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.
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 Seven
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.
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)
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?
What Happens When an Attorney Lies or Just Cheats a Little?
Doc of the day: Motion to Strike Overlength Brief
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.#”.
My New Hero, Mazie Green: Pro Se Litigant Beats Debt Buyer Portfolio Recovery on Appeal
Notice Portfolio Recovery Associates was represented by James Trefil of Troutman Pepper. (Trefil, Federalist Society Cabal Bro Misha Tseytlin, and David Mitchell of Rose Law Firm represent PRA at appeal against this writer on a similar case.)
Listen to Pro Se Counter-Plaintiff Mazie Green tell it like it is. Go, Mazie, go!
Thank you to one of the Good Guys, Attorney Steve Lehto for getting out the word.
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.
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.
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.
A Higher Law 