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.
Courts that Violate Rights of the Disabled
Trump appointed Federal District Court Judge Lee P. Rudofsky pretends he is unfamiliar with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the mother of the ADA.
He was informed that I have PTSD, other anxiety disorders, Hashimoto’s Disease, other thyroid disorders and a diagnosed sleep disorder. All these conditions are accepted as disabilities that substantially limit one or more of the major life activities of impaired individuals. Yet, he failed to offer me reasonable accommodations as a pro se litigant for my disabilities.
In fact, when scheduling briefing orders, Judge Rudofsky gave me the same amount of time to file as he gave to the powerhouse attorney represented defendant; and Rudofsky refused to allow me to file electronically. So, he let the well paid attorneys file documents from the comfort of their own home offices, but forced a disabled 60 something year old to drive 60 miles round trip to file. (I could have used the USPS, but that is a good 20 mile round trip and my anxiety issues are triggered by concerns that court clerks will claim they did not receive my documents.
Another pro se litigant who has a disability, a Traumatic Brain Injury, brought some papers to the clerk of the Faulkner County Court recently, and her documents were not filed properly, even though they were hand delivered. (See the post about Mrs. Figueroa, here.)
Heck, a recent poll shows that only 18 percent of the population does not distrust the integrity of the court. Is it a generalized anxiety disorder or a healthy and realistic cynicism that causes so many to anticipate courts will deny due process? Maybe complacency about fraudulent and evil judges is the real mental disease.
Here is a widely circulated list of some of the disabilities that require accommodations.
I am not an attorney, but personally, I am going to insist that the courts comply with my rights. Betty Figueroa does not intend to let Judge Susan Weaver treat the disabled litigant as a second-class citizen, either.
Come give Mrs. Figueroa your support at a hearing on the second floor of the Faulkner County Courthouse, 8:30 am on April 18, 2024. We will meet at the park across the street for a “walk-and-talk” afterwards. Of course, wheelchair bound, deaf, speech impaired and any other disabled will be accommodated and included.
Praying for a Populist Nation.
Now it is an oligarchy and kleptocracy.
Even the judges, who were depicted as wise and honest in elementary school, are now Rudofskys and Weavers, who throw cases to the parties who have attorney representation.
When I first learned of the Kennedy-Shanahan presidential race platform, my hope was ignited. Not so much anymore.
My deeply held Christian beliefs allowed me to forgive imperfections in the candidates. Like David, both are flawed. Neither has a good track record for monogamy. RFK has a history of substance abuse and incarceration that probably stemmed from his addictions. Still, I thought both candidates shared a sincere value for the issues that I am passionate about.
Our country needs to return to populism. We should not be thinly disguised slaves to a small set of elites.
We should all have healthful food. Nancy Pelosi should not eat $8 per pint good-for-you frozen desserts, while the rest of us eat cake. Literally. The food served in prisons, senior centers and publicly run hospitals should not be high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated oils with a side of MSG and BHT.
We should not send our loved ones to fight wars in other countries. We should give sanctuary to everyone who wants to become a tax paying member of our society through legal channels. We still have plenty of land and can feed all through small, sustainable farming. We can house all through Habitat for Humanity modeled sweat equity programs.
Wealthy individuals and corporations (many of whom amassed horrendous debt, like Portfolio Recovery Associates) should not be given preferential treatment in court.
I thought Kennedy-Shanahan supported this kind of populism.
It seems from their campaign fund raising that they are business as usual. They have events planned around the country that are smaller, more intimate gatherings than the usual campaign mass events. It sounds like the participants will meet RFK personally. The price tag for attendance at these events is $6,600 as a campaign contribution.
That is about 10 full months of my pension, and probably unattainable for the common person.
My hope is that We the People will realize that the criteria for access to politicians should be to those who volunteer time or based on a sliding scale.
I’m playing with the idea that the President of the United States of America should be determined by a lottery every 4 years, with a four-year training period to learn the structure of the government and the procedures for the leader’s duties before each inauguration. Each citizen over the age of 35 would receive one entry. If a leader tries to abuse his or her position, impeachment and appropriate criminal proceedings should be swift.
The average person, if given such an honor and responsibility, would probably respect their office and rise to the challenge of protecting our republic. I think most people who would not want the job would bow out.
It is only because impunity is extended to people like Judge Rudofsky and Judge Weaver that they abuse their positions of power.
We need a country that metes out access and justice equally to the Ivy Leaguer and the factory worker.
Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Nine
We are looking at an order dismissing Portfolio Recovery Associates as defendants in an Invasion of Privacy case written by Trump Appointed Judge Lee P. Rudofsky in the Eastern District of Arkansas, 4:21-CV-000189, Docket Entry 173.
Judge Rudofsky wrote on page 5: “On December 18, 2013, PRA, LLC learned that the December 3, 2013 letter was returned as undeliverable because of a zip-code error in the address.40” Probably over half the opinion is by small font, single spaced footnotes. Footnote 40: “Ex. 1 (Dreano Decl.) to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-3) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) ¶ 28; Ex. E to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-8) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) at 5. Throughout Ms. Hammett’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Facts, Ms. Hammett offers blanket denials without pointing to any record facts. See, e.g., Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 99) (Under Seal) ¶ 28. On summary judgment, Ms. Hammett cannot rely on such denials to raise a genuine dispute of material fact. Rather, she must point to record facts to support her denials. Where she fails to do so, the law directs the Court to treat her unsupported denials as an admission. [citations omitted] The Court will not flag every time Ms. Hammett has failed to address PRA, LLC’s assertions of facts. Nevertheless, this legal point applies to all of Ms. Hammett’s unsupported denials.”
So, the judge complained that Hammett did not give specifics, but refused to specify where Hammett supposedly did not give specifics. Rudofsky complained about generalities by offering a generality.
He referred to a document Hammett filed under seal, and divulged what was supposedly under seal. His rendition was inaccurate.
Hammett later filed a redacted version of the document, following the Court and PRA’s lead about what was acceptable to discuss in public. Here is that document, 198.
Judge Rudofsky accepted PRA’s written affidavit that it resent the initial letter and that letter was not returned. Here is my, Hammett’s, detailed explanation of why that was not acceptable testimony and why it was not true. At Doc. 198, page 28.
“Meryl Dreano does not work for CompuMail Information Services, Inc. (‘CompuMail’) The return address on the letters sent on behalf of PRA belongs to CompuMail. The PRANet record generated by PRA as Bates No. PRA HAMMETT 000212 shows the mail was processed by CompuMail. Therefore Ms. Dreano’ s declaration, [paragraph] 28 is impermissible hearsay. Regardless, the required disclosures must be sent in a communication. ‘communication (14c) 1. The interchange of messages or ideas by speech, writing, gestures, or conduct; the process of bringing an idea to another’s perception.’ COMMUNICATION, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) The letters PRA claims were mailed did not reach Plaintiff, as the address was not her residence and the letters were not forwarded. (Hammett Affidavit [paragraph] 36, Defense Exhibit E)”
Hammett pointed to the record facts, her own affidavit.
On page 29, Hammett continued to give a detailed explanation of why PRA’s version of mailing letters to Hammett was wrong, and more importantly at the summary judgment stage, why a reasonable juror might agree with Hammett instead of Portfolio Recovery.
“Plaintiff can neither admit nor deny that the letters sent on December 19, 2013 and February 5, 2014 were not returned as undeliverable, and must therefore DENY. Plaintiff ADMITS that Plaintiff did not request validation of her debt- or otherwise respond in any way, ever, because she did not receive the letters. (Hammett Affidavit [paragraph] 36)”
Perhaps I could have gone into a bit more detail. “At no time did I walk to the mailbox that was in a bank of mailboxes at the curve in the circular road where I stayed for two nights, open the mailbox and look inside, and see an envelope addressed to ‘Laura Lynn’ or ‘Laura Lyman’ or ‘Laura Hammett’.” That seemed a bit excessive to me.
We know that Lee P. Rudofsky does not have a cognitive deficit. At least he had no cognitive deficit when he was admitted to and graduated from Cornell and Harvard Law.
Therefore, it is likely that Judge Rudofsky’s acceptance of Ms. Dreano’s affidavit and dismissal of Hammett’s denials citing the record facts in her own affidavit as “blanket” was motivated by his predetermination that no FDCPA nor tort case against a purchaser of credit data files will ever go to trial when he presides.
A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Eight
So why would a young federal judge not only make bad decisions, but lie and cover-up the truth in a civil case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC?
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky had a “reason” (with air quotes, because his suspected motivation is not reasonable). Lee Rudofsky was a high-level attorney for Wal Mart directly before attaining a seat on the bench. Wal Mart partners with the original alleged creditor from whom PRA allegedly purchased the debt, Capital One. Judge Rudofsky had motivation to give dishonest services for his former employer’s sake and to encourage the debt trading business in general.
Some credible people, such as Senator Whitehouse, claim that there is “Dark Money” being funneled to Federalist Society Sweethearts. Lee P. Rudofsky qualifies as an alleged participant in the cabal. According to Senator Whitehouse, the Federalist Society judges are groomed to make absurd decisions favoring Dark Money interests.
Judge Rudofsky’s nefareous motivation is speculative.
The fact that he made a plethora of falsehoods in his opinion to grant summary judgment in favor of PRA is fact.
Let’s look further in Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, document 173.
At page 4, Judge Rudofsky talks about the early phone calls PRA made to my cell phone. He disclosed what was supposedly within “UNDER SEAL” documents. Hehehehe. “Try to prove me wrong”, the corrupt judicial officer seems to say.
For fear of retaliatory incarceration for dishonoring a court order, I cannot tell you what was actually said in the sealed documents. I can tell you what was not said.
The Judge reiterates PRA’s version of the first and second of over 400 admitted calls PRA made to the -6000 number. He cites a document that was not generated by a third party. The list of phone calls is incomplete. I know this because I am allowed to see the sealed document, and I know that PRA made more calls to me than they listed. I obtained about six months of records from my cell phone provider. All the numbers PRA admitted to calling from were disconnected. Also 14 connected calls that fit PRA’s pattern but did not show up on PRA’s call log were from numbers that were disconnected.
Also, the PRA call log and “PRANet” that shows all communications, supposedly, are inconsistent. For example, the calls on December 8th and 12th, 2013 disclosed by Loose Lipped Lee did not show up on PRANet.
Judge Rudofsky attributed a true statement to me. “Ms. Hammett answered but did not identify herself.35” I mention the true statement in this story about lies and deceit, because the citation in footnote 35 contains pertinent information that Judge Rudofsky omitted. The cited document 99 is the same as document 198, only unredacted. Read paragraph 10, page 11.
“Plaintiff cannot confirm or deny that ‘the first time Plaintiff answered a call made
by PRA on Plaintiff’s account to the telephone number ending in -6000 was on
December 12, 2013.” I did not know who was calling me incessantly until November 18, 2020. I knew I had a stalker, but I had no indication who the stalker was.
That same paragraph has other pertinent information Judge Rudofsky did not mention. “Importantly, there is a recording of Micheal Pietrczak sounding drunk, yelling something at the start of the call and Hammett sounds disoriented and worried. Hammett vaguely remembers this call.” That was when my partner was spinning out of control and we were in a dispute with an unsavory neighbor.
It got a little more interesting. The Judge wrote, “Ms. Hammett said, ‘No this is the estate sale. It’s a business.’37” Footnote 37 refers to “Ex. 6 (Call Trs.) to Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ.
J. (Doc. 107-6) at 3.”
Look at page 3. The line Judge Rudofsky quoted is toward the end. Where the judge wrote “the Estate Sale, it’s a business”, the transcript says “(unintelligible)”. The Court listened to the audio and saw that the transcript had this error and many others. Yet the judge did not admonish PRA in any way for falsifying the record. This call also has the distinct sound of a man yelling in a slurred voice, transcribed as “(Unintelligible)”, me starting the conversation by saying “The Estate Sale”, and again saying “This is the Estate Sale”. Those words were cut out by the Registered Professional Reporter bought and paid for by Portfolio Recovery.
Judge Rudofsky’s next less than the truthful statement referring to the same page: “PRA, LLC apologized and asked if Ms. Hammett worked at the business. Ms. Hammett did not answer PRA, LLC’s question. Instead, the call abruptly ended.”
The call did not end there. The recording ended there. The other recordings usually have a distinct clicking sound at the end. This one did not. All the other recordings have a trailing silence. This one did not. It is likely that I said something unpleasant to the uninvited caller that would give a strong indication that the calls should stop, and PRA chose to edit that out.
You can listen to the recording yourself and decide. I thought the recordings were under seal, but PRA filed the transcript on PACER. (For lack of time, I will load a few today and finish tomorrow. The downloadable file name starts with the date.)
A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Seven
This blog is getting a little monotonous. It is important though that all the lies and deceit by a federal district court judge, Lee P. Rudofsky, be documented.
His orders, including granting summary judgment against the plaintiff in an FDCPA, invasion of privacy and outrage complaint, are under appeal. Judge Rudofsky allowed the defendant to file its so-called evidence under seal. Then the defendant and judge misstated what was under seal. If the Eighth Circuit decides to maintain the Star Chamber and affirm the manifest injustice, it is important for the public to know what the appellate court ignored.
Why would you trust my version, more than that of the court? Because I am willing to let you see what is under seal. The defendant and the court are not. No particularized need was offered as to why to keep the documents sealed. For example, the “Data Load” the judge described in detail, omitting the entries that don’t look too good for the defendant, do not contain any trade secrets. The form itself is run of the mill. The privacy of the data should belong to the plaintiff. It does not divulge financial information about the defendant, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
Also, that Judge Rudofsky was nominate by Donald Trump is repeated in most chapters.
When I write a book, the redundancies will be left out.
This is not a Democrat or Republican blog. I am a Libertarian. I registered Republican in 2016, to vote against Trump in the primaries. The two candidates I liked, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, split their votes and Trump won. I did vote for Trump against Hillary Clinton, but only because my choice was a walking douche bag and a turd sandwich (plagiarizing from South Park).
I usually don’t “waste” my vote on the Libertarian candidate if I like or hate one of the Democrats or Rupublicans. I liked Mike Pence, which kind of swung me toward Trump. I am the proverbial “swing vote”.
This election, I will vote for RFK, Jr. I loved Bobbie Kennedy and JFK. Robert Kennedy, Jr. takes on big business and government agencies in court cases. He is a trooper. Like my son, who recently had a life-threatening accident and continues to work to make the world a better place, RFK can easily retire because of his neurological damage, and he keeps moving forward anyways.
So, not to bore you, but here are the next lines of interest from Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, docket no. 173.
The judge buried the next line in footnote 26, divided between two pages. In the second part, on page 4, the judge wrote: “It appears that PRA, LLC, used another company, Compumail, to facilitate the dispatch of the letter.”
You could place that line in the back of your brain, as Judge Rudofsky intended. There it might collect cobwebs, and you may never think of it again. Judge Rudofsky does not mention Compumail again until page 50, when he discusses the motion to amend. (Doc. 33 and 33-1)
But Compumail’s complicity in PRA’s collections is important at the summary judgment of the first amended complaint. The entire PRA production of documents was a bit light in the loafers. About half the documents were letters that were purportedly mailed by Compumail.
None of the letters purportedly mailed before February 2021 reached me.
PRA cannot use its own record of whether or not the letters were returned undeliverable without having Compumail swear by affidavit that it did not receive the letters back as “undeliverable”. It is crazy that Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, again, made a credibility determination, believing that PRA did not get the returned letters and disbelieving that I did not receive any letters, without any competent evidence to base that credibility determination. Forget the fact that at summary judgment, Judge Rudofsky must take all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor.
It is interesting, and we will get there another day, that Rudofsky treated Compumail as an integral part of PRA’s operations, allowing PRA to testify on behalf of Compumail, but would not allow Compumail to be added as a Doe defendant.
Are they or aren’t they partners in crime, so to speak?
A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Four
Join us on today’s episode of exposing the lies and deceit of the Young Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. We are working our way through an order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Debt Buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates on all claims, docket number 173.
We are on the top of page three. “As part of this purchase, Capital One transmitted to PRA, LLC ‘load data’ associated with the account [ending -6049].17 Load data provides specific details about an account that a company like PRA, LLC buys from Capital One.18 The load data that Capital One provided to PRA, LLC with respect to account number -6049 contained personal information about [Laura Lynn, AKA Hammett].19“
Footnote 17: “[See Ex. 1 (Dreano Decl.) to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-3) (Under Seal at Doc. 121)] ¶¶ 6–7; see also Ex. B to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-5) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) (indicating that Capital One transferred to PRA, LLC records of individual accounts); Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121).”
Footnote 18: “Ex. 1 (Dreano Decl.) to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-3) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) ¶ 7.”
Footnote 19: “Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121).”
Now, I will repeat what I said in Chapter 3. Judge Rudofsky was adamant that the litigants must not “share the unredacted version [of confidential documents] with anyone else or reveal the contents of the redacted information.” (See footnote 1 on page 1)
Two pages later Judge Rudofsky spilled the beans about what Ms. Dreano supposedly said in the super-secret declaration and exhibits. Only, technically, Judge Rudofsky did not disclose what was in the documents, because what Judge Rudofsky said was shown by the documents was not. Judge Rudofsky lied on behalf of the debt buyer. The judge let PRA keep its evidence under seal. Collusion anyone?
There is no indication on the “Load Data” that it was generated by Capital One. There was no portfolio sheet attached that showed the data transmitted by Capital One to PRA.
There is no dispute that PRA sent a letter to the alleged debtor, me, that was addressed to “Laura Lyman”. It had an account number that did not end in -6049, like the account in question. Did PRA transfer the data to the “Load Data” document from the Laura Lynn account or the Laura Lyman account?
More important than the question of whether the $2,297.63 balance on the -6049 account was correct is the question, “why did Judge Rudofsky order the evidence to be filed under seal, and then misstate what was in the evidence?”
A Higher Law 