Is the United States Supreme Court more Amazon or more Walmart?
This was sent in an email by Amazon.
Amazon warns the public of two scams. Scammers may claim there is a fraud investigation and that you must “verify” your account. Or the scammer may claim there is unauthorized or fraudulent activity on your Amazon account. Amazon suggests that you don’t “verify sensitive personal information over the phone.”
In contrast, numerous persons called me and said their name was Joe Blo or Jane Doe and asked me to verify who I was. If pressed what company put them up to the call, they said “Portfolio Recovery Associates.” They asked me to verify my name, birthdate and address or past address, and if I did not answer, refused to tell me what the call was about.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky gave the opinion that it was reasonable for Portfolio Recovery Associates to demand the person they called to identify themselves and verify sensitive personal information over the phone, on a recorded line. Judge Rudofsky’s gig right before taking his lifetime position on the bench was as counsel to Walmart. Walmart partners with credit card companies that sell questionable debts to Portfolio Recovery Associates.
But Judge Rudofsky doesn’t acknowledge any bias created by that past client relationship. No, he asserts that people who agree with Amazon and don’t want to talk with random callers on the phone are unreasonable.
Will the United States Supreme Court agree with Judge Rudofsky? We may find out, if SCOTUS agrees to grant certiorari after the December conference.
Listen in On a Chat with My new Best Friend, ChatGPT: What to do about judge Susan Weaver
http://www.chatGPT.com My questions, their answers.
A plaintiff committed fraud upon the court. The defendant suspected the fraud, but took a year to find evidence. The plaintiff slipped up and put a handwritten note describing the intended fraud, written before the case was filed, into a discovery production. When the defendant presented the evidence to the court in a motion for contempt, the court dismissed the defendant, but gave default judgment against a common defense doctrine defendant, and took rights to the property away from the dismissed with prejudice defendant. Is it still fraud upon the court if the court is complicit? What can the dismissed defendant do to rectify the situation?
This situation involves a complex set of legal issues, including fraud upon the court, the court’s potential complicity, and remedies available to the dismissed defendant. Let’s break it down:
1. Is it still fraud upon the court if the court is complicit?
Yes, it can still be considered fraud upon the court, even if the court appears complicit. “Fraud upon the court” refers to fraud that directly interferes with the administration of justice and affects the integrity of the judicial process. It typically involves egregious conduct, such as fabricating evidence, bribing a judge, or other deceit that taints the proceedings in a way that prevents the court from performing its impartial role.
If a party has engaged in deliberate misconduct, and the court is either unaware or knowingly allows it to proceed, the fraud itself remains. The court’s involvement or negligence doesn’t erase the fraudulent act; it may just complicate efforts to rectify it.
2. What can the dismissed defendant do to rectify the situation?
The dismissed defendant still has potential avenues to challenge the judgment, particularly if they believe fraud upon the court was involved:
- Motion to Vacate Judgment: Under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or similar state law), a party can file a motion to vacate the judgment if there was fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party. There is a one-year time limit from the judgment, but for fraud upon the court (which is a more serious offense), there is no time limit under Rule 60(d)(3).
- Appeal the Court’s Decision: If the defendant was dismissed, and the court made adverse rulings that affected their property rights, they may be able to appeal the dismissal or the court’s treatment of their rights. The appeal could argue that the court’s actions were improper based on the newly discovered evidence of fraud.
- Request an Investigation or File an Ethics Complaint: If the defendant believes the court acted improperly or was complicit in the fraud, they may also consider filing a judicial misconduct complaint. This would be a separate process from the case itself but could bring attention to any inappropriate actions by the court.
- Reopen the Case on Grounds of Fraud: If the defendant was dismissed with prejudice but their property rights were affected by the fraud, they could argue that the dismissal was based on a fraudulent proceeding. This could lead to reopening the case or filing a new case seeking relief.
3. Next Steps for the Dismissed Defendant
- Legal Strategy: The defendant should consult with a lawyer to develop a clear strategy to bring a Rule 60 motion, reopen the case, or file an appeal. The discovery of the handwritten note suggesting fraud could be key evidence.
- Timing: Since time is often a factor in these motions, especially under Rule 60(b), the defendant should act quickly if they are still within the allowable time frame.
- Fraud Upon the Court Arguments: The defendant could make strong arguments that the plaintiff’s behavior constituted fraud upon the court, which justifies setting aside the prior rulings or judgments. If successful, this could result in the reinstatement of the defendant’s rights or even a new trial.
Ultimately, if a court is truly complicit in the fraud, it makes the situation more difficult but not impossible to rectify. Higher courts or disciplinary bodies may provide the checks and balances necessary to correct the injustice.
What would You say to corrupt cops, courts and kin? Speech at Jamey Noel sentencing.
Ah, that I ever get a chance to speak directly to Judge Susan Kaye Weaver, the witch that gave my living trust property to a known fraudster, Mike Pietrczak and his attorney William Zac White.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, who used his academic gift and privilege to help out notorious debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
Jeff and Mary Sherman, no matter how much money they were given, it wasn’t enough.
James Trefil. He can’t even win a case against a pro se litigant unless a lower court judge throws it. So he makes up lies about his victims. (Yes, when you are a dishonest lawyer, they are your victims.)
Well, it does feel good to get that out.
Applause to the fine people who didn’t let politics and cronyism scare them away from the Jamey Noel case, who investigated, prosecuted and presided over the trial. Three cheers for Judge Larry Medlock!!!
Pro Se Petition for Writ of Certiorari Served: Can Appellate Court Say “ya, ya, what he said”?
Excerpts. Please download the FREE Doc of the Day posted above to read the entire petition.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals violated the appellant’s due process rights under U.S. Const. amend. XIV by affirming each of the district court’s orders—particularly those requiring de novo review—without addressing clearly erroneous findings of fact and apparent errors of law, thereby necessitating Supreme Court guidance on the revision or abolition of its local rule allowing such summary affirmance.
This petition also presents three cert-worthy subsidiary questions that remain unanswered:
Whether denying access to electronic filing for pro se litigants constitutes discrimination against the majority property class, in violation of due process and the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights Article Two. The courts held that non-attorneys may not file electronically.
Whether, consistent with Skidmore and the recent Loper decision, individuals have the right to raise a genuine dispute of material fact by citing factual records compiled through Civil Investigative Demands by government agencies. The courts ruled that CFPB findings against the defendant were irrelevant. Whether a court must apply a negative inference for spoliation of evidence to preserve fairness and due process when a party, or its predecessor in interest, destroys or alters evidence it knew would plausibly be needed for future litigation. The implication of spoliation was left unaddressed.
**************************
B. Why Review by the Supreme Court is Necessary
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court in a single paragraph, stating there was ‘no basis for reversal’ and deferring to the lower court’s analysis of Hammett’s claims and costs. It then denied both motions to settle the record and unseal the evidence, undermining the transparency that is the cornerstone of justice.
This Court has acknowledged the risk of appellate courts ‘gloss[ing] over complexities in the evidence’ by relying on clearly erroneous factual findings, as in Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. ___ (2024).
Intermediary appellate courts throughout the country too often fail to provide adequate oversight to the lower courts, as they failed to do for Hammettin this and three other civil actions since 2020. These appellate courts give undue deference to lower court decisions, even where, as here, the standard of review is required to be de novo. “When de novo review is compelled, no form of appellate deference is acceptable.” Regina College v. Russell (89-1629), 499 U.S. 225 (1991)
The motivation for this failure cannot excuse the denial of fundamental due process. It is unacceptable, whether the cause is to save costs for an overburdened system, a party preference, or to protect the image of colleagues.
Even the district court recognized that the appeal was not without merit, stating it was “not frivolous”. (App- F at 5, f.n. 27). At a minimum, the appellant was entitled to a reasoned opinion from the Eighth Circuit, explaining its disagreement with the well-reasoned arguments presented in the appellant’s briefs.
Although the Eighth Circuit did not explicitly cite Local Rule 47B (App-I at 5) when summarily affirming the district court’s decision in this case, its actions are consistent with a troubling pattern of the court using this rule to deny meaningful review—especially in cases involving pro se litigants. Rule 47B allows the court to affirm without issuing an opinion when the judgment below involves no clear factual errors or errors of law. However, this rule should not be used to sidestep a thorough de novo review, particularly in cases such as this, which raise multiple serious issues of fact and law that were overlooked or misinterpreted by the district court.
Petitioner addressed ten serious legal issues on appeal, also exposing the district court’s significant factual misstatements. Several of the issues were raised by the District court in his order on motion for reconsideration. (App-E) The Court’s appearance of bias due to his connection with PRA and distaste for the CFPB was not raised until appeal, so the Eighth Circuit had no prior opinion to affirm.
Justice Samuel Bernard Goodwyn, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, put it perfectly.
“I feel like that transparency makes just a big difference in people’s perception of fairness…I always wanted to explain to people exactly what I had done and if they wanted to appeal it, that’s how I’m going to get better, right? If it comes up to the Supreme Court and they told me I made a mistake, I know not to do it next time.
“Whereas I understand some circuit court judges felt like you never explain why you do what you do because that’s how you get reversed. Why? Why would you be afraid of being reversed?
“I never understood that. Aren’t you more concerned about getting it right? And if you can’t articulate why you’re doing it, I always felt like you shouldn’t do it.
“[laughs] You’re not ready to decide the case if you can’t explain why you’re deciding it.” The Art of Appellate Advocacy, Williams & Mary Law School, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6InzU3szzUY @ 1:49:00 This petition may be treated either as a writ of mandate to compel the Circuit Court to address non-frivolous arguments or as a standard writ of certiorari. If treated as the latter, the Supreme Court would answer the principal question, along with their choice of subsidiary questions fairly included under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(a) and presented herein.
Justice for All. Except the Poor and Middle Class.
There is Walmart branded Capital One credit.
Walmart branded credit card accounts are sold to Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the nation’s second largest debt collector.
Capital One credit card accounts are sold to Portfolio Recovery Associates.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s last job before taking his lifetime seat on the federal bench was counsel to Walmart.
When presiding over Federal Debt Collection Practices Act cases against debt collectors, J. Rudofsky consistently rules against the plaintiff.
When presiding over an FDCPA case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, J. Rudofsky lied about what was written in court documents. He truncated a sentence to change its meaning and ignored evidence that was clearly contradictory to his orders.
This is not a good look for the judge nor the appellate court that upheld his rulings.
How Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Emulates Adolf Hitler
“This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe the lie, but at ensuring that nobody believes anything anymore. And with such a people, you can then do what you please. They are deprived not only of their capacity to act but also of their capacity to think and to judge.”
- Hannah Arendt (October 14, 1906 – December 4, 1975) German historian and philosopher, “The Origins of Totalitarianism.”
These lines reflect my concern about certain judges including Lee Rudofsky and Susan Weaver’s use of lies not just to mislead, but to undermine trust in reality altogether, leaving people disoriented and passive. This is the underpinnings of a totalitarian regime.
Portfolio Recovery Associates Dumps Numbers Then Lies About the Quantity of Calls They Made
Trump appointed judge Lee P. Rudofsky does not want a jury to hear the evidence in my case against Portfolio Recovery Associates who were collecting an alleged debt generated by Capital One. His last job was as attorney for Walmart and Walmart branded debt from Capital One Credit Cards is sold to Portfolio Recovery Associates.
It wouldn’t help his homeys if the PRA Group subsidiary was exposed.
I know for a fact that PRA made more calls to me than they listed on the call log they generated. I answered the calls. After I told PRA I was filing a lawsuit, all the calls stopped.
Never again did I receive the scripted call, “Hi this is [representative’s name or assumed name] calling on a recorded line for Laura Lynn.” Those calls had the same background noise, the same cadence, and similar neighbor spoofed numbers.
One of the reps told me PRA “owned” all the numbers it called from. I returned calls to those numbers and reached PRA. That changed after PRA produced the falsified phone records.
All of a sudden, none of the numbers worked any longer. PRA was too lazy and stupid to differentiate between the numbers it admitted to calling from and the numbers it actually called from but omitted from its records. It dumped all of them.
Many courts would consider that to be “spoliation” and give a negative inference against the party who destroyed the evidence. Not Judge Rudofsky.
Luckily, I recorded some of the calls to numbers that were on my telephone service provider’s records. My assistant who helped demonstrate that my phone worked made a boo boo. He accidently said it was February 2021. I hadn’t sued until after that, so it was 2022. The last calls from PRA came in February 2021.
If you found this blog because you are getting annoying calls from Portfolio Recovery Associates, hopefully you will learn from my experience. I should have documented even more. It would have been better for me if I wrote down each time I received a call or missed a call from the neighbor spoofed numbers. I should have recorded every one of the calls. I think there are programs you can get to record calls. I’m not great with technology as it is, so I haven’t learned to use any of those programs yet. I should have screenshot the call log on my phone more often and before the oldest numbers fell off the list.
Not that a judge like Lee P. Rudofsky will allow you to progress to a jury trial against PRA or any debt collector. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rubber stamps district court orders against pro se litigants. But if we can document intentional errors well enough, we can possibly stop the errant judges from reaching the Supreme Court.
Challenge to Discrimination Against Pro Se Litigants Heading to the Supreme Court
Debt buying Goliath Portfolio Recovery Associates rejected an offer to settle the case brought against them by me, a pro se litigant.
As promised, here is the offer: (I had to remove references that would disclose the settlement offer PRA made in mediation, even though they made statements in court documents about my lowest offer. They lied about my lowest offer, so maybe they will claim that it isn’t a breach of contract to say you are disclosing what is in a confidential mediation and then lie about it.)
Dear Counsel,
I am open to a settlement with your clients that is 1/10th my final offer in our mediation. It is also the amount [they offered to another person with similar complaints]. PRA must agree to vacate the judgment so as not to harm my credit rating.
Please see my recent FICO score of 803 from Experian, attached. (If I get to trial, I will use this as evidence of the magnitude of emotional distress PRA is causing me by the specter of bankruptcy that is inherent in prolonged litigation, especially for a low income person like myself who is likely to lose for lack of funds rather than lack of merit.)
The agreement should be simple and bilateral. There can be a nondisclosure agreement as to the amount of the settlement, but I will spend no time trying to remove anything I’ve already disclosed about the case from the internet or any other forum. Neither party will ever contact the other party, including to litigate. This means PRA will not try to collect on the judgment (which will be vacated anyhow) nor any alleged debts owed by me, past, present or future. There should be one exclusion, which is the enforcement of this settlement agreement.
It is against the odds that my petition for writ of cert is granted (as it is rare for any pro se petition to be granted), but if it is and I get to trial, I believe a jury will award an $82 million verdict.
This offer will increase by actual costs I incur on appeal to the Supreme Court and be automatically rescinded upon issuance of a writ.
Thank you for your client’s consideration,
Laura Hammett
**********
PRA responded:
FRE 408
Ms. Hammett,
My client rejects your demand. In exchange for a full release and settlement of all claims you have or may have against PRA, my client will forego collecting its taxable costs award of $8,356.18 and any interest accrued on this amount since it was entered on August 23, 2023.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Jim
***********
I rescinded my offer.
First glaring problem with PRA’s offer, PRA was collecting on an alleged debt with no documentation about how that debt was incurred. PRA can, by the terms it offered, sell the judgment to another PRA Group subsidiary. Then that debt buyer can come after me. My documentation won’t show the judgment was vacated.
The sneaky attorneys did not include an agreement that PRA will not sue me for anything else. They may try to get an award for costs of the appeal. Or they may come up with some other BS reason to sue me. They sue people often without any legitimate claim.
More importantly, PRA did exactly what I complained about, lied in court documents, had Judge Rudofsky lie in his written order, and PRA does similar things to hundreds of thousands of people. Just like they win by default in 90% of their collection cases, they know they can win in almost 100% of cases against pro se litigants, because most pro se litigants lose because of discriminatory court policies and practices.
Here is a quote from a pro se who reversed his criminal conviction obtained by the United States after going to the Supreme Court, Giridhar Sekhar. Talk about bringing down Goliath!
“I’m a little annoyed with the NDNY federal prosecutor Elizabeth Coombe who willfully put [an alleged perjurer] on the stand knowing that the admission was fabricated, but I think her karmic reward will be to forever be reminded by her colleagues that she was beaten at trial by a pro se defendant.”
Pro se wisdom from a poker player
I was stressing on my Supreme Court bid against Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC and evil judge Lee P. Rudofsky. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit let the lower court get away with outright lies and hiding the evidence under seal. If SCOTUS doesn’t help, I will be bankrupt.
How ironic. A debt buyer tries to collect $2,297.63 from someone who has no debt. The alleged debtor sues PRA which causes them to immediately set the balance on the account they bought to zero. Then PRA tosses a bone at the poor woman to settle. The plaintiff insists on more money or going to a jury to decide what it is worth. PRA submits doctored records, lies about the plaintiff in certified court documents and offers lower and lower amounts to settle. Huh? Then the judge joins in on the lies, denies the opportunity to show even a jury the evidence and orders the pro se pensioner to pay for the goliath debt buyer’s litigation costs…even though she could not afford her own. The lawsuit sends the alleged debtor from an 803 FICO score to bankrupt.
When I heard the news the other day, that the appellate judges were going to stand behind Rudofsky with no explanation of why they disagreed with my well supported appeal, I felt like I got kicked in the gut. There is no winning for me. Paying the costs of their defense to the PRA Group company will bankrupt me. Settling for nothing means they got away with harassing another old lady and will do it again and again. But writing and publishing a petition for writ of certiorari will also bankrupt me, if I don’t win, and the chance of being one of the few cases chosen each year as a self-represented litigant approaches zero.
I was ready to quit. I made my rock bottom offer to PRA. (If they reject it, I will share the offer with you, my friends.)
Today I was scrolling through the Facebook page of another female poker player, Meg Chapman. She had these inspiring words to offer:
“If you’re worried about the cost of going for it, you should see the price of staying exactly where you are.”
We Have the Best Legal System Money Can Buy
The common citizen cannot afford to hire an attorney for representation in litigation.
The courts have both a systemic bias and personal judicial bias against the self-represented.
I am taking a case against debt buying goliath Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC to the Supreme Court of the United States to give SCOTUS the opportunity to discuss this bias.
Here are my questions, as a work in progress:
1) Whether the difference in treatment between pro se litigants and those who are represented by attorneys discriminates based on the distinction of property, as prohibited by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article two.
2) Whether an appearance of bias by the court, whether systemic or personal, creates a fundamental denial of due process.
The purpose of this appeal to our highest court is to procure basic tools of due process for We, the People, that are extended now only to the moneyed elite. These include access to electronic filing; access to original recordings of hearings; and public disclosure of all but the most sensitive evidence on which disposition of a case is based, whether that be by trial or by summary judgment.
Also, we should be able to introduce evidence of a defendant’s practices that was collected by a civil investigation of a regulatory agency such as the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) or in a prosecutorial action by an attorney general. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky and the Eighth Circuit judges do not find the discovery the public paid for to be relevant to an individual’s case. The courts expect anyone who wants justice to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars up front to reproduce the same discovery as done with taxpayer dollars.
Ironically, the Rules of the Supreme Court require technical compliance with the formatting and number of copies of the petition for writ of certiorari and then the briefs that is cost prohibitive for most people, including me. I have an 803 FICO score, but only bring in about $640 per month revenue. I doubt I qualify for in forma pauperis status, because it seems like the court expects a person to take on debt to proceed in court, and I am debt adverse.
Please consider helping with expenses, formatting the booklet, especially the appendix that must include about 100 orders, or legal representation. (Earn your quill!)
You can reach me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.
A Higher Law 