I can only speculate based on the evidence I have.

Trump appointee Judge Lee P. Rudofsky allowed Goliath debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC to redact and file under seal anything it wanted. I cannot give particulars, because they are under seal.

An example is that PRA filed several forms under seal in my case against the company, but forms almost identical, with different data, were filed in the public record of other cases.

I am pro se and modest means.

Portfolio Recovery Associates has an army of lawyers. It has an inhouse legal department 400+ strong. It hired Rose Law Firm of Hillary Clinton fame. Co-counsel is the big defense firm, Troutman Pepper.

PRA is a billion dollar company.

Judge Rudofsky denied my request to file electronically. Portfolio Recovery Associate’s attorneys all file electronically. The rule against non-attorneys filing electronically cited by the judge gives the judge discretion to allow a pro se litigant equal access to the court.

I have filed almost 90 documents. That means that I have paid for four copies of 90 documents at roughly 10 pages each, at 10 cents per page minimum. That is $360.

I had to drive to the courthouse in Little Rock to file the documents. That is about $30 at the standard mileage rate for about 40 trips. $1,200. That gives me nothing for my time driving.

When information is redacted, the filer must also file a copy of the unredacted document under seal. That jacks up the printing costs and the amount of work. I didn’t know how to redact until recently. I think it is easy. You would make two copies of the document, then highlight the background in the same color (black) as the text for the information to be redacted.

One important document I filed was about 250 pages. If I redacted everything the defendant called “confidential” and filed one unredacted copy under seal, that would add a bunch of time to the project and about $100. I had not figured out how to redact yet. So, I filed the entire document under seal.

This gave Judge Rudofsky the opportunity to misstate what was said in the document.

I will use an example of the judge’s misstatement of facts from a document that was not under seal. In his Consolidated Order dated August 16, 2022, the Court wrote: “Ms. Hammett admits that she made purchases on the Capital One account. Aff. in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (Doc. 39) ¶ 3.”

It is important to read the paragraph before the cited paragraph first. “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, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food and other consumer items.”

The cited paragraph says in full, “I have no documentary evidence because the purchases were made 10 to 20 years ago. I remember and it was my practice not to borrow money for business ventures. The first time I borrowed money to invest was in 2017 and that was a financial disaster.”

My statements were meant to say I was a consumer in regard to any debt I incurred on any credit card; that I never had a business credit card. I did not admit to making purchases on the alleged account.

Judge Rudofsky is infamous for pursuing an agenda from the bench that does not include finding the truth or providing justice to individuals. That is not a fault I usually discuss. I focus on overtly corrupt acts, like Judge Susan Weaver and Court Reporter Jana Perry altering records of hearings.

If Judge Rudofsky was not so darn brilliant, I would consider his claimed misunderstanding of my meaning as just that, a misunderstanding.

But he is brilliant. Cornell. Harvard. Position as Solicitor General created for him to fill. Appointed to a lifetime position as a District Court Judge in his late 30s or early 40s.

We the People should expect more from Judge Rudofsky than allegedly misunderstanding the focal point of a case.

More importantly, when the judge is up for promotion, it should be easy for his detractors to find the examples of the judge’s errors. By allowing big-business to litigate in a cone of silence, the somewhat honorable judge provides protection for his own career.