We Need to Charge Every Public Servant Who Lies to Us
There must be honest, incorruptible people out there who are willing to take positions in government. We need an honest president, honest judges, honest police, honest administrators in public hospitals. And those that call themselves honest must stand up to the corrupt ones; allowing the corruption is dishonest.
I have serious issues with Donald Trump leading our country. But today, I want to share an interview with parents of a soldier who died under Biden’s watch. Biden lied straight faced to us during the presidential debate. He said no military personnel died while deployed on a mission.
I also have personal knowledge of voter fraud by democrats, not during the presidential election, but during an election right after. A childhood friend teaches film writing at UCLA. He grew up in California and his first home purchase was in California. He posted on Facebook that he signed up for absentee voting in Georgia. Almost 100 of his Facebook friends gave thumbs up and cheered. I told him this was dishonest. He unfriended me.
It comes from both sides of the aisle though. Republican appointed judge Lee P. Rudofsky acted worse than the Democratic party judge and prosecutors who were over the Trump trial. Rudofsky changed a pivotal sentence in one of my court documents by truncating a phrase that came after a comma. Then when I used this dishonesty as an example of the plethora of errors he made, the Harvard trained judge admitted the sentence was altered, but claimed the actual sentence was even worse for me. He did not explain how it was worse, because it wasn’t.
Speak the truth and the truth shall set you free.
Will the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Rehear Appeal to Benefit Pro Se Litigants?
Case No.: 23-2638, -3093, -3432
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC; DOES 1-99 Defendant-Appellees
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
No. 4:21-cv-00189-LPR
[] Lee P. Rudofsky, District Judge
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 35(b) Statement
The proceeding involves many questions of exceptional importance. (FRAP Rule 35(b)(1)(B)) This petition focuses on three.
- Whether pro se litigants with meritorious cases lose because of what appears to be a bias against them.
- Whether the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas discriminates systemically against litigants who can’t afford attorneys, by forbidding pro se litigants from filing electronically based solely upon class, instead of criteria that will allow everyone who is technically and ethically qualified access to this valuable tool.
- Whether the regulatory opinions resulting from civil investigations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are authoritative and may be used as evidence of the respondents’ practices.
The panel decision conflicts with the following decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions. (FRAP Rule 35(b)(1)(A))
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978), well settled.
“Common-law right of access to judicial records provides a measure of accountability to the public at large, which pays for the courts.”
- Whittington v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 21 F.4th 997, 1000 (8th Cir. 2021), well settled.
“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).”
- U.S. v. Melton, 738 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2013)
“The recusal statute sets forth an objective standard for assessing a judge’s duty to recuse: the question is whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the average person on the street who knows all the relevant facts of a case. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a).”
- U.S.A. v. Taleb Jawher, No. 22-2844 (8th Cir. 2023)
A party’s fabrication of business records exemplifies knowledge that the authentic evidence is adverse to that party. Extrapolating, spoliation of evidence gives a reasonable inference that the spoiled evidence is adverse to the party that altered or destroyed it.
- Friedman v. Farmer, 788 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2015), well settled.
“A district court ‘should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).”
Single Page Summary of Case Verbatim from Appellant’s Opening Brief
Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates’ willful and wanton violation of the FDCPA and a Consent Order injured me. The Court shrugged.
No justice against PRA’s extortionist enterprise was attained. The Court failed. PRA intruded upon my seclusion, annoyed, and harassed me. Adverse verdicts and settlements against PRA total over $130,000,000 for similar conduct. PRA’s spoliation of evidence shows it knew its pattern and practice was unacceptable.
I sent its calls to voicemail, blocked them, begged these strangers to stop and finally, in November 2020, acquiesced to answering questions on a recorded line. It didn’t help. My only option was to pay an invalid debt or file a lawsuit. I filed.
PRA sent a letter saying it “has concluded its investigation of your dispute and is closing your account” with a balance of zero. Eight months later, for the first time, PRA said the debt had been “waived”. But PRA chose not to issue a form 1099-C.
PRA was allowed to subpoena my entire physical and mental health record, despite the irrelevance, and published false, defamatory accusations against me.
The Court granted summary judgment based on insufficient discovery, PRA’s inadmissible evidence, and disregard of my evidence. The grant of summary judgment is reserved for exceptional cases, emphasizing the court’s preference for full trials and thorough examination of evidence. Please grant me a jury trial.
If it pleases this Court, I will attend oral argument for rebuttal and questions.
Panel Activity
This case was originally “Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges”, called here “The Panel”. Unlike another case The Panel agreed should be heard en bank, this is the perfect vehicle for answering “momentous” questions. (Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 853 F.3d 339, 359 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (Sykes, J., dissenting), as cited by STRAS, Circuit Judge, with whom GRUENDER, ERICKSON, GRASZ and KOBES, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Dylan Brandt, et al v. Leslie Rutledge, et al, No. 21-2875 (8th Cir. 2022)). “In light of the importance of the issue[s], and recognizing the power of the full court to overrule earlier decisions and to bring [Circuit] law into conformity with the Supreme Court’s teachings, a majority of the judges in regular active service voted to rehear this case en banc.” (Hively).
The Panel failed to correct errors that denied Hammett equality and transparency in proceedings. In doing so, they slammed the doors of justice on those who can’t afford an attorney and helped the District Court take back what he called an “unconstitutional power grab” by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). (Br. 72)
The panel decision was notably imprecise and devoid of explanation.
The Panel gave a 225-word opinion. The “reasoning”, omitting citations, amounts to this: “After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal in the other matters, we agree with the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis of Hammett’s claims; and we discern no error in the grant of costs. As to Hammett’s arguments challenging the district court’s rulings on a host of other issues, we find no basis for reversal.”
The Panel then disposed of motions to unseal the spoiled evidence prepared by PRA and recordings of hearings that were transcribed improperly on another Hammett pro se case thus: “We also deny her pending motions.”
Hammett intends to take this case, if not reversed, to the United States Supreme Court upon petition for writ of certiorari. They may have this to say:
“It is to be regretted, that the case referred to had not been more fully reported. As it is not preceded by any statement of facts, abstracts of the history and laws of this society, or the arguments of counsel, the insulated unexplained opinion of the Court, as it is printed, must be ever unintelligible to all descriptions of readers, except those whose professional duties lead them to the study of the novel and extensive institution whose interests are involved in it.” (Mutual Assur. Soc. V. Faxon, 19 U.S. 606, 1821 WL 2164, 5 L.Ed. 342, 6 Wheat. 606.)
The United States Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and reversed. “The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [decided] in a three-paragraph unpublished memorandum opinion. 389 Fed.Appx. 640 (2010). In so doing, the court did not discuss any specific facts or mention the reasoning of the other three courts that had rejected Jackson’s claim. Instead, after setting forth the basic background legal principles in the first two paragraphs, the Court of Appeals offered a one-sentence conclusory explanation for its decision:
‘The prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for peremptorily striking the two African–American jurors were not sufficient to counter the evidence of purposeful discrimination in light of the fact that two out of three prospective African–American jurors were stricken, and the record reflected different treatment of comparably situated jurors.’ Id., at 641.
“That decision is as inexplicable as it is unexplained. It is reversed.” (Felkner v. Jackson, 562 U.S. 594, 131 S.Ct. 1305, 179 L.Ed.2d 374.)
This Eighth Circuit decision is stark in comparison. Especially because the Ninth Circuit could look back on lower appellate court review. Hammett detailed with specificity the errors made sua sponte by the District Court, which will be touched upon in the sections titled “Consistency” and “Fairness”. The Panel failed to find specific flaws in Hammett’s rebuttal of the orders.
The Panel did not address Hammett’s argument about why her NOA of the order on her post judgment motion to revive a subpoena was timely. (Br. 24)
“Kuntz v. Rodenburg LLP, 838 F.3d 923, 924 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review)”, on summary judgment. Hammett gave specific citations to evidence that raised a genuine dispute of material facts in her brief.
“Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 853 F.3d 414, 431 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review)”, costs. The Panels citation refers to 28 U.S.C.A. §1920. This code makes taxation of costs discretionary by use of the word “may”. It is an abuse of discretion to charge any costs to Hammett when PRA agreed that it only agreed to a zero balance “in light of the litigation”.
Ironically, the Court gave PRA an excuse to resume collection activity.
The point should be moot when summary judgment orders are reversed.
A decision by the full court can provide a more comprehensive and authoritative ruling.
Rehearing en banc is crucial for maintaining judicial consistency and fairness.
Consistency
The robust citation to authorities throughout Hammett’s opening brief point to the inconsistencies with Eighth Circuit cases as well as cases nationwide. Of particular note are the $82M Jury Verdict Mejia case, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Guadelupe Mejia, 2016 WL 3460177 (Mo.App. W.D.) Appeal No. WD79175 (Br. 28, 57, 64, 67, 88 and Reply Br. 17, 31, 38, 39) and another pro se case called Green, Mazie Green v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Court of Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 0144-22-3, February 20, 2024 (Reply Br. 18, 19).
The CFPB investigated PRA twice. The first resulted In the Matter of Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 2015-CFPB-0023 [AKA Consent Order]. The CFPB found that the portfolios PRA bought before 2015, which might include the portfolio PRA claims it purchased from Capital One that purportedly had a line item for The Debt, were full of inaccuracies. PRA agreed to cease collections on debts like Hammett’s that lacked Old Account Level Documentation. (Br. 2)
Hammett filed her suit in early 2021, claiming that PRA violated the Consent Order by its conduct toward her.
In 2023, the CFPB filed a complaint against PRA that mimicked Hammett’s complaint, but said the bad conduct effected hundreds of thousands of consumers. (CFPB v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case 2:23-cv-00110, U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia [AKA CFPB Complaint and Stipulated Judgment]) (Br. 31, 63, 64, 70)
Pro se litigants are at a disadvantage. They do not have a formal legal education. Many are not gifted communicators.
The District Court noted that Hammett communicates well. She has a good lifetime record of staying out of court and prevailing when she is forced to resort to litigation pro se. Her case is a good vehicle to try to right some of the injustices that pro se litigants commonly suffer.
Hammett was denied the electronic filing tool by the Eastern District of Arkansas. It would make as much sense for the Court to demand Hammett brush off the typewriter she used in college and use it instead of a computer with a word processor. Or, like pro se inmates, hand write her documents.
Hammett was not allowed to hear the recording of a hearing she recalled quite differently than the transcript portrays it. It is common to allow attorneys to play back the recordings when they ask.
The Court participated in a cover-up of documentary evidence that is inconsistent. PRA clearly created a phone log that does not have all the calls on it, a communication log that has far fewer entries than the phone log and produced fewer recordings of calls than the number that were connected. Evidence used to make a summary judgment determination should be made public as if it was seen by a jury. Especially since the forms were produced in other cases.
The judge that was counsel to WalMart, who partners with Capital One on branded credit cards and who sells portfolios of debt to PRA, should have disclosed this relationship and recused himself.
Instead, the Court told numerous falsities, including truncating a sentence to bolster the lie that Hammett agreed she owed The Debt.
Petitioner-Appellant begs the Eighth Circuit to rehear this appeal, including two motions, en banc and to give a reasoned opinion as to why Hammett’s plethora of arguments presented in her briefs are wrong.
Respectfully submitted,
June 18, 2024 Laura Lynn Hammett
Improved Questions for SCOTUS: Pro Se Fights Against the Lack of Transparency in Court
The lead case for this challenge to a common problem is Laura Lynn Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, et al.
Questions presented for review:
- Whether transparency, equal access to technology, and guarding the integrity of evidence in court proceedings is required to protect the due process rights of a class of people who are often denied equal protection because of their socio-economic class; Pro Se Litigants.
- Whether the regulatory opinions resulting from civil investigations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are authoritative and may be used as evidence of the respondents’ practices.
If court personnel, including clerks and judges, altered the record in a case in which you were an unrepresented litigant, you were denied permission to file electronically, or the judge ignored obvious incongruities in the represented parties’ evidence and you were self-represented, please post your case name, number and jurisdiction in the comments or contact me anonymously at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.
Your case may be included in a collection for an appendix to this petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States and if denied, the Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations.
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 Higher Law 