Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Cover-up of Litigation Misconduct
Judge Rudofsky in the Federal District Court of Eastern Arkansas gave summary judgment to the defendant in my FDCPA and Invasion of Privacy case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC yesterday.
I tried to apologize about my blog posts to Judge Rudofsky during my closing arguments at a telephonic hearing. The judge, who is usually polite, cut me short. He said not to apologize and explained that he values the First Amendment.
Some advice I got from my sister Roberta Kramer who was an attorney, is to always accept a compliment. If someone says you look nice today, don’t retort, “Oh no! I have this big zit on my nose!”
My corollary is, always accept an apology.
It is not easy for a person to apologize. It helps the person who is apologizing. You may find your common ground with the apologetic person. And it may help you to understand your contribution to the conflict.
For example, if a husband says, “I am sorry I was so grumpy today when we were driving in that horrible traffic”, the respectful wife will accept his apology. “Thank you, my love. It was frustrating, and it was kind of you to keep me company. I know how much you hate driving in a busy city.”
So, here is my apology in full.
I am sorry for any embarrassment or disrespect Judge Rudofsky feels from my posts.
That does not mean that I wrote or intend to write anything false or malicious. As he recognized, I have not written anything threatening.
It is like this. Once when my son was about four years old, we were walking in the supermarket parking lot. There were two morbidly obese people walking in front of us. My son shrieked in his loudest voice, “Look how fat they are Mom!”
OMG. I was mortified. Even remembering the story, my face gets red from embarrassment. I am sorry my son said that.
But they were fat.
There was just no advantage to my son speaking his observations out loud. Not that loud.
There is, hopefully, a good purpose for me to write about corrupt, unethical, or plain stupid acts by judicial officers. Even though most citizens have lost faith in our legal system, there is still a chance we can bring it back to what it was meant to be. A way to provide justice for all.
So, here is today’s exposé.
In the litigation, the lawyers for Portfolio Recovery lied. For example, James Trefil of Troutman Pepper (AKA Troutman Sanders) said PRA changed the balance on my account from $2,297.63 to zero “in light of the litigation”. He expanded by saying the debt was “waived”. But there was no 1099-C cancellation of debt issued within the time required by the IRS.
It is PRA’s known practice to issue 1099-Cs when it cancels a debt. Even if the debtor disputes the debt. Do a Dogpile search of “Portfolio Recovery Associates issued me a 1099-C” and you will find plenty of reading to fill your spare time.
Judge Rudofsky was not persuaded by what he called the “inference” that can be made from that. The judge said no reasonable juror can think that PRA set the balance to zero and did not issue a 1099-C because their investigation showed there was no credible evidence the debt was mine. In fact, he said the debt was mine. (That is a subtle error that I will address at the Court of Appeals. It is telling that Judge Rudofsky is well aware of the subtle difference when establishing PRA’s innocence on my case. He knew it was my burden to prove the debt did not exist on an FDCPA claim but ignored that the debtor’s lack of proof is not enough to establish there was a debt in a case against the debtor.)
Worse, PRA submitted business records that were falsified. I pointed out some of the falsifications. Judge Rudofsky ignored those obvious fraudulent exhibits.
Worse, I cannot give you specifics. I cannot post two documents created by PRA with conflicting data side by side. Because Judge Rudofsky allowed the fraudulent documents to be filed under seal.
Before yesterday’s hearing, the jury was out on Lee P. The jury is now in.
It sorrows me to say, guilty.
Email: bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Is Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Out of His Mind?
I am spending another beautiful day that I should be hiking – reading through the documents in my case against debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Publicly traded PRA Group, Inc.
What I am reading is making me want to spit. The title I really want to use for this post: “Is Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Out of His Fucking Mind?”
I am trying to tone things down, as the team of attorneys defending PRA has taken to giving copies of selected posts to the Judge. Here is the response Judge Rudofsky wrote as a text entry on the docket last time.
“ORDER: In Defendant’s Reply Brief 204 , Defendant included what appeared to be blog posts [204-3] that Ms. Hammett has written about this case. My review of the brief required a review of the blog posts. And that raises a question for the parties. In my mind, my knowledge of the existence and content of these blog posts does not require recusal under either 28 U.S.C. 455 or the applicable judicial canons. While Ms. Hammett expresses strong disagreement with some of my rulings, and sometimes does so with strong or colorful language, nothing in the posts strikes me as so insulting or personally antagonistic that it requires or counsels my recusal. It is true that one of her posts could be read as saying she “hates” me, but that would be taking her words out of context. What she actually said was that I was “a Judge [she] hate[s] to hate.” In that context, the impact of the word “hate” is mitigated almost entirely. It is also
true that, in her posts, she called me “sneaky,” “dangerous,” and “dishonorable, “as well as implying I am not an honest Judge. But, again, in context she was really just disagreeing with my rulings and the way I recited the record in my summary judgment decision. That kind of criticism (from non-lawyers) of public
officials, including judges, is expected, entirely fair game, and part of what makes this country great. Of course, I disagree with her characterizations of my motives. But her statements and words are not the type of personal invective that would make it difficult to remain impartial. Having said all of that, if either party believes that recusal is required or appropriate here, that party should file a recusal motion no later than 14 days from the date of this order. If that occurs, the other party will have 7 days to respond. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 3/16/2023. (hml) (Entered: 03/16/2023)”
I read an article about how generally the protagonist of a story must be likable, but some of the great protagonists were not. Think Dorian Gray and Anna Karenina.
Well, Judge Rudofsky will be a likable antagonist in any book that comes of this ordeal.
What can his motivations be for misquoting me, saying that I agreed that I owed a debt to PRA? He is not mentally challenged, like Judge Susan Kaye Weaver. It is pretty clear that I disagree about the alleged debt. Here, read this and you be the judge.
Email: bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Thousands of Free Downloadable Pages of a Federal Case in the Southern District of California
For those of you who cannot afford to purchase Federal Court documents from PACER, but are not poor enough to qualify for a fee waiver:
This is a mundane case about LLC members who allegedly ripped off one of the members. There are two important issues raised within.
One. What is the effect of wrongdoing by the clerk of the court and the judges condoning that misconduct?
Two. Is it a denial of due process for the court to deny pro se (self-represented) litigants assistance of counsel on a limited scope or for special appearances, while extending the right to people who can afford counsel to hire several firms, most with several attorneys and fully staffed with paralegals?
Here are the appellate brief, responses and excerpts of record produced by the defendants’ lawyers. I have not read through all of it yet. I did write all the plaintiff’s documents and read all the respondents’ trial court documents as they were filed.
I think the excerpts were not whittled down as required by court rules, but this puking up way too many words makes it easy to make the proceedings accessible to the public. I hope you find something helpful.
Email: bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Update to Hiding in Plain Sight. The Sinking Ship of PRA, one of the Nation’s Most Litigious and Vexatious Companies
On April 28th I posted a story about a book I am writing. Click here to read it.
I may be too late.
The book titled, “Hiding in Plain Sight: How PRA Group, Incorporated Created a Phantom Fortune from Worthless Debt” discusses PRA Group, Inc., a publicly traded company with symbol PRAA. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc.
It looks like my forecast was prophetic and my book might need to be retrospective, rather than forward looking.
On May 8, 2023, PRAA was selling for $34.34 per share, according to the month-long graph on Google Finance. On May 10th, the price had fallen to $19.38 per share. That is 56% of the price it sold for just two days prior.
I am a self-taught analyst and my portfolio fell less than that during the COVID-Crash of March 2020. (I am self-taught law, also, so nothing in my blog should be taken as legal or financial advice.)
Another indicator of a sinking stock ship can be found on the SEC site called EDGAR. Here, PRA Group filed a form 8-K on May 15, 2023.
PRA Group reported, in part, “outstanding senior notes of PRA Group, Inc. (the ‘Company,’ ‘we,’ ‘our’) are currently trading at significant discounts to their respective principal amounts.”
What does that mean? I asked my new best friend, Open AI at ChatGBT.
“When the outstanding senior notes of a publicly traded company are trading at significant discounts to their respective principal amounts, it means that the market perceives a higher level of risk associated with those notes. Let’s break down the concept to understand it better:
- Senior Notes: Senior notes are a type of debt issued by a company to raise capital. They are typically considered a relatively secure form of investment because they have a higher priority claim on the company’s assets in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation. This means that if the company faces financial difficulties, the holders of senior notes have a better chance of recovering their investment compared to other types of debt holders.
- Principal Amount: The principal amount refers to the original face value or nominal value of the senior notes. It represents the amount borrowed by the company and is the amount the company is obligated to repay to the noteholders at maturity.
- Trading at Discounts: When senior notes trade at a discount, it means that the market price of the notes is lower than their principal amount. In other words, investors are willing to buy these notes for less than their face value.
[LMAO. Maybe the junk debt buyer should buy a portfolio containing its own notes. The irony of it all.]
Significant discounts to the principal amount can indicate several factors:
a. Higher Perceived Risk: The market discounts the price of the senior notes because investors believe there is an increased risk that the company may default on its debt obligations. Factors contributing to this perception could include deteriorating financial performance, increased leverage, negative industry trends, or other macroeconomic factors affecting the company’s prospects.
b. Liquidity Concerns: If there is a limited market for the senior notes or the market is illiquid, it can contribute to the notes trading at a discount. The lack of buyers or sellers can lead to lower demand and reduced pricing.
c. Market Sentiment: Overall market sentiment can influence the trading price of senior notes. If there is a general pessimism or uncertainty in the market, investors may demand higher yields or sell their existing holdings, leading to lower prices and discounts.
It’s important to note that the price of debt securities, including senior notes, can fluctuate based on various factors, including changes in interest rates, creditworthiness of the issuer, market conditions, and investor sentiment. The trading price at any given time reflects the market’s assessment of the risk and return associated with those notes.”
I’m assuming companies are not happy to share the devaluation of their senior notes, and make these filings out of an obligation.
PRA insiders purchased millions in stock this week, according to a story on Google Finance. Often that indicates optimism by company executives.
Call me a cynic, but the amount the stocks cost the insiders is a small percentage of the amount some company executives receive in pay and bonuses in recent years. I’m just wondering here, but wouldn’t it benefit the insiders to purchase stock to form a sort of floor for the falling price?
I am torn. There is poetic justice if PRA hits bottom. But personally, the punitive damages I anticipate a jury will award to me on my lawsuit against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC fall drastically if the company continues to lose money… even if the brass still collects a pirate’s trove of compensation as the ship is swarmed by bottom feeding sharks.
Email: bohemian_books@yahoo.com
The Mystery of “And/Or” Solved
One pet peeve of mine is the use of the character chain “and/or” by lawyers and judges.
Arkansas attorney William Zac White used the term repetitively in a complaint against me “and/or” the Rural Revival Living Trust.
I asked Judge Susan Weaver to order Lawyer White to make a more definite statement. She said there was no need. (But she did not clarify the meaning of “and/or”.)
After a year of causing me to zealously defend myself, the Court dismissed me with prejudice, but errantly allowed the plaintiff to proceed against the Rural Revival Living Trust.
There are blog posts by attorneys on the internet that bemoan the use of the character chain “and/or” and cite case law that forbids it. There is admittedly case law that allows it. I think a good practice is, as I did, to ask for clarification. A competent judge would agree.
One of my visitors to this site was directed here from a site called “Meltwater”. I checked out the site. I am not finished exploring what they offer, but found this gem:
In a list of Boolean characters, Meltwater lists “and/or”. “Use this when you need a keyword to pull results alongside one or more other keywords.”
So, the technical meaning, according to a site that specializes in searching through data, is that the correct use of “and/or” is inclusive of the first term and any of the following terms. Using the character chain with only one option is the equivalent of using “and” alone.
For example, Mr. White could have expanded the subsequent choices, such as “Laura Lynn and/or the Rural Revival Living Trust, Laura Lynn as trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust.” Before we became obsessed with Boolean thinking, a master of English, such as an attorney practicing in Arkansas should be, would spell out the language needed to distinguish the inclusivity of a chain of options.
“Laura Lynn, and the Rural Revival Living Trust, Laura Lynn as trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust, or both.”
By giving only one option after “or”, Mr. White effectively made the complaint about common defense doctrine defendants Laura Lynn and the Rural Revival Living Trust.
*By the way, I looked forward to exploring Meltwater more, but they won’t allow me to look around without providing my email address. Fat chance.
Non-confidential Settlement Offer to PRA (a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc.)
I am quite upset right now because I am thinking about that awful week leading up to March 16, 2020. The stock market crashed and I was heavily invested.
The reason I am thinking about this horrible time is because of my research into PRA. I see that on May 9, 2023 the value of PRA Group, Inc. stock fell over 30%.
Apparently it is getting harder for PRA to bluff and bully people into forking over money that PRA has no credible evidence is owed.
I am thrilled that the CFPB prevailed in the lawsuit filed March 23, 2023 against PRA.
I am angry that PRA Group, Inc. executives got paid several million dollars each while the publicly traded company was poised to lose money.
I am concerned that PRA will use the entire $2.6 billion dollars of credit extended to it, a good portion by Bank of America, and then file for bankruptcy. Not only has an attorney representing PRA, Mr. James Trefil, filed for bankruptcy, but the parent company has subsidiaries that service consumer bankruptcy accounts in the USA. PRA is certainly not adverse to using that tool to avoid paying its debts.
Besides that I would need to learn to navigate the bankruptcy court as a creditor, by the time we go through appeals to SCOTUS, I don’t know that I can still collect even a part of the jury verdict that I anticipate.
I am therefore willing to settle for $1,000,000.
This offer is good until June 15, 2023.
Sincerely,
Laura Hammett
Email: bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Oh, Asa Hutchinson III, Represent Me, Please, Pretty Please
In yet another Arkansas court absurdity, the Supreme Court of the State reinstated William Asa Hutchinson the Third’s license to practice law. The committee on Professional Conduct had put Attorney Hutchinson on Interim Suspension after yet another drug and alcohol related arrest.
But there were three justices that didn’t seem to lose their heads and all integrity. Let’s hear their opinion:
To be fair, here is the opinion (at least the stated opinion) of the Justices who reversed the interim suspension. It is hard to believe they believe this crap. My guess, they sat around and fig’r’d how they could throw the case toward their hommie’s son. Ya, ya, what did they say when Hunter Biden Esquire got caught on film with a crack pipe in his mouth…let’s use that excuse…or…
Email: bohemian_books@yahoo.com
A Little Wednesday Levity: How I ended up at the Arkansas Court of Appeals
Those of you who have followed the saga of fraudster Mike Pietrczak and his savior Good Ol’ Girl Susan Weaver, who I am going to call a Judgster, will understand.
Disclaimer: The man to whom I am legally wed is a hardworking guy who has drank a total of two beers in the five years I have known him. But I can look back at my former self and laugh.
How does a Lady Get a Copy of the Tape Around Here?
I have tried and tried to have Judge Susan Weaver of three circuit courts in Arkansas play the audio recording of hearings that Court Reporter Jana Perry made significant errors transcribing. No luck.
I sent a FOIA request. Judge Weaver said I ain’t gonna hear it.
I moved the Arkansas Court of Appeals. No, they said.
So, I’m laying in bed on a Saturday afternoon, watching YouTube videos with the hubby. On comes Congressman Jim Jordan questioning Rob Schenck who was called to testify before the House Judiciary Committee hearing regarding the Supreme Court.
Mr. Jordan asked Reverend Schenk about something he wrote in a book published in 2018. The quote had Justice Rehnquist announcing the case at oral arguments, calling Rob Schenk’s twin brother “Reverend Paul Schenk”. Rob wrote, “Paul and I winked at each other knowing we had made history with that Reverend in his name. It had been a minor victory when we had persuaded the court that ‘Reverend’ should remain before Paul’s name.”
Then Congressman Jordan pulled out a board with a section of the transcript on it. The word “Reverend” was missing.
Then came a jaw dropping moment for me. Mr. Jordan played the audio tape of the Supreme Court hearing.
Hey! How come he gets to play the audio tape, but I can’t play the audio of my case in a state circuit court?
Maybe there are audio recordings available of all Supreme Court oral arguments. I don’t know. I’ll have to look into this when I don’t feel a nap coming on.
Arkansas Times Article: Metal detectors to be installed at AR Governor’s Mansion, hypocrisy detector not needed
“Gun safety for me but not for thee.” This is how the leftist news outlet characterized the Governor’s decision to install metal detectors.
Honestly, I did not read the article. I am too cheap to pay for a subscription.
I am a libertarian populist, so I sometimes agree with the Arkansas Times headlines. Not this time.
I am a firm believer in the second amendment right to bear arms. This does not mean I own a gun or would ever use one. It does mean I think there would need to be great cause shown before a court could take the right to have a gun away. This is a higher burden than the “good cause” courts sometimes claim to have in wielding their power, under the implied threat of force, of course.
Too often restraining orders that take the right to possess a weapon are given for little or no reason. I had a former spouse ask for a restraining order against me, though he showed no documentation of contact by me, outside a courthouse in the presence of a bailiff, and I lived over a thousand miles away from him. The Court granted the restraining order, which included the seizure of my 2nd Amendment right. I had to hire an attorney to represent me who explained to the Court that I was in a small town in the hills of Arkansas when the process server swore, in what looked like crayon, that he served me personally at the address of my post office box in California.
There are several reasons to allow a person to own a gun. Guns are handy to provide food for your family. Guns are good in the event there is a tyrannical oligarchy or kleptocracy taking ordinary people’s property under the threat of death or arbitrary incarceration, such as during the Holocaust. And guns are good to protect one’s own property and safety while in one’s own home.
The Governor’s Mansion is the Governor’s home. It is reasonable for her to want to protect herself in her own home and to forbid anyone else from bringing a weapon into her safe space.
In fact, I think I’ll get a metal detector for my own house. If you come to visit, leave your pistol at the door.
A Higher Law 