Sent overnight.

Four orders relevant to this Petition for Writ of Certiorari were issued after briefing. The final one, Doc. 318, was entered on January 21, 2025, with related motion practice concluding on January 29, 2025. (Appendix AA)

    Hammett intended to introduce the documents discussed below earlier. However, her 30-year-old son passed away on January 27, 2025. Combined with other personal challenges, this tragic loss made it difficult for the pro se petitioner to focus on her public service efforts—her fight for justice to be done and to appear to be done.

    Hopefully, the Justices of the Supreme Court will forgive Hammett’s delay and perhaps appreciate her brevity.

Post-Judgment Motion Practice and Recusal

    On December 20, 2024, Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) filed an “emergency” motion seeking to take down Hammett’s blog, A Higher Law (www.court-corruption.com), and requesting sanctions. Notably, PRA waited nearly a week after discovering the alleged misconduct to file the motion. The Court ordered Hammett to respond by December 27, 2024, requiring her to work through Christmas.

    Ultimately, a newly assigned judge denied PRA’s motion for sanctions, attorneys’ fees, and costs. (Docs. 317, 318)

    Before that, however, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky conducted an ex parte review of Hammett’s blog before recusing himself. (Doc. 310) He did not recuse himself due to the appearance of bias inherent in independently seeking out evidence. Instead, he claimed that Hammett’s blog was so insulting that a reasonable person might believe reading it could cause bias. The Court thus confused cause and effect.

    This post-judgment motion practice and recusal highlight how the appellant’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by affording undue weight to the district court’s opinions.

PRA’s Deceptive Motion to Remove Hammett’s Work

    Hammett, as a pro se litigant without electronic filing access, discovered PRA’s motion only by chance when checking her emails on December 22, 2024.

     PRA’s motion sought to erase 15 years of Hammett’s work from the internet, a undue cost consistent with the CFPB’s findings that PRA often uses deceptive practices. PRA alleged that Hammett’s public disclosure of [] was malicious, even though the Supreme Court had apparently granted her motion to unseal in full. (24M44, “Motion Granted,” Dec. 9, 2024)

    Hammett’s investigation required by order (TEO 317) showed PRA discovered the disclosure no later than December 12, 2024; yet PRA waited until December 20 to file its motion. Meanwhile, Hammett had already removed [] from her blog on December 10, 2024, following a discussion with SCOTUS staffer Laurie Wood. However, a technical issue allowed those with the original URL to still access []. On December 21, 2024, Hammett’s hosting provider informed PRA’s attorneys that they could assist Hammett in fully severing access. PRA withheld this information from Hammett until January 6, 2025—demonstrating that destroying Hammett’s life’s work was more important to PRA than maintaining confidentiality.

Disparate Treatment of Deadlines

The Court granted Hammett, a pro se paper filer, only seven days to respond to PRA’s post-judgment motion (TEO 300), yet gave PRA’s team of attorneys 11 days to file their reply. (TEO 306) This inequity further supports the need for Supreme Court review of the entire proceedings.

CONCLUSION

The post-judgment documents in Appendix AA, BB, and CC provide further evidence that this Court should grant certiorari.