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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
A Higher Law 