Judge Lee P. Rudofsky and his ilk consider scamming to be a legitimate business.
Today’s FREE Docs of the Day are an order dismissing an FDCPA case by Trump appointed Judge Lee Rudofsky, and the FDCPA plaintiff’s Answer from when he was defendant in a state court case.
Once again, Judge Rudofsky decided that reimbursing the cost of the prevailing debtor his attorney in the state court case precludes the alleged debtor from winning a case under the FDCPA.
Judge Rudofsky is the champion of corporate interests at the expense of justice.
He gives debt buyers and debt collectors carte blanche to pursue their victims, and the only consequence of harassing an innocent party is to say, “you don’t have to pay back the money, but we know you are a deadbeat, anyhow.”
If some uppity plebeian like me dares to reject the corporate offer of settlement, Judge Rudofsky makes the victim pay the debt collector’s costs of defending itself.
Sneak Peek at an Appellate Brief
The Eighth Circuit is reviewing my brief for filing.
Here is a sample: (More tomorrow)
Summary of the Case and Willingness to Participate in Oral Argument
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.
Peace and Joy to Y’all,
Laura
Psychopath Judge? Compare Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Opinions to the Debtors’ Documents
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky wrote an opinion about me that said I agreed I owed a debt. What?!? I said I had no record of the alleged debt and the creditor had agreed the balance on the account was zero, without a settlement agreement nor issuing a 1099-C.
A little bit curious whether all the other FDCPA plaintiffs that went in front of Rudofsky had similar lies told about them, I pulled up the opinions that were filed on Westlaw.
A search on Westlaw, “(Lee /2 Rudofsky) & FDCPA” in all state and federal yields three cases besides mine.
Rudofsky repeated a phrase, that the FDCPA plaintiffs “took a victory lap” after prevailing on state court collection cases.
In Millwood v. Adams, U.S.D.C. ARED, Case No.: 4:20-cv-01035-LPR, 2021 WL 4466309 Judge Rudofsky wrote: “Ultimately, Ms. Millwood did not have to pay any deficiency under the financing contract”. The Court interpreted my phrase, “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me” to mean I in fact owed the Debt. Therefore, his meaning in Millwood is that Millwood owed a deficiency and was let off the hook. Inspection of the underlying case, Cannon Finance v. Millwood, Garland County, Arkansas District Court Case No. HTCV-19-1364, August 29, 2019 shows otherwise.
Millwood filed an answer denying she had a deficiency. Cannon, through Adams, dismissed the case voluntarily, three days later, “without prejudice”. (Much like PRA closing my account but leaving some wiggle room to reassert the Debt later.) In the least, Millwood had a genuine dispute about owing a deficiency. Judge Rudofsky refused to acknowledge the genuine dispute.
Judge Rudofsky: “The state court lawsuit could therefore be described as a victory for Ms. Millwood. But she does not see it that way.” 2021 WL 4466309, at *3.
The Court’s repeated opinion is that cessation of collection on a disputed debt, at least temporarily, means the prevailing debtor was made whole. The Court’s opinion is wrong. Ending the harassment is not a complete victory, according to Congress.
Congress intended that debt collector victims be compensated for all the damages caused, and that the errant debt collectors do not keep harassing other victims.
FREE Doc of the Day
A Moment to Vent About Judge Lee P. Rudofsky
My appellate brief challenging Trump appointed Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s asinine rulings is due November 27th.
Here are a couple lines that I mean to leave on the cutting room floor. God give me strength.
“The Court is ridiculous.”
I’m discussing the judge’s apologetics for debt collector PRA continuing to call me over a hundred times after I told them to stop calling. More like “STOP CALLING.”
Lee Rudofsky: “PRA, LLC didn’t know who was telling it to stop calling.”
Oooooh! Okay, Lee. All I had to do was give them my name, address and last four of my social, and they would say “thank you, have a nice day.” I’d never hear from them again.
“Are you a fricking moron?” cut. cut. don’t print that.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, Debt Collectors and the Lack of Integrity in Our Courts
Missing y’all.
My appellate deadline to file a brief challenging the majority of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s orders on my case against a PRA Group subsidiary was extended to November 27th. Using the extra time to edit and edit again makes the difference between filing a good brief and a make-them-want-to-cry-and-suck-their-collective-thumb brief.
Here is another sneak peek. It is my required a one-page summary of the 287-docket entries in the case.
Summary of the Case and Willingness to Participate in Oral Argument
PRA and the Court do not want the public to hear the facts of this case.
PRA intended to extort payment of a debt I did not owe by annoying and harassing me with incessant, disturbing phone calls.
PRA’s intrusion upon my seclusion was outrageous. Adverse verdicts and settlements against PRA total over $130,000,000. PRA’s spoliation and secreting of evidence shows the company knew its calling pattern was unacceptable.
I sent possibly thousands of calls to voicemail, blocked calls, begged these strangers to stop calling and finally acquiesced to answering questions on a recorded line. The only way to stop PRA was to pay an invalid debt or file a lawsuit. I filed a lawsuit. With no offer, stated waiver or cancellation, PRA agreed the balance was zero. 8.5 months later, PRA swore the correction was a “waiver”.
PRA continued to harass me throughout the proceedings, using the same illegal and unethical litigation tactics that my therapists documented as PTSD stressors. The Court upheld PRA’s subpoenas of my utterly irrelevant sexual history.
The Court denied me equal protection, misstated evidence, misquoted me, denied my discovery motions and allowed PRA to spoil evidence. The Court granted summary judgment based on negative inferences against me, the non-moving party, and ordered me to pay PRA four times the fraudulent Debt in costs.
If it pleases this Court, I will attend oral argument for rebuttal and questions.
God? Karma? A Really Bad Business Model? Why Did the Bottom Drop Out for PRAA Stock?
It was the COVID-Crash and frankly, it seemed like no one might still be around in a year.
Sorry for the lack of variety in cases this past week and until November 6th. I am writing a 13,000 word plus tables and certificates appellate brief against the litigious, vexatious and secretive Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the once golden child of parent company PRA Group, Inc.
Now it seems like all my work is for naught. The execs at PRA Group, that pay themselves millions of dollars per year, might pack up whatever currency is laying around and leave the building in the dead of night, so to speak.
Watch What Happens When a Debt Buyer’s Collection Practices Are Under Scrutiny
Each time, PRA settled claims that it used illegal, unethical and unprofessional conduct while attempting to collect on portfolios of nonperforming loans it purchased from companies like G.E. Walmart and Capital One Bank. PRA knew the data they purchased was riddled with errors.
Each settlement was about $24 million, and PRA was supposed to cease and desist from the bad conduct. (Spoiler Alert: They didn’t after the first round. I know because they violated the order trying to collect an alleged debt from me.)
Look at the chart above and try to guess when each settlement was reached.
It is actually a month or two after the fall, September 2015 and March 2023.
Does it look to anyone else like insiders were dumping their stock ahead of the public announcement of the settlements?
Why Do Judge Rudofsky and PRA want to Cloak the Evidence in Secrecy?
Your FREE Doc of the Day includes an interesting exhibit “A”.
Knowing that Judge Lee P. Rudofsky was counsel to Walmart right before his confirmation as judge, and that the account PRA was allegedly attempting to collect on was bought from Capital One, the evidence doesn’t have a good look.
Can you say “bias”?
In fairness, here is the opposition Portfolio Recovery filed, arguing that the phone records, account records and written policies that I claim were not followed should remain sealed.
The author, like Judge Rudofsky, did a stint as a young state solicitor general. He must be kinda smart, just to spell his name properly. Misha Tseytlin. I assume he spelled it correctly.
PRA Group, Inc Stock, PRAA, Breaks Through Its 10-Year Floor
It is hard to feel sorry for them as they pay their top execs millions per year, while offering their victims $1,000 to settle FDCPA and invasion of privacy cases.
From PRA Group, Inc. 2023 Proxy Statement.
That was two years of heavy litigation ago. Back then, I would have settled for $500,000. When my bloodwork was wack-a-doodle and I could barely get out of bed, I would have begrudgingly settled for $50,000.
But the brilliant risk manager thought it better to spend who knows how much on an army of attorneys to make a point.
Here is some free advice – this is NOT legal advice. I ran a successful real estate sales and development business, and this was my risk management plan. (I was sued only once, in small claims court, because I refused to pay $2,000ish for carpet that was not the color I had ordered.)
- Your word should be your bond.
- Have good documentation to back up what you say.
- Don’t call people who don’t want to be called. Err on the side of caution. (I was a real estate broker and my agents and I made zero cold calls.)
PRA lies.
PRA has lousy documentation, filled with lies.
PRA makes incessant phone calls. When its number is blocked, it calls from another neighbor spoofing number. This conduct gets it sued.
It looks like the stock buying public agrees with me.
People with Brain Fog Forget Things. They Don’t Remember Things that Didn’t Happen.
Have you ever had something you said in a court hearing left out of the transcript? Share you experience in the comments, or email bohemian_books@yahoo.com.
Here is my experience of having a long dialogue with the Court getting cut out, discussed in a notice of supplemental authority. Hopefully this will help lift the fog from Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s brain.
A Higher Law 