Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Champion of Telemarketers and Debt Collectors
I read the Doc of the Day before I filed a complaint against PRA Group, Inc. subsidiary Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
On page 9, Judge Rudofsky gave a concise list of what “substantive information would be a ‘verification’ under § 1692g(a).” It included “a copy of the original contract between [the alleged debtor and creditor], as well as an affidavit stating the amount still owed.”
No credit card agreement was provided in my case. There is no affidavit from the original creditor that states the amount still owed. Eight months after I filed suit, PRA “found” a statement from Capital One, but there is no affidavit that the statement shows an accurate amount owed. In fact, the credit card company made no guarantees as to the accuracy of any account on the list of millions of accounts it sold to the debt buyer for pennies on the dollar.
I am looking for a plaintiffs’ attorney who does not want to allow Judge Rudofsky to dismantle the FDCPA and is willing to take over my case on contingency. If you are accepted to practice in the Federal District Court of Eastern Arkansas and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, please contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.
Here is the Free Doc of the Day.
Free Doc of the Day: King Lee P. Rudofsky has no clothes
Yesterday I began to present the evidence that Trump Appointed Federal District Court Judge Lee P. Rudofsky is a dishonest man. He does not belong on the bench and I am happy to give testimony against him at any confirmation hearing if he is considered for a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
Today, I am posting a transcript of the oral order Judge Rudofsky made during the latest Star Chamber hearing. This is a busy time for me, so I will take several days to share with you all the lies and legal errors made by the Harvard educated judge in rationalizing denying a jury trial on this case.
Today I will concentrate on Lee P’s misquotation and subsequent misinterpretation of a single sentence.
“I will say I appreciate and accept Ms. Hammett’s discovery that I had a drafting error [Ya, ya, drafting error, wink, wink] in footnote 463. I said at one point in that footnote that Ms. Hammett in her affidavit said, quote, I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank USA in or about 2001, period. And as Ms. Hammett correctly points out, that period was too early and chopped off the rest of the sentence. The full sentence is, I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank USA in or about 2001, comma, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food, and other consumer items, period, close quote.
“I hope that is the correct — is the correct iteration of it. I am going off of page 6 of Ms. Hammett’s brief in support of opposition to the defendant’s supplement motion for summary judgment. But I agree that I should not have chopped off the sentence with the period. I take responsibility for that. [Hooray, a man who can say the four most difficult words in the English language, “I made a mistake.” But he could not leave good enough alone. He continued…]
“Having said that, the last clause does not change anything in my mind. It does not create more — a more favorable situation for Ms. Hammett were this to go to a jury than she had before. In fact, if it does anything, it hurts her, but I just don’t think it makes any difference one way or the — or the other.”
Judge Rudofsky’s interpretation of the sentence found in the consolidated order denying my motion for partial summary judgment and granting Portfolio Recovery’s motion for summary judgment:
“But, on this record, it does not appear to be genuinely disputed that Ms. Hammett owed PRA, LLC $2,297.63. fn 463 That is, the Court (tentatively) believes that every rational juror would conclude that Ms. Hammett owed PRA, LLC this amount. In turn, there is good reason to think that no rational juror could conclude that PRA, LLC falsely represented to Ms. Hammett the amount of the debt.”
The lengthy footnote 463 starts with the premise, “Ms. Hammett concedes that she ‘probably’ opened a Capital One account in 2001.” True. Then the misquotation is added. “‘I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001.’” Lee is not the slightest bit lazy. He continued spinning his lie in two footnotes that hopped down three pages. I will address the rest in future writings.
Here, I just want to share my question and answer session with ChatGBT’s OpenAI. This is language based artificial intelligence.
It is important to share a fact that I shared with the Court in several ways. The meaning of “debt” in the context of the FDCPA is “alleged debt”.
Q: I wrote, “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank in or about 2001, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food and other consumer items.” Does this mean I agree that I owed a particular debt. Or does it mean that if I owed the debt, it was used to purchase consumer goods?
A: Based on the statement you provided, it seems that you are acknowledging that you used a credit card issued by Capital One Bank to make purchases for household items, food, and other consumer goods. However, it does not necessarily mean that you are admitting to owing a particular debt.
It is possible that you are acknowledging the use of the credit card but disputing the amount of the debt or any fees or charges that may have been added to the original debt. Alternatively, you may be acknowledging that you owed the debt, but you are simply explaining the nature of the purchases that were made using the credit card.
Overall, the statement you provided suggests that you used a Capital One credit card for consumer purchases, but it does not necessarily indicate whether you acknowledge or dispute any particular debt related to those purchases.
Q: How does the meaning change if I change the sentence to, ““I am a consumer in respect to any alleged debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank in or about 2001, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food and other consumer items.”
A: By changing the word “debt” to “alleged debt” in the sentence, you are indicating that you do not necessarily acknowledge that you owe the debt. The term “alleged” suggests that you are disputing the existence or validity of the debt and that you are not admitting to owing the debt.
The rest of the sentence remains the same, indicating that you used a Capital One credit card to make purchases for household items, food, and other consumer items. However, the addition of “alleged” before “debt” makes it clear that you are not admitting to owing the debt and that you may be disputing its validity or accuracy.
Summary judgment is an extreme measure. There was a reasonable inference that I meant I opened an account to use for consumer purchases but did not incur the alleged debt of $2,297.63. Especially when taken in context with my certified complaint and my motion for partial summary judgment that is based on the fact that the debt collector made false statements about the amount or character of a debt.
Lee P. Rudofsky is putting your tax dollars to work by forcing me to go to the Court of Appeals and the CFPB.
Please contact me if you want to represent me as plaintiff to the Court of Appeals and beyond. bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Institutional Betrayal: How the commoners are abused by King Lee P. Rudofsky and other judges
“The term institutional betrayal refers to wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals dependent on that institution, including failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals committed within the context of the institution.” – Jennifer J. Freyd, PhD.
“Institutional betrayal harms in at least two distinct ways: pragmatic and psychological.” id.
“Institutional denial plays a crucial role in institutional betrayal. One particularly pernicious form of denial is DARVO — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender” id.
Let SouthPark explain DARVO to you here.
I filed a complaint against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC for making a triple digit number of phone calls to me in regard to an alleged 10-year-old debt. PRA refused to tell me anything about what was allegedly purchased on a credit card account opened by someone in my name in 2001 that PRA agrees was never in default before the 2010 purchase. When I filed suit, PRA said their investigation was complete, the balance was zero and the account closed.
PRA expected me to drop my suit or settle for $1,000. When I didn’t, PRA claimed the debt was cancelled or waived by them. But they did not issue an I.R.S. cancellation of Debt form 1099-C.
They also altered phone records generated by their company and their internal company contact records. The discrepancies between the records and the audio tapes of some of the phone calls was glaring.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, a Trump appointee, allowed PRA to file the pertinent documents under seal.
Then the federal judge, who is nearly impossible to fire, misquoted me to support his contention that I owed the debt.
Many months later, Judge Rudofsky said the misquotation was an error, but that the actual quotation supports his contention even more. I ran the quote by ChatGBT’s OpenAI. AI is not perfect, but it is a language-based application and is particularly good at reading comprehension. (Lee went to Harvard and is probably almost as good at analyzing language as AI, which makes his miscomprehension rather suspect.)
The legislature doesn’t distinguish between making annoying calls to people who don’t owe a debt and people who do owe a debt. Judge Rudofsky doesn’t seem to care what the legislature codified. He calls an FDCPA claimant a dead beat and denies them a jury trial. He says there cannot be statutory damages because there is no actual harm in the plaintiff being told she owes a debt, even if there was no debt owed.
I will report to the CFPB about the ordeal PRA and Judge Rudofsky put me through. I would like to appeal the decision granting summary judgment to the debt buyer. If you are willing to reimburse me for some of the actual costs I have already paid, which is in excess of $10,000, please contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com. Your generosity will make it possible for me to ask the Eighth Circuit to unseal the business records and help me expose both the PRA Group, Inc subsidiary and the betrayer of the public faith, Judge Rudofsky.
bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Announcing: Free Doc of the Day
Downloadable File Stamped Court Crap
This is NOT legal advice.
Heck, sometimes judges like Billy Roy Wilson in the Eastern District of Arkansas would dismiss my case or deny my motion without waiting for a response from my opponent. (Billy Roy Wilson is his real name. If I was being snarky, I would have called him Billy Bob.)
Before I attained pauper status, maybe because of it, I paid $800 per month for a Westlaw subscription.
(Hint: You can visit a law library and use its subscription for free. The internal search engine is fantastic. Once you find the documents you want to study and cite, you can email them to yourself by clicking a button and typing your email address. The only disadvantage to this is you need to drive there during normal hours and I don’t suggest wearing your robe or a towel turban on your head.)
I used to email my documents to Westlaw at west.briefsandtrialdocsubmissions@thomson.com to the Content Specialist. I haven’t tried this since letting my subscription lapse.
Usually, they wrote back. “Thank you for your submission. The document will be loaded to Westlaw within 3 business days. We appreciate your contributions to our database.”
I knew I was on Santa’s naughty list when they wrote, “Thank you for your submission. We will consider adding your document to our database.”
Here are two accepted documents, a motion to disqualify Judge Janis L. Sammartino and an affidavit in support. Enjoy the read.
It is usually a pleasure to hear from my readers. Especially if you have some dirt about judicial officers you want to share. I honor requests for confidentiality or to protect my sources. Bohemian_books@yahoo.com
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
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
If Judge Susan Weaver has the Audacity to Run for a Second Term, Vote NO!
Judge Weaver gave my house on 40 acres to a man who put his plan to defraud me with the help of the court in writing. Judge Weaver saw the letter.
Worse, I was dismissed with prejudice, meaning on the merits, and Judge Susan Weaver of Searcy County Arkansas said that my co-defendant, my living trust, lost by default.
One attorney told me Judge Weaver just doesn’t understand subtleties in civil law. But this is not the slightest bit hard to understand.
“Arkansas recognizes the ‘common-defense doctrine,’ which holds that if two are sued jointly, one of whom makes default, and the other appears and interposes a successful defense to the action, there can be no doubt but that the plea of the one appearing, will inure to the benefit of the other, and that he will also be entitled to his discharge, notwithstanding the interlocutory judgment by default.
“The test for determining under the common-defense doctrine if an answer will inure to a co-defendant’s benefit is whether the answer of the non-defaulting defendant states a defense that is common to both defendants, because then a successful plea operates as a discharge to all the defendants, but it is otherwise where the plea goes to the personal discharge of the party interposing it.” – Gunter v. Liberty Bank of Arkansas, 92 Ark. App. 163 (2005)
It is more likely that Judge Weaver has a plan to transfer properties out of little old lady’s trusts and into the pocket of her cronies like attorney William Zac White.
Add into the fact set that the transcripts of two hearings on my case were falsified and Judge Weaver won’t allow the recordings to be played in public. That looks like a cover-up.
The real problem is that the Court of Appeals justices, Judge Billy Roy Wilson and Judge Lee P. Rudofsky have each been informed of my allegations and none have done anything I asked for or anything else I am aware of to correct the injustice.
Susan Weaver is doing a lot of damage during her time on the bench. Her victims should be compensated by the government that failed to make a timely correction. That may never happen. But the citizens of this state are right to think there is no integrity in our judiciary.
My suggestion is to vote the elected judges out of office and make certain that the federal judges are not confirmed for any promotion.
What is it Worth When You Catch a Lawyer Lying: Briefs from Appeal of $83M Verdict Against Debt Buyer PRA
Portfolio Recovery Associates appealed a jury verdict of $83 million. The argument was that the Goliath debt buyer continued to sue a woman for debt that did not belong to her until after she filed a counterclaim based on the FDCPA, and the judge sanctioned the company for its abusive litigation tactics by deciding liability in favor of the alleged debtor and letting the jury decide only the damages.
An attorney for PRA said in a hearing that the debt collector thought the counterclaim would be dropped after it acknowledged the woman may not have owed a debt. (They waffled, and made their dismissal without prejudice, just in case they could find any evidence supporting their claim against the woman.) When she refused to drop her suit, the PRA Group, Inc. subsidiary fought her full force and dirty.
It sounds a lot like my personal experience with Portfolio Recovery. Unfortunately, the judge on my case, Lee P. Rudofsky says no reasonable juror can find it is particularly annoying to have the debt collector ring my phone hundreds of times and not tell me who is calling or what they are calling about until I agreed to answer interrogatories on a recorded line. Judge Rudofsky dismissed the majority of my claims.
I am busy this next three weeks preparing for a hearing on May 23, 2023 in which I hope the Court reconsiders his opinion. So, with no more ado, here are the briefs filed by both parties in the jury verdict case and an amicus brief favoring the alleged debtor. Hopefully they will help you help your clients or yourself (pro se) so you don’t have to settle for the pittance Portfolio tosses your way.
A Higher Law 