroa. Mrs. Figueroa has a Traumatic Brain Injury but is representing herself in court to save attorney fees. She is trying to gain access to a bank account she claims she opened at US Bank. According to the pro se plaintiff, she was hit in the head by a gun wielding neighbor. It caused aphasia, a disability to speak properly. When she went to US Bank, sounding like she has a brain injury, US Bank said the account did not belong to Mrs. Figueroa, and she says, US Bank kept the documentation she handed to them. It was not clear whether Mrs. Figueroa has other evidence that the account belongs to her, other than her testimony.
Why is US Bank trying to avoid discovery, claiming it was not served as Mrs. Figueroa certified? It seems like hiring a team of four attorneys from a name brand firm and going through an appeal is more burdensome than providing discovery on a simple bank account through one in house attorney or even one local lawyer.
