The Court and Big Business Billionaire Defendant Allowed to Discuss Sealed Documents on Public Record: Mums the Word for Pro Se Plaintiff
In a case against the most annoying and offensive debt collector, Portfolio Recovery Associates, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky made it clear that the pro se plaintiff, me, was not allowed to discuss sealed documents on the public record.
After Judge Rudofsky finally recused himself, the fresh judge reiterated the threat of sanctions for disclosure of sealed evidence.
But Judge Rudofsky and Portfolio Recovery Associates repeatedly violated their own call for the cone of silence.
Here is a copy (that you can download for free) of plaintiff’s deposition redacted by Portfolio Recovery Associates. They were supposed to redact mentions of the sealed documents – but they didn’t.
For example, look at page 77, line 7. PRA attorney James Trefil of huge defense firm Troutman Pepper starts discussing Exhibits 9, 10 and 11. PRA marked those “CONFIDENTIAL” and filed under seal. There is one short redacted section, then Mr. Trefil asks about the specific data from Exhibit 9.
That is not keeping sealed documents confidential.
Worse, Portfolio Recovery disclosed what was supposedly on a document I designated as “CONFIDENTIAL”. On page 116, line 17. Mr. Trefil: “For the record, this is a confidential document.
This is plaintiff’s credit report. Are you familiar with this document?” His next sentence: “Do you see where says it Midland Credit [?]”
Wow! That is not keeping it confidential. And without seeing the entire document, it is misleading. But Mr. Trefil on behalf of Portfolio Recovery Associates did not stop at just insinuating there were debts showing on my credit report.
“So what debt of yours does Midland Credit Management hold?”
“None [!]”
“It’s showing up on your credit report.”
Liar! “It says, ‘The listing of a company’s inquiry in this section means that they obtained information from your credit file in connection with an account review or other business transaction with you. These inquiries are not seen by anyone but you. They will not be used in scoring your credit file except insurance companies may have access,’ blah, blah, blah about the insurance companies. So I don’t know why they made a soft inquiry, but Portfolio Recovery also made a soft inquiry and it’s on the same report, isn’t it?”
“I don’t see Portfolio on this report. I might just be missing it.”
“Did I give you both? I got two — I contacted all three credit agencies, but I only got two reports back and I don’t think this is the one that has Portfolio Recovery on it. I think it’s the other one. Yeah, Portfolio Recovery made a soft inquiry on November 1, 2019. So Midland just is like Portfolio, a –“
“My question is what debt of yours does Midland hold?”
“None that I’m aware of.”
“All right. But you acknowledge they are showing up on your credit report?”
“As a soft inquiry.”
“Understood.”
“They’re allowed to — anybody can look me up. In fact, that might be the way that companies like Portfolio Recovery find their marks is they go in and they look at people’s credit reports and then they contact them and say, hey, you owe us $2,297.63. How do you want to pay for that? And they have — because they have access to these credit reports, they have a whole mess of information about you, so they’re –“
Trefil interrupted my lecture. “What about Enhanced Recovery Company?”
“Same thing. I have no clue who they are. I don’t have any debt, and so they could look.”
“So it’s your sworn testimony here today under oath that you currently have no delinquent debt?”
“I am not aware of any delinquent debt. I have found out –” Another interesting topic comes up from this statement, which will be discussed in a later post. For now it segues into more of the defense divulging what was in its own confidential documents.
“You sound an awful lot like the Capital One representative who wasn’t aware of any mistakes.”
“That what?”
“In the affidavit of sale, [Exhibit 11] you were complaining that the Capital One representative was saying he wasn’t aware of any mistakes in the records that they were giving.”
So here, PRA is telling the public what was said in the “CONFIDENTIAL” affidavit of sale.
In a bigger picture, Judge Rudofsky told the public what was supposedly said in the confidential, sealed documents. He represented that I agreed to owing the debt. He represented that there was accurate records that showed PRA did not call an annoying or harassing number of times. He said that the evidence under seal was so strong, no reasonable juror could disagree with him.
If we were playing poker, I would say PRA bluffed, then Judge Rudofsky as the casino forced me to fold my hand for a manufactured reason, allowing PRA to avoid showing its hand.
The Eighth Circuit upheld that dishonest service and the United States Supreme Court denied my petition for writ of cert and did not mention my motion to unseal the documents on the docket. 24M44.
Here is the motion that was labeled a motion to seal and was “granted”. Despite the record appearing to grant the motion in full, SCOTUS did not unseal the documents. The highest court in the country behaved as if the motion did not request unsealing and ignored the request.
Portfolio Recovery Associates and Other Big Business Billionaires Often Destroy Documents
In my case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc. (stock symbol PRAA), Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, the Eighth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court allowed PRA to designate anything and everything it wanted to as “CONFIDENTIAL” and file under seal.
I cannot say what was in the allegedly top secret documents. But I can tell you what was not in them.
There was no evidence of purchases made by me on a credit card. There was no documentation that linked the specific account with a purchase agreement. There was no credit card agreement. There was no third party documentation of the phone calls made by the debt collector to numbers it associated with me. There was nothing that indicated that I agreed I owed the alleged debt.
Worse, there were not consistent records kept by PRA. The data presented was not consistent between any of the supposedly top secret evidence. In other words, one top secret document says one thing, another says another.
This is unfortunately common business practice. For example, I did business with Advantage Service Holdings, LLC d/b/a Advantage Service Company in Arkansas. Advantage installed a forced air unit in my home. The technician did not give me a written warranty. The unit failed quickly. Then Advantage and the manufacturer, Goodman, claimed the “limited warranty” excused them from any technical difficulties.
Neither Advantage, Goodman or the resale outlet gave me a limited warranty, even though I asked the installer for one. Instead, the technician wrote “warranty” on the invoice, with the number of years for compressor, parts, labor and service. In Arkansas State Court, I entered a copy of my invoice as exhibit 2.
I also entered a copy of the invoice Advantage altered. They added a checklist that represented that the technician gave me the “docs”. Scroll down to page 7. Compare to the original invoice above.
The judge on that case dismissed without allowing for a jury trial. It shocks the conscience that so many judges rubberstamp motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment in favor of Big Business Billionaires like Goodman Manufacturing and Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, while staring at the face of obvious alterations of documentation.
We need A New America For the People.*
*My son Buddy Lynn had a tragic life, destroyed by corrupt judges and their cronies. The week before his death, he started a TikTok channel called “New America for the People”. I am dedicating my work for justice for the common person to Buddy Lynn. You can see my YouTube channel renamed in honor of Buddy here.
Repeat Offender Portfolio Recovery Associates Celebrates Victory After SCOTUS Denies Cert
Others have had victories against Portfolio Recovery Associates in lawsuits for the violation of the FDCPA.
Unfortunately, most victims settle for $5,000 or so. See this news video about one recent “victory”.
I refused to settle for $5,000. Trump nominee Judge Lee P. Rudofsky granted PRA summary judgment against me, so I end up with nothing and even have to pay PRA’s costs.
This is a pattern for Judge Rudofsky. If an alleged debtor has no legal obligation to pay the alleged debt, Rudofsky will call a case against PRA for invasion of privacy or violation of the FDCPA a “victory lap” and dismiss the case. As in my case, he is known to manufacture evidence that the debt was actually owed.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote one paragraph addressing Judge Rude’s order for summary judgment. Their words elicited a vision of Pinocchio standing on the stage, applauding himself and the audience. “Yes! Yes! Everything He said is right! Nothing Laura said is right. That is our omniscient opinion.”
My petition for writ of cert to SCOTUS was denied. (About 0.0001% of Pro Se petitions are granted, so it was no surprise.)
Would I hold out for more than $5,000 next time? Damn straight I would! First, now I can file a complaint to the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights. Also, a billionaire is not going to feel a $5,000 damage award. It is not a win if it doesn’t hurt them.
Should I Sue the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court?
Love Advocate Lucinda!
Here is the comment I left on her YouTube channel:
Thank you. I have brought 1983 cases against clerks and court reporters. They all end in the “trash can” so to speak. My latest issue is with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. The clerk did not post a copy (link) of a 10-page motion to file sealed documents and immediately unseal them. The motion was docketed as a motion to seal only. The docket said, “Motion Granted”. I posted the sealed documents on my blog. 11 days later, the opposing party asked to “take down” my blog and sanction me and order me to pay their attorney fees. I had to write and paper file my response on Christmas week. The District Court Judge said he read my blog and recused himself. The fresh judge only took my blog down for about a week and there were no other sanctions or attorney fees. It seems like the judge reading my blog without notifying me first and giving me an opportunity to object is evidence of embroilment in the case. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky said reading my blog was the cause of his recusal not evidence that I was right about his bias against pro se litigants. SCOTUS is discussing my petition for writ of certiorari, 24-6113 and hopefully will address the docket issues with motion 24M44 also, tomorrow, February 21, 2025. Hopefully I will not need to sue the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
What to Watch for When Portfolio Recovery Associates Forces You to Litigate
A viewer on my YouTube channel, @LauraLynnHammett, said he was getting sued by Portfolio Recovery Associates and didn’t know what to do yet.
Here is my reply:
Look at my blog www.court-corruption.com. There are many stories about the CFPB orders against Portfolio Recovery Associates and free downloadable documents.
The key is that they win by default 90% of the time. Show up to court. Respond timely to their complaint. If you are allowed discovery, ask them to produce old account level documentation from the time your account was at zero until the present balance. Inspect their affidavits to determine if the person who is swearing has actual first-hand knowledge about whatever they are testifying about. Ask for a copy of the original credit contract. They could not produce a contract in my case and Judge Lee P. Rudofsky gave them a pass, but I hope the US Supreme Court looks at my case and overrules Judge Rudofsky and the Eighth. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I am sharing my own experience, and I did score a 162 on the LSAT, a low ivy league score, so I am confident I understand what I read and have good reasoning.
Addition to Cert Petition on Conference of Feb. 21st
Sent overnight.
Four orders relevant to this Petition for Writ of Certiorari were issued after briefing. The final one, Doc. 318, was entered on January 21, 2025, with related motion practice concluding on January 29, 2025. (Appendix AA)
Hammett intended to introduce the documents discussed below earlier. However, her 30-year-old son passed away on January 27, 2025. Combined with other personal challenges, this tragic loss made it difficult for the pro se petitioner to focus on her public service efforts—her fight for justice to be done and to appear to be done.
Hopefully, the Justices of the Supreme Court will forgive Hammett’s delay and perhaps appreciate her brevity.
Post-Judgment Motion Practice and Recusal
On December 20, 2024, Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) filed an “emergency” motion seeking to take down Hammett’s blog, A Higher Law (www.court-corruption.com), and requesting sanctions. Notably, PRA waited nearly a week after discovering the alleged misconduct to file the motion. The Court ordered Hammett to respond by December 27, 2024, requiring her to work through Christmas.
Ultimately, a newly assigned judge denied PRA’s motion for sanctions, attorneys’ fees, and costs. (Docs. 317, 318)
Before that, however, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky conducted an ex parte review of Hammett’s blog before recusing himself. (Doc. 310) He did not recuse himself due to the appearance of bias inherent in independently seeking out evidence. Instead, he claimed that Hammett’s blog was so insulting that a reasonable person might believe reading it could cause bias. The Court thus confused cause and effect.
This post-judgment motion practice and recusal highlight how the appellant’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by affording undue weight to the district court’s opinions.
PRA’s Deceptive Motion to Remove Hammett’s Work
Hammett, as a pro se litigant without electronic filing access, discovered PRA’s motion only by chance when checking her emails on December 22, 2024.
PRA’s motion sought to erase 15 years of Hammett’s work from the internet, a undue cost consistent with the CFPB’s findings that PRA often uses deceptive practices. PRA alleged that Hammett’s public disclosure of [] was malicious, even though the Supreme Court had apparently granted her motion to unseal in full. (24M44, “Motion Granted,” Dec. 9, 2024)
Hammett’s investigation required by order (TEO 317) showed PRA discovered the disclosure no later than December 12, 2024; yet PRA waited until December 20 to file its motion. Meanwhile, Hammett had already removed [] from her blog on December 10, 2024, following a discussion with SCOTUS staffer Laurie Wood. However, a technical issue allowed those with the original URL to still access []. On December 21, 2024, Hammett’s hosting provider informed PRA’s attorneys that they could assist Hammett in fully severing access. PRA withheld this information from Hammett until January 6, 2025—demonstrating that destroying Hammett’s life’s work was more important to PRA than maintaining confidentiality.
Disparate Treatment of Deadlines
The Court granted Hammett, a pro se paper filer, only seven days to respond to PRA’s post-judgment motion (TEO 300), yet gave PRA’s team of attorneys 11 days to file their reply. (TEO 306) This inequity further supports the need for Supreme Court review of the entire proceedings.
CONCLUSION
The post-judgment documents in Appendix AA, BB, and CC provide further evidence that this Court should grant certiorari.
Introducing “A Rudofsky”: The Art of Judicial Gymnastics
He is a textualist—when it suits the narrative he wants to create. But when the text stands in his way? He is a Rudofsky.
He truncated a subordinate clause to distort the meaning of a sentence. He was a Rudofsky.
He ordered documents to be sealed, then misrepresented what they contained. He was a Rudofsky.
The term “Rudofskyist” might soon find its place in the legal lexicon, expanding beyond the conduct of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky himself. If we take a descriptivist approach, it can encompass any stupid attorney trick—any legal sleight of hand designed to mislead, conceal, or manipulate under the guise of procedural neutrality.
It’s not just about one judge. It’s about an entire mindset—one that bends the law to fit an agenda, rather than letting the law dictate the outcome. And when the law doesn’t cooperate? A Rudofsky will make sure the record says something else.
Portfolio Recovery Associates Continues With Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Blessings: Will SCOTUS Step In?
My petition for writ of certiorari to reverse summary judgment in favor of Portfolio Recovery Associates is at the Supreme Court after the Eighth Circuit rubber stamped Judge Rudofsky’s orders. No. 24-6113
A Higher Law 