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.
Challenge to Discrimination Against Pro Se Litigants Heading to the Supreme Court
Debt buying Goliath Portfolio Recovery Associates rejected an offer to settle the case brought against them by me, a pro se litigant.
As promised, here is the offer: (I had to remove references that would disclose the settlement offer PRA made in mediation, even though they made statements in court documents about my lowest offer. They lied about my lowest offer, so maybe they will claim that it isn’t a breach of contract to say you are disclosing what is in a confidential mediation and then lie about it.)
Dear Counsel,
I am open to a settlement with your clients that is 1/10th my final offer in our mediation. It is also the amount [they offered to another person with similar complaints]. PRA must agree to vacate the judgment so as not to harm my credit rating.
Please see my recent FICO score of 803 from Experian, attached. (If I get to trial, I will use this as evidence of the magnitude of emotional distress PRA is causing me by the specter of bankruptcy that is inherent in prolonged litigation, especially for a low income person like myself who is likely to lose for lack of funds rather than lack of merit.)
The agreement should be simple and bilateral. There can be a nondisclosure agreement as to the amount of the settlement, but I will spend no time trying to remove anything I’ve already disclosed about the case from the internet or any other forum. Neither party will ever contact the other party, including to litigate. This means PRA will not try to collect on the judgment (which will be vacated anyhow) nor any alleged debts owed by me, past, present or future. There should be one exclusion, which is the enforcement of this settlement agreement.
It is against the odds that my petition for writ of cert is granted (as it is rare for any pro se petition to be granted), but if it is and I get to trial, I believe a jury will award an $82 million verdict.
This offer will increase by actual costs I incur on appeal to the Supreme Court and be automatically rescinded upon issuance of a writ.
Thank you for your client’s consideration,
Laura Hammett
**********
PRA responded:
FRE 408
Ms. Hammett,
My client rejects your demand. In exchange for a full release and settlement of all claims you have or may have against PRA, my client will forego collecting its taxable costs award of $8,356.18 and any interest accrued on this amount since it was entered on August 23, 2023.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Jim
***********
I rescinded my offer.
First glaring problem with PRA’s offer, PRA was collecting on an alleged debt with no documentation about how that debt was incurred. PRA can, by the terms it offered, sell the judgment to another PRA Group subsidiary. Then that debt buyer can come after me. My documentation won’t show the judgment was vacated.
The sneaky attorneys did not include an agreement that PRA will not sue me for anything else. They may try to get an award for costs of the appeal. Or they may come up with some other BS reason to sue me. They sue people often without any legitimate claim.
More importantly, PRA did exactly what I complained about, lied in court documents, had Judge Rudofsky lie in his written order, and PRA does similar things to hundreds of thousands of people. Just like they win by default in 90% of their collection cases, they know they can win in almost 100% of cases against pro se litigants, because most pro se litigants lose because of discriminatory court policies and practices.
Here is a quote from a pro se who reversed his criminal conviction obtained by the United States after going to the Supreme Court, Giridhar Sekhar. Talk about bringing down Goliath!
“I’m a little annoyed with the NDNY federal prosecutor Elizabeth Coombe who willfully put [an alleged perjurer] on the stand knowing that the admission was fabricated, but I think her karmic reward will be to forever be reminded by her colleagues that she was beaten at trial by a pro se defendant.”
Pro se wisdom from a poker player
I was stressing on my Supreme Court bid against Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC and evil judge Lee P. Rudofsky. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit let the lower court get away with outright lies and hiding the evidence under seal. If SCOTUS doesn’t help, I will be bankrupt.
How ironic. A debt buyer tries to collect $2,297.63 from someone who has no debt. The alleged debtor sues PRA which causes them to immediately set the balance on the account they bought to zero. Then PRA tosses a bone at the poor woman to settle. The plaintiff insists on more money or going to a jury to decide what it is worth. PRA submits doctored records, lies about the plaintiff in certified court documents and offers lower and lower amounts to settle. Huh? Then the judge joins in on the lies, denies the opportunity to show even a jury the evidence and orders the pro se pensioner to pay for the goliath debt buyer’s litigation costs…even though she could not afford her own. The lawsuit sends the alleged debtor from an 803 FICO score to bankrupt.
When I heard the news the other day, that the appellate judges were going to stand behind Rudofsky with no explanation of why they disagreed with my well supported appeal, I felt like I got kicked in the gut. There is no winning for me. Paying the costs of their defense to the PRA Group company will bankrupt me. Settling for nothing means they got away with harassing another old lady and will do it again and again. But writing and publishing a petition for writ of certiorari will also bankrupt me, if I don’t win, and the chance of being one of the few cases chosen each year as a self-represented litigant approaches zero.
I was ready to quit. I made my rock bottom offer to PRA. (If they reject it, I will share the offer with you, my friends.)
Today I was scrolling through the Facebook page of another female poker player, Meg Chapman. She had these inspiring words to offer:
“If you’re worried about the cost of going for it, you should see the price of staying exactly where you are.”
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
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 Higher Law 