Tag Archive | Judge Lee P. Rudofsky
March 26, 2024  

A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Seven

Photo by MART PRODUCTION on Pexels.com

This blog is getting a little monotonous. It is important though that all the lies and deceit by a federal district court judge, Lee P. Rudofsky, be documented.

His orders, including granting summary judgment against the plaintiff in an FDCPA, invasion of privacy and outrage complaint, are under appeal. Judge Rudofsky allowed the defendant to file its so-called evidence under seal. Then the defendant and judge misstated what was under seal. If the Eighth Circuit decides to maintain the Star Chamber and affirm the manifest injustice, it is important for the public to know what the appellate court ignored.

Why would you trust my version, more than that of the court? Because I am willing to let you see what is under seal. The defendant and the court are not. No particularized need was offered as to why to keep the documents sealed. For example, the “Data Load” the judge described in detail, omitting the entries that don’t look too good for the defendant, do not contain any trade secrets. The form itself is run of the mill. The privacy of the data should belong to the plaintiff. It does not divulge financial information about the defendant, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.

Also, that Judge Rudofsky was nominate by Donald Trump is repeated in most chapters.

When I write a book, the redundancies will be left out.

This is not a Democrat or Republican blog. I am a Libertarian. I registered Republican in 2016, to vote against Trump in the primaries. The two candidates I liked, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, split their votes and Trump won. I did vote for Trump against Hillary Clinton, but only because my choice was a walking douche bag and a turd sandwich (plagiarizing from South Park).

I usually don’t “waste” my vote on the Libertarian candidate if I like or hate one of the Democrats or Rupublicans. I liked Mike Pence, which kind of swung me toward Trump. I am the proverbial “swing vote”.

This election, I will vote for RFK, Jr. I loved Bobbie Kennedy and JFK. Robert Kennedy, Jr. takes on big business and government agencies in court cases. He is a trooper. Like my son, who recently had a life-threatening accident and continues to work to make the world a better place, RFK can easily retire because of his neurological damage, and he keeps moving forward anyways.

So, not to bore you, but here are the next lines of interest from Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, docket no. 173.

doc-173-consolidated-order-pra-4Download

The judge buried the next line in footnote 26, divided between two pages. In the second part, on page 4, the judge wrote: “It appears that PRA, LLC, used another company, Compumail, to facilitate the dispatch of the letter.”

You could place that line in the back of your brain, as Judge Rudofsky intended. There it might collect cobwebs, and you may never think of it again. Judge Rudofsky does not mention Compumail again until page 50, when he discusses the motion to amend. (Doc. 33 and 33-1)

doc-33-motion-to-amend-facDownload
doc-33-1-filed-second-amended-complaint-with-exhibitsDownload

But Compumail’s complicity in PRA’s collections is important at the summary judgment of the first amended complaint. The entire PRA production of documents was a bit light in the loafers. About half the documents were letters that were purportedly mailed by Compumail.

None of the letters purportedly mailed before February 2021 reached me.

PRA cannot use its own record of whether or not the letters were returned undeliverable without having Compumail swear by affidavit that it did not receive the letters back as “undeliverable”. It is crazy that Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, again, made a credibility determination, believing that PRA did not get the returned letters and disbelieving that I did not receive any letters, without any competent evidence to base that credibility determination. Forget the fact that at summary judgment, Judge Rudofsky must take all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor.

It is interesting, and we will get there another day, that Rudofsky treated Compumail as an integral part of PRA’s operations, allowing PRA to testify on behalf of Compumail, but would not allow Compumail to be added as a Doe defendant.

Are they or aren’t they partners in crime, so to speak?

March 22, 2024  

A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Four

Photo by Chris F on Pexels.com

Join us on today’s episode of exposing the lies and deceit of the Young Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. We are working our way through an order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Debt Buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates on all claims, docket number 173.

doc-173-consolidated-order-pra-3Download

We are on the top of page three. “As part of this purchase, Capital One transmitted to PRA, LLC ‘load data’ associated with the account [ending -6049].17 Load data provides specific details about an account that a company like PRA, LLC buys from Capital One.18 The load data that Capital One provided to PRA, LLC with respect to account number -6049 contained personal information about [Laura Lynn, AKA Hammett].19“

Footnote 17: “[See Ex. 1 (Dreano Decl.) to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-3) (Under Seal at Doc. 121)] ¶¶ 6–7; see also Ex. B to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-5) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) (indicating that Capital One transferred to PRA, LLC records of individual accounts); Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121).”

Footnote 18: “Ex. 1 (Dreano Decl.) to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-3) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) ¶ 7.”

Footnote 19: “Ex. C (Load Data Sheet) to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-6) (Under Seal at Doc. 121).”

Now, I will repeat what I said in Chapter 3. Judge Rudofsky was adamant that the litigants must not “share the unredacted version [of confidential documents] with anyone else or reveal the contents of the redacted information.” (See footnote 1 on page 1)

Two pages later Judge Rudofsky spilled the beans about what Ms. Dreano supposedly said in the super-secret declaration and exhibits. Only, technically, Judge Rudofsky did not disclose what was in the documents, because what Judge Rudofsky said was shown by the documents was not. Judge Rudofsky lied on behalf of the debt buyer. The judge let PRA keep its evidence under seal. Collusion anyone?

There is no indication on the “Load Data” that it was generated by Capital One. There was no portfolio sheet attached that showed the data transmitted by Capital One to PRA.

There is no dispute that PRA sent a letter to the alleged debtor, me, that was addressed to “Laura Lyman”. It had an account number that did not end in -6049, like the account in question. Did PRA transfer the data to the “Load Data” document from the Laura Lynn account or the Laura Lyman account?

More important than the question of whether the $2,297.63 balance on the -6049 account was correct is the question, “why did Judge Rudofsky order the evidence to be filed under seal, and then misstate what was in the evidence?”

March 20, 2024  

A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Two

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” – Sir Walter Scott

You can read Chapter One by clicking here.

Are you here to learn the second thing I look for when I am digging for deception? (The first thing was discussed in Chapter One. I look in the footnotes.)

I promise I won’t string you along too long.

But first, let’s look at the “Background7” section of Federal Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s opinion granting summary judgment to a debt collector defendant in my FDCPA and Arkansas state torts complaint. You can download a FREE copy of the redacted version.

doc-173-consolidated-order-pra-2Download

Opining by footnote is Judge Rudofsky’s literary tic.

Footnote 7 starts innocently enough: “On summary judgment, the Court recites the genuinely disputed facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, including giving the nonmoving party all reasonable inferences from the facts. Haggenmiller v. ABM Parking Servs., Inc., 837 F.3d 879, 884 (8th Cir. 2016). Of course, the Court also relies on undisputed facts. Essentially, the Court considers the version of the facts most favorable to the nonmovant that a rational juror could find on this record.”

Next Rudofsky covers his ass: “Accordingly, the Court’s factual recitation is only good for the summary judgment motions.” The judge acknowledges that what he says next may not be true. It is a conclusion that is supposedly based on the limited evidence produced in discovery. He might be thinking that if somehow a self-represented non-attorney is not intimidated into settling the case for a stupid low amount and appeals the judgment, that the Cornell and Harvard trained young judge can play dumb like a fox.

Then Judge Rudofsky segued into a lie. “This case presents partially dueling motions for summary judgment. For efficiency purposes, and to give Ms. Hammett every possible benefit, the Court has chosen to recite all genuinely disputed facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Hammett, including giving her the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” He did no such thing.

Here is the jaw dropping recitation of “facts”. As I read it, I wondered how the judge could possibly rationalize that his recitation chose the light most favorable to me.

“In 2001, Ms. Hammett (then Laura J. Lynn) was living in California and opened a credit
card account with Capital One Bank.8 The account number ended in -6049.9 In 2010, Ms.
Hammett became delinquent on this account.10“

Footnotes 9 and 10 referred only to PRA’s self-serving declaration. Footnote 8 included a reference to two sections of a deposition PRA took from me.

Docket No. 164. You can download the redacted version FREE.

doc-164-transcript-of-depositionDownload

The judge cited page 80, lines 4 to 12 and page 81, lines 15 to 18:

4 Q: Okay. Have you ever had a Capital One account?
5 A: I believe I probably did.
6 Q: Does that mean yes or does that mean no?
7 A: It means I probably did. I have no evidence of it
8 anywhere. I’ve looked through every piece of paper
9 that I have and I’ve looked through all my e-mails.
10 There’s not a single one from Capital One.
11 Q: When did you have the Capital One account?
12 A: If I had it, the 2001 sounds about right.

15 Q: Okay. Going back to Exhibit 9. We touched on the
16 open date. You said 2001 sounded about right for a
17 Capital One account; is that correct?
18 A: Yeah, because — the reason why I say that is

Judge Rudofsky cut off my answer mid-sentence. Here is the part he did not want to talk about.

18 A: Yeah, because — the reason why I say that is
19 because I had just gotten divorced, and so I would
20 probably have been putting cards in my name. It might
21 have even been earlier than that, but, you know, around
22 then, probably more like 1998.
23 Q: And this is for your Capital One account, correct?
24 A: Any account that I had would have been opened
25 around that time like 1998 or thereabouts because

1 before that, I had all of my accounts with my
2 ex-spouse, Timothy Lynn, and we had phenomenal credit
3 together. You know, I just know that that’s when I
4 started opening my own accounts.
5 Q: Do you deny ever having a Capital One account?
6 A: I don’t deny having a Capital One account, but
7 don’t twist that into being this account.

Oh, my bad. I told PRA attorney James Trefil not to twist my answer. I forgot to tell Judge Rudofsky not to twist my answer. So, twist he did.

“In 2001, Ms. Hammett (then Laura J. Lynn) was living in California and opened a credit
card account with Capital One Bank.8 The account number ended in -6049.9“

Judge Rudofsky did not support the big lie, that I became delinquent on this account, with any evidence I produced. He ignored the plethora of evidence I produced that was the exact opposite. Here are statements I swore to over and over again.

   “I do not have any written record of a Capital One account, other than the insufficient documentation provided by PRA, and therefore do not know the account number on any account I may have had.”

     “I do not recall missing any payments [or] becoming delinquent on a Capital One account. I asked for PRA to mail documentation to me that might spark a memory of an alleged decade old event and none was offered.”

     In the recorded conversation February 18, 2021, Hammett said “I have no debt and so I know that whatever you have is not my debt. It is absolutely not my debt. I do not have any debt, and so anything that you allegedly have is not my debt.” (call transcript)

Unfortunately, that is all I have time to write about this case today. We didn’t reach the second tell when a corrupt lawyer or judge is writing deceptively. Rather than stringing you along, I’ll get it out and then extrapolate in our next installment.

The second tell is when a corrupt lawyer or judge puts something in quotation marks. It is a good bluff. Who the hell is going to lie about something that is in quotation marks if the quoted document is available to cross reference?

An arrogant and entitled corrupt lawyer or judge, like Lee P. Rudofsky. That’s who.

March 19, 2024  

A Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter One

All the misstatements and outright lies told by Federal Judge Lee P. Rudofsky in his opinions on my case against debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC could not fit into a 13,000-word appellate brief.

Here I have no word limitation and no time constraint. It is the perfect place to expose the corrupt judge, hopefully blocking him from moving any further up the official court hierarchy.

Let’s start at the beginning of the order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Portfolio Recovery on all claims, docket number 173.

“CONSOLIDATED ORDER1“

Judge Rudofsky made ample use of footnotes. There are two things I look for when I am digging for deception. One is footnotes. (You’ll need to return for the next installment to find the other indicator.)

Footnote 1: “The Court is issuing two versions of this Order. The Court will file a redacted version on the public record. The Court will file an unredacted version under seal. Only Ms. Hammett, PRA, LLC, and PRA, LLC’s counsel may view the unredacted version of this Order. Neither party may share the unredacted version with anyone else or reveal the contents of the redacted information. If there is an appeal in this matter, the unredacted version of this Order should be filed under seal with the Eighth Circuit, unless the Eighth Circuit concludes otherwise.”

Star Chamber anyone?

Judge Rudofsky denied my right to have a jury as fact finder, then he cloaked the supposed facts in secrecy.

Out of fear of incarceration, I will honor the judge’s order until, hopefully, the Eighth Circuit overturns it. (A news agency, citizen’s group or the Democratic Party might want to file a stand-alone suit asking for declaratory relief that the top-secret documents be unsealed.)

In the meantime, it is not contemptuous to tell you what is not in the blacked-out text.

Let’s look at the first block on page 4, footnote 30, referenced in the main body text:

“PRA, LLC also tried to contact Ms. Hammett by phone.30“

sshhhhhhh. The blacked-out text is super-secret. What the judge shares publicly is that he pulled words or ideas from other documents. The first was from my response to PRA’s statement of facts, paragraph 36. The other secret sections are from PRA’s “Dreano” declaration as an exhibit to PRA’s statement of facts, all under seal.

Judge Rudofsky, in deciding that there were no genuine issues of material fact that preclude granting PRA’s motion for summary judgment, failed to acknowledge that I reasonably disputed the “facts” from PRA’s statement of facts that are under seal.

Rudofsky finished the footnote paragraph: “As will be discussed below, these processes are not full proof.” (Perhaps a Freudian slip for “fool proof”.) “In this case, for example, there are two occasions in which Ms. Hammett was called after 9:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.”

Judge Rudofsky himself let the cat out of the bag. He told the world that the blacked-out text discusses “processes” meant to deter the debt collector from calling after 9 p.m. The processes under seal were not full proof. They were not even partial proof. Nowhere under seal or publicized did PRA prove, nor did I admit that PRA maintained any procedures reasonably adapted to avoid calling after 9 p.m.

Judge Rudofsky said that “these processes” are not perfect. The implication is that they are reasonable.

I love math. I love teaching math. Weird. I know.

I love to “proof”, to figure out in which step someone went wrong to come up with the wrong answer.

“Oh! You added where you should have multiplied.”

From there out, my student could adapt his behavior, and multiply instead of add.

The sealed information did not explain why two calls were made outside the 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. time frame.

PRA never tried to figure out why they got the wrong answer. Therefore, they could not adapt the processes to be effective.

Don’t let Lee P. Rudofsky fool you into thinking there was a reasonable explanation where there was none.

doc-173-consolidated-order-pra-1Download
March 19, 2024  

Compare Trump Judge with Obama Judge in Cases Against Portfolio Recovery Associates

Today you get two FREE Docs of the Day. OK, one is a repost.

It is just so interesting to compare the court opinions on two motions for summary judgment filed by Goliath Debt Buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. (This is a wholly owned subsidiary of publicly traded PRA Group Inc. [PRAA])

Judge McNulty was nominated by Barack Obama. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky was nominated by Donald Trump.

Judge Rudofsky went out of his way to alter or misstate the record in favor of the big business interest. In fact, I’m going to repost two more docs for you today, my appellate brief and reply, which enumerate a few of the most egregious lies told by the judge.

If the Eighth Circuit reverses and remands my case, I hope to find an attorney to represent me at trial. Feel free to contact me if you are interested. My contact info is on the briefs.

pazymino-v-pra-order-denying-msjDownload
doc-173-consolidated-order-praDownload
appeal-filed-appellant-briefDownload
filed-appeal-reply-brief-portfolio-recovery-associates-1Download

It is a bit lackluster and full of stupid lawyer tricks, also, but here is the responsive brief filed by PRA’s team of attorneys. (Lead appellate attorney, Misha Tseytlin, is a former State Solicitor general and is in the Federalist Society Cabal with Lee Rudofsky.)

appeal-brief-response-praDownload
March 18, 2024  

Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Orders Challenged by Reply Brief

FREE Doc of the Day

filed-appeal-reply-brief-portfolio-recovery-associatesDownload
March 15, 2024  

FREE Docs of the Day: Pro Se plea against qualified and absolute immunity, discrimination against nonlawyers

Some jurisdictions deny self-represented litigants from filing electronically. The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas is one of the discriminatory courts. The Northern District of Florida is another.

Opposing council on one of my appellate cases, former Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin, applauded the practice of making pro se litigants file four paper copies of all documents in their case at the courthouse. He pointed out a Florida case where the nonlawyers were denied the right to file from the comfort of their own homes, like the attorneys who get paid hundreds of dollars per hour and usually have clerical help to do the filing anyhow.

The motion is not well written. But the sentiment is good.

The order of denial makes the judge sound like a pompous ass.

The 169-page complaint in the case against Desantis, Trump, Biden and a list of other government workers is …. long. I’m working on an appellate brief and don’t have time to read it all. I wish I did.

The complaint seems legitimate to me. Basically, it calls out the corrupt who bestowed immunity from civil prosecution on themselves, then abuse that immunity by pilfering the property from elderly and forcing murderous “guardians” on the victim under the color of law.

I know for a fact that Judge Susan Weaver of Arkansas intended to transfer all my property to her attorney friend and his client. So far, she got away with transferring $200,000 of my property that was held in trust. I appealed her decision 16 months ago, and still no word from the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The money is probably spent and Judge Weaver will not be held accountable. It is difficult to get the public corruption unit of the FBI to do anything. It would be impossible for them to keep up with the corruption created systemically.

Well, I hope you find something here to inform and inspire you. Get loud.

filed-complaint-steal-and-kill-seniors-racket-against-desantis-trump-bidenDownload
filed-motion-pro-se-leave-to-file-electronically-against-desantis-trump-bidenDownload
filed-order-denying-electronic-filing-to-pro-se-against-desantis-trump-bidenDownload
February 24, 2024  

What Happens When an Attorney Lies or Just Cheats a Little?

Doc of the day: Motion to Strike Overlength Brief

filed-appeal-motion-to-strike-overlength-briefDownload
appeal-brief-response-praDownload

There is not a lot of caselaw out there, not that I found anyhow. It will be interesting to see how the Eighth Circuit treats squeezing words together to extend the available word count.

The brief was written by attorneys at Troutman Pepper and Rose Law Firm. The lead attorney used to be a state solicitor general and is active in the Federalist Society with the District Court Judge being challenged, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky.

Why do I feel like they think they are only playing frat house pranks, and not destroying our nation?

UPDATE: (March 4, 2024) The motion to strike or sanction a represented party for compacting citations together was denied by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The same court denied a pro se litigant to file an overlength brief, which she specifically needed because she cited the record so often, and the local rule about citations specified the form must be “R. Doc. ##, at #”.

What this order means is that litigants may use “R.Doc.## at #” at will. Also “Br.#” for “Brief at #”, and “Vol.#”.

appeal-order-denying-motion-to-strike-or-sanction-brief-for-compacting-citationsDownload
December 1, 2023  

Do not believe anything you read in an opinion by Trump appointed Judge Lee P. Rudofsky.

Judge Rudofsky granted summary judgment to debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates and denied leave to amend to change Doe 1 to PRA Group, Inc. (traded as “PRAA”).

Summary judgment is an extreme measure and should only be granted if the non-moving party raises no genuine dispute of material fact, with all positive inferences taken for the non-moving party.

Judge Rudofsky misstated and misinterpreted evidence by the non-moving party. He also flat out ignored it.

The non-moving party filed a “verified complaint” under penalty of perjury. This should be given the same weight as an affidavit. Yet Judge Rudofsky ignored it completely.

Here, as FREE Doc of the Day, is the verified complaint Judge Rudofsky did not mention. The appellate brief follows.

doc-1-verified-complaintDownload
appeal-filed-appellant-briefDownload

This case was fought pro se. If there is an attorney who thinks the billion dollar per year revenue debt collector should pay more than $5,000 for every time it gets caught making harassing, intrusive phone calls, please contact Laura Hammett at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.

November 30, 2023  

Is there any way to stop Portfolio Recovery Associates Illegal Debt Collection Practices? Not while foxes like Judge Rudofsky are guarding us chickens.

“PRA collected millions of dollars using illegal debt-collection practices…that have impacted at least hundreds of thousands of consumers.”

The CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) can issue administrative orders and obtain judgments against the mega-debt buyer, using your tax dollars to do so; But Judge Lee P. Rudofsky doesn’t care. The Trump appointed judge does not find the orders, even issued by another Federal District Judge, to be binding precedence. Judge Rudofsky does not even find the findings in such orders to be evidence of a pattern and practice of conduct by the notorious debt collector.

Today’s FREE Docs of the Day are the orders filed in the case of [Alleged Debtor] v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, et al., and an appellate brief challenging the vast majority of Judge Rudofsky’s opinions.

doc-39-5-exhibit-e-consent-orderDownload
doc-225-notice-of-supplemental-authorities-cfpb-march-april-2023-filedDownload
appeal-filed-appellant-brief-1Download
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »