Don’t Let Portfolio Recovery Associates Bully You
You try to sue PRA Group, Inc’s wholly owned subsidiary for misrepresenting the amount or character of a debt it tried to collect. Or, you owed a debt, but asked PRA to stop calling you and it refused. Or, as with me, PRA refused to identify itself meaningfully, unless you would answer interrogatories on a recorded line.
Instead of letting a jury decide what the damages are, PRA tries to bully you into settlement. Most plaintiff’s attorneys who work on contingency suggest you settle for $1,000 or $5,000 and they collect $25,000 in attorney’s fees. That doesn’t seem right to you.
When you refuse to settle for the set amount, PRA digs into your personal life and makes thinly veiled threats to share your personal information with the world. The litigious debt buyer might “accidentally” post your unredacted credit report online. They did that to me. They might tell the world that you have no social security number, like they did to Guadalupe Mejia. Ms. Mejia was awarded $250,000 in emotional distress and $82 Million in punitive damages by a jury, so PRA does not always get away with their bad conduct.
If there is nothing really juicy to use to blackmail you into settlement, PRA just makes shit up. They invented a story about me that I am a degenerate poker player who lost everything playing in illegal games online. The truth is that I play like a nitty old lady and the vast majority of the time I play for fake money starting with the free promotional chips on Zynga and Poker Bros.
Please don’t give up.
Report the abusive litigation conduct to the CFPB. When you begin your report, you will be asked to choose from several categories of bad conduct. Taking advantage of uneven bargaining power in an FDCPA case is not an option. What I did was to choose one of the things that led me to file my suit. Then I told the CFPB in the opening of my narrative that my main concern was the bullying during my lawsuit.
Judge Lee Rudofsky who presided on my case is anti-consumer and anti-CFPB. His decisions forced me into appeal. Looking through all my filings in preparation reminds me of the pain PRA inflicted on me in an attempt to continue business as usual. Here is one document that you can download FREE.
Complaint About Abusive Defense Tactics by Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Sent to the CFPB
If you filed a suit under the FDCPA against any of the PRA Group, Inc subsidiaries, and they bullied you into settlement, let the CFPB know about the debt buyer’s abusive practices.
For instance, it is extremely rare for the debt collector accused of violations of the FDCPA to be paid attorney fees, even if they win, but PRA threatened to ask for attorney fees from me if I did not settle for nothing.
Here is the complaint I sent. This is not legal advice. I am just letting you know you are not alone.
If you want confidentiality that the CFPB cannot give you, but you want to share your story so other FDCPA plaintiffs know what to expect, tell me about your experience at bohemian_books@yahoo.com and I will incorporate it into a blog post, removing identifying details. I am also glad to help edit complaints for spelling, punctuation and to make them easier to understand.
Here is mine:
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC violated most of the options listed on the complaint form at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ while trying to collect an alleged debt of $2,297.63 from 2010, but my main complaint is not one of the listed options. I know PRA has done similar things to many people, including Guadalupe Mejia, who was awarded $82 million in punitive damages by a jury in 2016. This issue should be addressed.
My main complaint is that after I filed a lawsuit under the FDCPA, invasion of privacy on seclusion and outrage, on March 10, 2021, PRA used litigation tactics that were unethical, illegal, deceitful and meant to inflict severe emotional distress.
PRA was represented by outside counsel, The Rose Law Firm in Arkansas and Troutman Pepper from Virginia (AKA Troutman Sanders).
On April 3, 2023, Troutman Pepper issued a blog post that said, in part: “According to the CFPB, entities cannot take unreasonable advantage of circumstances where people lack sufficient bargaining power to protect their interests.
“The policy statement describes such circumstances as when consumers do not elect to enter into a relationship with an entity,” and specifies debt collectors.
PRA used my lack of legal training, financial distress caused by the COVID related stock market crash, and my ill health, including diagnosed anxiety disorders and Hashimoto’s Disease, to bully me in court. PRA also capitalized on the opportunity of a judge who is notoriously anti-consumer and anti-CFPB, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky.
PRA threatened me with having to pay its “significant” attorney’s fees. A copy of the email is submitted. PRA filed a motion for the Clerk to tax $8,356.18 in costs to me. I am going to appeal the summary judgment, but thus far, PRA has ignored my request for them to stipulate to a stay of the cost motions until after the appeal.
PRA has never produced Old Account Level Documentation that shows what was purchased to incur the debt or the vendor who was paid by Capital One Bank. PRA has never produced a credit card agreement and specified it does not have the credit card agreement.
Before I filed suit, PRA sent its identity theft and fraud letter to me, with directions to answer the intrusive questions under penalty of perjury and notarized or witnessed. I refused because PRA did not tell me where the debt was incurred or what it was for. Even if I could deduce who committed the fraud, the statute of limitations to file criminal charges on the person had passed, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to collect evidence. The only purpose I saw in having me fill out the details, including my social security number, all previous addresses, and so on, was for PRA to use against me in trying to collect the debt. The letter was backdated.
After I filed suit, PRA sent three more backdated letters that said it “concluded its investigation” and closed my account and set the balance to zero. But the first letter informing me of this was addressed to “Laura Lyman” instead of “Laura Lynn” and had a different account number on it. I was fooled into thinking my account was closed. When I went to document the letter, I noticed the error. When I asked for a correction, PRA changed the wording. After my next request, they gave me another letter with the original wording and with my name and account number. Copies submitted.
Eight months after I filed suit, PRA produced a single account statement mailed to an address where I never received mail, that showed a balance of $1,916.05. They said Capital One gave it to them and got Capital One to submit an affidavit, but Capital One had told me many months earlier that it had no OALD at all. (Recorded)
PRA withheld and altered other documents. The company records filed under seal do not have each call made on PRA’s self-generated phone log documented on PRA’s notes. A representative told me the notes have an entry that I filed for bankruptcy, though I never filed for bankruptcy. That entry is not in the documents filed under seal.
PRA admits to calling a landline at my past residence in Arkansas hundreds of times. But, it claims it did not call my California cell phone for a seven year stretch with the first call they admit to being on November 18, 2020. I recorded that call, after setting up my computer. (There is a minute pause on PRA’s recording of the call.) The reason I spoke to PRA on a recorded line was because they had called me about a hundred times from August to November. About 85 of those calls I blocked and they went to voice mail.
PRA would not produce a third party record of its calls. I got my cell phone record and found fourteen calls that came from PRA, that don’t appear on PRA’s phone log, and each of the numbers those calls were placed from were disconnected. In fact, all the numbers PRA called me from were disconnected.
Judge Rudofsky, in his order granting summary judgment in PRA’s favor, truncated a sentence to distort my testimony, then PRA repeated the falsehood. Eventually the judge admitted the sentence was truncated, and then said the complete sentence had a different meaning than the meaning given by ChatGBT’s OpenAI and the opposite of what I meant.
PRA requested and Judge Rudofsky approved of making many of the business records under seal, against my heavy protest. It is difficult to write this complaint and complaints to other agencies with the confidentiality restrictions and the public cannot make an informed decision about who is telling the truth. That is why I am using the awkward way of saying what was not in the documents, instead of what was in the documents.
After I filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the single issue of misrepresentation of the amount of a debt, PRA lied, saying it “waived” my debt “in light of the litigation”, even though it did not issue a 1099-C to me in the two years since.
PRA hired an “expert witness” who is a hired gun. He made a diagnosis that contradicted the diagnosis of my medical providers. The Psychiatrist they hired was not licensed in Arkansas, and the Arkansas medical board told me (recorded) that out-of-state doctors can review records, but not diagnose. The report is filed under seal and I am only allowed to share it with law enforcement and the various medical boards and committees on professional conduct. But I am willing to share my version of what happened during the horrific Defense Medical Exam with the CFPB in confidentiality.
PRA posted my credit report, marked “CONFIDENTIAL”, and another document that had my full unredacted social security number and birthdate on PACER. When I complained, they said it was an accident.
There is so much detail that I will give the case number and my blog address, where I write about the case and other instances of corruption in courts. I will then make bullet points of specific misconduct on my request for a fair resolution.
Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 4:21-cv-00189-LPR.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC should file a notice in our case, explaining to the court each lie, deceptive statement and falsification of documentation they or their client made during the proceedings. This should include:
1. That letters to me were backdated, though there is deposition testimony from PRA in another case where they say their letters are dated on the day they are mailed.
2. All OALD. The number showing in hyperlinks on the records under seal is not zero or one.
3. PRA should admit that the number of calls logged on its self-generated phone log is not the same as the number of calls recorded in collection notes.
4. In particular, that a call I received on February 18, 2021 from PRA, which was recorded by PRA, does not show on either the phone log nor the collection notes. PRA hung up on me when I told them to hang-on for me to turn on my recorder, and I recorded the next call.
5. PRA should tell the court its policy about issuing 1099-Cs which is in policy manuals CFPB has obtained through its investigations of PRA that led to the 2015 consent agreement and 2023 consent order.
6. PRA should admit that I emailed them plentiful evidence that their lies about me having significant gambling losses from online, and therefore illegal poker playing, are false. They also submitted many of my blog posts as exhibits. They should submit the post that says I published my book subtitled “What it Takes to Play Poker Without Losing Your Assets.”
This is not an exhaustive list. PRA should stipulate to reversing the judgment and going to a jury trial. For any other impeachment evidence I produce, which the jury agrees proved a lie, PRA should agree to pay $100,000 per item above what the jury awards.
The wording of the closing letters taken with the extortionist settlement offer that allows PRA to pursue “future” debts gives me a reasonable inference that PRA plans to attempt to collect a further alleged debt. PRA should agree to a no contact order for the remainder of my life. My credit has no reportable derogatory comments. Any other alleged debt PRA claims is outside the statute of limitations for legal collection. I do not want to be forced to endure PRA’s abusive collection activity ever again. PRA should mark any further accounts that allegedly belong to me as “do not contact”.
Doc of the Day: Attachments
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Biased Opinion: Free Doc of the Day, Transcript of Hearing on MSJ
The transcript of the hearing on my motion for partial summary judgment and the dueling MSJ filed by Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is posted below.
[On Friday night, July 7 at 5:59 p.m., attorneys for Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC sent an email to me. I was sitting out back under the porch, watching a light rain and a grand rainbow, destressing from reading PRA’s latest pack of lies. When I went back to writing for the night (because my hubby was fishing), I opened the email. The version of the transcript I had posted was an unredacted version. There is a redacted version which I am posting tonight in its stead. I got the unredacted version off PACER minutes before I posted it on June 28, 2023. Please let me know if you were one of the readers who downloaded the unredacted version. You should delete it. Thank you and I am sorry for any inconvenience this causes you.]
(The usual $3 per document maximum charge on PACER does not apply to transcripts, so the value of the free document is $13.50. In my spare time I will address the inequity of charging pro se litigants to download copies of their file stamped documents from PACER. Also, how charging the average person to browse through federal district court files discourages the transparency that is supposed to be a cornerstone in our justice system.)
Read the transcript as if you are on a jury. Would you be reasonable to believe that I was telling the truth?
Did PRA call me hundreds of times, more times than they admitted to? Or did I decide to take a full minute to set up a video recording of our call on November 18, 2020, without having received any calls from the same people in the months leading up?
At the time PRA “investigated” my alleged debt, before I filed my lawsuit, did they have any documentation supporting the debt. Or did they base their investigation on one line item in a portfolio of untold thousands or millions of line items that are known to be inaccurate?
Judge Rudofsky decided that no reasonable juror could believe I had a case, and no reasonable juror could agree with me that I had no debt to Portfolio Recovery, nor that the numbers they claimed did not add up.
If you happen to read this transcript of a hearing held in front of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky and you are opposing confirmation of a promotion of Judge Rudofsky, feel free to contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com. I’d love to talk. [My attorney and I presume potential attorneys may have access to the unredacted version of all the case documents. Maybe we can form a symbiotic relationship.]
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Champion of Telemarketers and Debt Collectors
I read the Doc of the Day before I filed a complaint against PRA Group, Inc. subsidiary Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
On page 9, Judge Rudofsky gave a concise list of what “substantive information would be a ‘verification’ under § 1692g(a).” It included “a copy of the original contract between [the alleged debtor and creditor], as well as an affidavit stating the amount still owed.”
No credit card agreement was provided in my case. There is no affidavit from the original creditor that states the amount still owed. Eight months after I filed suit, PRA “found” a statement from Capital One, but there is no affidavit that the statement shows an accurate amount owed. In fact, the credit card company made no guarantees as to the accuracy of any account on the list of millions of accounts it sold to the debt buyer for pennies on the dollar.
I am looking for a plaintiffs’ attorney who does not want to allow Judge Rudofsky to dismantle the FDCPA and is willing to take over my case on contingency. If you are accepted to practice in the Federal District Court of Eastern Arkansas and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, please contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.
Here is the Free Doc of the Day.
Free Doc of the Day: King Lee P. Rudofsky has no clothes
Yesterday I began to present the evidence that Trump Appointed Federal District Court Judge Lee P. Rudofsky is a dishonest man. He does not belong on the bench and I am happy to give testimony against him at any confirmation hearing if he is considered for a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
Today, I am posting a transcript of the oral order Judge Rudofsky made during the latest Star Chamber hearing. This is a busy time for me, so I will take several days to share with you all the lies and legal errors made by the Harvard educated judge in rationalizing denying a jury trial on this case.
Today I will concentrate on Lee P’s misquotation and subsequent misinterpretation of a single sentence.
“I will say I appreciate and accept Ms. Hammett’s discovery that I had a drafting error [Ya, ya, drafting error, wink, wink] in footnote 463. I said at one point in that footnote that Ms. Hammett in her affidavit said, quote, I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank USA in or about 2001, period. And as Ms. Hammett correctly points out, that period was too early and chopped off the rest of the sentence. The full sentence is, I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank USA in or about 2001, comma, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food, and other consumer items, period, close quote.
“I hope that is the correct — is the correct iteration of it. I am going off of page 6 of Ms. Hammett’s brief in support of opposition to the defendant’s supplement motion for summary judgment. But I agree that I should not have chopped off the sentence with the period. I take responsibility for that. [Hooray, a man who can say the four most difficult words in the English language, “I made a mistake.” But he could not leave good enough alone. He continued…]
“Having said that, the last clause does not change anything in my mind. It does not create more — a more favorable situation for Ms. Hammett were this to go to a jury than she had before. In fact, if it does anything, it hurts her, but I just don’t think it makes any difference one way or the — or the other.”
Judge Rudofsky’s interpretation of the sentence found in the consolidated order denying my motion for partial summary judgment and granting Portfolio Recovery’s motion for summary judgment:
“But, on this record, it does not appear to be genuinely disputed that Ms. Hammett owed PRA, LLC $2,297.63. fn 463 That is, the Court (tentatively) believes that every rational juror would conclude that Ms. Hammett owed PRA, LLC this amount. In turn, there is good reason to think that no rational juror could conclude that PRA, LLC falsely represented to Ms. Hammett the amount of the debt.”
The lengthy footnote 463 starts with the premise, “Ms. Hammett concedes that she ‘probably’ opened a Capital One account in 2001.” True. Then the misquotation is added. “‘I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001.’” Lee is not the slightest bit lazy. He continued spinning his lie in two footnotes that hopped down three pages. I will address the rest in future writings.
Here, I just want to share my question and answer session with ChatGBT’s OpenAI. This is language based artificial intelligence.
It is important to share a fact that I shared with the Court in several ways. The meaning of “debt” in the context of the FDCPA is “alleged debt”.
Q: I wrote, “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank in or about 2001, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food and other consumer items.” Does this mean I agree that I owed a particular debt. Or does it mean that if I owed the debt, it was used to purchase consumer goods?
A: Based on the statement you provided, it seems that you are acknowledging that you used a credit card issued by Capital One Bank to make purchases for household items, food, and other consumer goods. However, it does not necessarily mean that you are admitting to owing a particular debt.
It is possible that you are acknowledging the use of the credit card but disputing the amount of the debt or any fees or charges that may have been added to the original debt. Alternatively, you may be acknowledging that you owed the debt, but you are simply explaining the nature of the purchases that were made using the credit card.
Overall, the statement you provided suggests that you used a Capital One credit card for consumer purchases, but it does not necessarily indicate whether you acknowledge or dispute any particular debt related to those purchases.
Q: How does the meaning change if I change the sentence to, ““I am a consumer in respect to any alleged debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank in or about 2001, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food and other consumer items.”
A: By changing the word “debt” to “alleged debt” in the sentence, you are indicating that you do not necessarily acknowledge that you owe the debt. The term “alleged” suggests that you are disputing the existence or validity of the debt and that you are not admitting to owing the debt.
The rest of the sentence remains the same, indicating that you used a Capital One credit card to make purchases for household items, food, and other consumer items. However, the addition of “alleged” before “debt” makes it clear that you are not admitting to owing the debt and that you may be disputing its validity or accuracy.
Summary judgment is an extreme measure. There was a reasonable inference that I meant I opened an account to use for consumer purchases but did not incur the alleged debt of $2,297.63. Especially when taken in context with my certified complaint and my motion for partial summary judgment that is based on the fact that the debt collector made false statements about the amount or character of a debt.
Lee P. Rudofsky is putting your tax dollars to work by forcing me to go to the Court of Appeals and the CFPB.
Please contact me if you want to represent me as plaintiff to the Court of Appeals and beyond. bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Institutional Betrayal: How the commoners are abused by King Lee P. Rudofsky and other judges
“The term institutional betrayal refers to wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals dependent on that institution, including failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals committed within the context of the institution.” – Jennifer J. Freyd, PhD.
“Institutional betrayal harms in at least two distinct ways: pragmatic and psychological.” id.
“Institutional denial plays a crucial role in institutional betrayal. One particularly pernicious form of denial is DARVO — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender” id.
Let SouthPark explain DARVO to you here.
I filed a complaint against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC for making a triple digit number of phone calls to me in regard to an alleged 10-year-old debt. PRA refused to tell me anything about what was allegedly purchased on a credit card account opened by someone in my name in 2001 that PRA agrees was never in default before the 2010 purchase. When I filed suit, PRA said their investigation was complete, the balance was zero and the account closed.
PRA expected me to drop my suit or settle for $1,000. When I didn’t, PRA claimed the debt was cancelled or waived by them. But they did not issue an I.R.S. cancellation of Debt form 1099-C.
They also altered phone records generated by their company and their internal company contact records. The discrepancies between the records and the audio tapes of some of the phone calls was glaring.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, a Trump appointee, allowed PRA to file the pertinent documents under seal.
Then the federal judge, who is nearly impossible to fire, misquoted me to support his contention that I owed the debt.
Many months later, Judge Rudofsky said the misquotation was an error, but that the actual quotation supports his contention even more. I ran the quote by ChatGBT’s OpenAI. AI is not perfect, but it is a language-based application and is particularly good at reading comprehension. (Lee went to Harvard and is probably almost as good at analyzing language as AI, which makes his miscomprehension rather suspect.)
The legislature doesn’t distinguish between making annoying calls to people who don’t owe a debt and people who do owe a debt. Judge Rudofsky doesn’t seem to care what the legislature codified. He calls an FDCPA claimant a dead beat and denies them a jury trial. He says there cannot be statutory damages because there is no actual harm in the plaintiff being told she owes a debt, even if there was no debt owed.
I will report to the CFPB about the ordeal PRA and Judge Rudofsky put me through. I would like to appeal the decision granting summary judgment to the debt buyer. If you are willing to reimburse me for some of the actual costs I have already paid, which is in excess of $10,000, please contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com. Your generosity will make it possible for me to ask the Eighth Circuit to unseal the business records and help me expose both the PRA Group, Inc subsidiary and the betrayer of the public faith, Judge Rudofsky.
bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Cover-up of Litigation Misconduct
Judge Rudofsky in the Federal District Court of Eastern Arkansas gave summary judgment to the defendant in my FDCPA and Invasion of Privacy case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC yesterday.
I tried to apologize about my blog posts to Judge Rudofsky during my closing arguments at a telephonic hearing. The judge, who is usually polite, cut me short. He said not to apologize and explained that he values the First Amendment.
Some advice I got from my sister Roberta Kramer who was an attorney, is to always accept a compliment. If someone says you look nice today, don’t retort, “Oh no! I have this big zit on my nose!”
My corollary is, always accept an apology.
It is not easy for a person to apologize. It helps the person who is apologizing. You may find your common ground with the apologetic person. And it may help you to understand your contribution to the conflict.
For example, if a husband says, “I am sorry I was so grumpy today when we were driving in that horrible traffic”, the respectful wife will accept his apology. “Thank you, my love. It was frustrating, and it was kind of you to keep me company. I know how much you hate driving in a busy city.”
So, here is my apology in full.
I am sorry for any embarrassment or disrespect Judge Rudofsky feels from my posts.
That does not mean that I wrote or intend to write anything false or malicious. As he recognized, I have not written anything threatening.
It is like this. Once when my son was about four years old, we were walking in the supermarket parking lot. There were two morbidly obese people walking in front of us. My son shrieked in his loudest voice, “Look how fat they are Mom!”
OMG. I was mortified. Even remembering the story, my face gets red from embarrassment. I am sorry my son said that.
But they were fat.
There was just no advantage to my son speaking his observations out loud. Not that loud.
There is, hopefully, a good purpose for me to write about corrupt, unethical, or plain stupid acts by judicial officers. Even though most citizens have lost faith in our legal system, there is still a chance we can bring it back to what it was meant to be. A way to provide justice for all.
So, here is today’s exposé.
In the litigation, the lawyers for Portfolio Recovery lied. For example, James Trefil of Troutman Pepper (AKA Troutman Sanders) said PRA changed the balance on my account from $2,297.63 to zero “in light of the litigation”. He expanded by saying the debt was “waived”. But there was no 1099-C cancellation of debt issued within the time required by the IRS.
It is PRA’s known practice to issue 1099-Cs when it cancels a debt. Even if the debtor disputes the debt. Do a Dogpile search of “Portfolio Recovery Associates issued me a 1099-C” and you will find plenty of reading to fill your spare time.
Judge Rudofsky was not persuaded by what he called the “inference” that can be made from that. The judge said no reasonable juror can think that PRA set the balance to zero and did not issue a 1099-C because their investigation showed there was no credible evidence the debt was mine. In fact, he said the debt was mine. (That is a subtle error that I will address at the Court of Appeals. It is telling that Judge Rudofsky is well aware of the subtle difference when establishing PRA’s innocence on my case. He knew it was my burden to prove the debt did not exist on an FDCPA claim but ignored that the debtor’s lack of proof is not enough to establish there was a debt in a case against the debtor.)
Worse, PRA submitted business records that were falsified. I pointed out some of the falsifications. Judge Rudofsky ignored those obvious fraudulent exhibits.
Worse, I cannot give you specifics. I cannot post two documents created by PRA with conflicting data side by side. Because Judge Rudofsky allowed the fraudulent documents to be filed under seal.
Before yesterday’s hearing, the jury was out on Lee P. The jury is now in.
It sorrows me to say, guilty.
Email: bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Is Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Out of His Mind?
I am spending another beautiful day that I should be hiking – reading through the documents in my case against debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Publicly traded PRA Group, Inc.
What I am reading is making me want to spit. The title I really want to use for this post: “Is Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Out of His Fucking Mind?”
I am trying to tone things down, as the team of attorneys defending PRA has taken to giving copies of selected posts to the Judge. Here is the response Judge Rudofsky wrote as a text entry on the docket last time.
“ORDER: In Defendant’s Reply Brief 204 , Defendant included what appeared to be blog posts [204-3] that Ms. Hammett has written about this case. My review of the brief required a review of the blog posts. And that raises a question for the parties. In my mind, my knowledge of the existence and content of these blog posts does not require recusal under either 28 U.S.C. 455 or the applicable judicial canons. While Ms. Hammett expresses strong disagreement with some of my rulings, and sometimes does so with strong or colorful language, nothing in the posts strikes me as so insulting or personally antagonistic that it requires or counsels my recusal. It is true that one of her posts could be read as saying she “hates” me, but that would be taking her words out of context. What she actually said was that I was “a Judge [she] hate[s] to hate.” In that context, the impact of the word “hate” is mitigated almost entirely. It is also
true that, in her posts, she called me “sneaky,” “dangerous,” and “dishonorable, “as well as implying I am not an honest Judge. But, again, in context she was really just disagreeing with my rulings and the way I recited the record in my summary judgment decision. That kind of criticism (from non-lawyers) of public
officials, including judges, is expected, entirely fair game, and part of what makes this country great. Of course, I disagree with her characterizations of my motives. But her statements and words are not the type of personal invective that would make it difficult to remain impartial. Having said all of that, if either party believes that recusal is required or appropriate here, that party should file a recusal motion no later than 14 days from the date of this order. If that occurs, the other party will have 7 days to respond. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 3/16/2023. (hml) (Entered: 03/16/2023)”
I read an article about how generally the protagonist of a story must be likable, but some of the great protagonists were not. Think Dorian Gray and Anna Karenina.
Well, Judge Rudofsky will be a likable antagonist in any book that comes of this ordeal.
What can his motivations be for misquoting me, saying that I agreed that I owed a debt to PRA? He is not mentally challenged, like Judge Susan Kaye Weaver. It is pretty clear that I disagree about the alleged debt. Here, read this and you be the judge.
Email: bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Non-confidential Settlement Offer to PRA (a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc.)
I am quite upset right now because I am thinking about that awful week leading up to March 16, 2020. The stock market crashed and I was heavily invested.
The reason I am thinking about this horrible time is because of my research into PRA. I see that on May 9, 2023 the value of PRA Group, Inc. stock fell over 30%.
Apparently it is getting harder for PRA to bluff and bully people into forking over money that PRA has no credible evidence is owed.
I am thrilled that the CFPB prevailed in the lawsuit filed March 23, 2023 against PRA.
I am angry that PRA Group, Inc. executives got paid several million dollars each while the publicly traded company was poised to lose money.
I am concerned that PRA will use the entire $2.6 billion dollars of credit extended to it, a good portion by Bank of America, and then file for bankruptcy. Not only has an attorney representing PRA, Mr. James Trefil, filed for bankruptcy, but the parent company has subsidiaries that service consumer bankruptcy accounts in the USA. PRA is certainly not adverse to using that tool to avoid paying its debts.
Besides that I would need to learn to navigate the bankruptcy court as a creditor, by the time we go through appeals to SCOTUS, I don’t know that I can still collect even a part of the jury verdict that I anticipate.
I am therefore willing to settle for $1,000,000.
This offer is good until June 15, 2023.
Sincerely,
Laura Hammett
Email: bohemian_books@yahoo.com
A Higher Law 