More On Justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court
Why aren’t they showing the love? The story begins in September 2024 (or earlier), when Justice Courtney Hudson filed a complaint seeking an injunction to block the release of emails exchanged between herself and Lisa Ballard, then the Director of the Committee on Professional Conduct, in response to a FOIA request.
Here is a per curiam in which five justices take jurisdiction over the circuit court case, dismissing it with prejudice, and Justice Baker dissents.
Justice Baker appears to be right, to me. Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-19-105(b)(7) gives an exemption to FOIA for correspondence of a Supreme Court Justice.
On a personal note, there does not seem to be an exemption for the audio recordings made of hearings by court reporters. Judge Rudofsky of Federal Court and Judge Susan Weaver of State Court have blocked me from obtaining copies of recordings that, by my memory and notes, don’t match up to the written transcriptions. My request for the federal public records was made through motion in court documents, not labeled “FOIA”. Still, a judge should treat any request for public documents that don’t fit into another exemption as a FOIA request.
One FOIA I made for a hearing presided over by Judge Susan Weaver was denied by the vile judge herself. It is too late for me to appeal that decision, but anyone else (ie Betty Figueroa) is allowed to make the same request and appeal a negative response. I will make requests for the two other state court hearings and one federal. Stay tuned.
Chaos, Controversy and Court Corruption
Common people receive no relief from our courts.
The system is perfect. The people involved pervert and destroy.
Here are some of the names of court employees that have turned our court system into a piggy bank for attorneys and Big Business Billionaires.
Judge Susan Weaver, Arkansas State Court
Court Reporter Jana Perry, Arkansas State Court
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, Federal District Court Eastern Arkansas
Judge Raymond W. Gruender, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
Judge Ralph R. Erikson, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
Judge David R. Stras, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
Judge Todd W. Robinson, Federal District Court, Southern California
Judge Linda Lopez, Federal District Court, Southern California
Judge Janis L. Sammartino, Federal District Court, Southern California
Clerk “Jude” or “JPP” Federal District Court, Southern California
Big Business Billionaires in health insurance, hospitals and debt collection cannot be held accountable for their unethical, often illegal practices if common people cannot access our courts.
This post is conclusionary. But read through the years of documentation I discuss in the hundreds of other posts. Download FREE Docs of the Day. Consult with me; there is a synergy to sharing experience and information.
Solutions? Demand transparency in court proceedings. Shift the focus of law enforcement from victimless crimes to white collar crime, especially honest services fraud. File legitimate complaints with regulatory agencies. Then allow individuals to use the agency findings as evidence in private claims.
My petition for writ of certiorari to SCOTUS focuses attention on these solutions. Read Sup. Ct. 24-6113. Move the court for permission to file an amicus brief or offer to take over the pro se case on contingency.
Portfolio Recovery Associates Continues to Torment Consumer Years After Closing the Account
I filed a lawsuit, pro se, against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The Big Business Billionaire debt collection company set the balance on the account to zero and closed the account, they say, “in light of the ongoing litigation.” Then they threw me a bone, an inadequate settlement offer, and expected me to run off with it.
That was almost four years ago. The case is at the United States Supreme Court on petition for writ of certiorari. (Sup. Ct. No. 24-6113)
It was not enough for PRA to win at the lower courts due to a Pro Big Business Billionaire – Anti-individual judge named Lee P. Rudofsky. The lawyers from Rose Law Firm and Troutman Pepper who represent the PRA Group, Inc. subsidiary came up with a ruse.
There may be a clerk at the Supreme Court of the United States involved. (I informed the clerk of this mistake weeks ago and it has not been corrected.) I filed a motion to file some documents that were sealed by Rudofsky and the Eighth Circuit initially sealed and then immediately unsealed at the Supreme Court. the motion was “Granted”. But it was docketed as filed two weeks before it was filed, when the petition was filed. And the documents were filed under seal the day after the motion was granted and not unsealed.
When I saw “Motion Granted” I posted the documents on this blog. The next day, after talking to a staff member at SCOTUS, I deleted the link from the blog page. But people who received the email copy of the post still had the link and the link still worked.
I’ve heard that just deleting something doesn’t ever really remove it from the internet. It was a mystery and I let PRA know that I didn’t know the magic trick that would make those emailed links quit working.
PRA filed an “emergency” motion on December 20th, 11 days after my post was emailed to them, and asked the court to take down this entire blog “until such time as PRA can be assured its confidential documents are no longer publicly accessible” along with about a year’s worth of my total income.
I worked through Christmas week researching and writing a response to try to save my blog from disappearing. Judge Rudofsky told me in a written docket entry order that he would not give me past December 27th.
Judge Rudofsky gave PRA’s team of attorneys 10 days to reply to my response.
The email you can download below was entered in the reply as an exhibit. It is from WordPress’ parent company and was sent on December 21st. It says, in part, “If the documents are still available, the fastest way to remove them would be for Ms. Hammett to contact wordpress support and they can assist her.”
Wow! PRA must have been really concerned about the confidentiality of the documents. NOT! They probably knew the four clicks I would need to make to break the links to the documents. They definitely knew who I could speak with to find out how it can be done. They knew that taking down my blog was like dropping a nuclear bomb to kill a gnat.
I’m going to file another complaint against PRA and its attorneys for intentional infliction of emotional distress. If the court orders my blog to be “taken down” then I will ask for $1,000,000 per year for all the years I was actively writing. That is about the same as PRA’s risk manager’s base salary.
I would have preferred to spend Christmas as planned, cherishing peaceful moments with my granddaughter and my husband, who is battling stage IV cancer. However, a 6- or 7-million-dollar jury verdict should make PRA think twice before retaliating against a victim of its abusive practices—someone brave enough to challenge a company that files 3,000 lawsuits a week against everyday people.
Portfolio Recovery Associates asks to “take down” this blog, instead of explaining how to remove individual documents.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky granted a motion to seal anything and everything Big Business Billionaire Portfolio Recovery Associates wants to conceal. I asked the Supreme Court to unseal four documents that I filed for my writ of certiorari. SCOTUS wrote “Motion Granted”. So, I posted the documents.
The next day, someone on the Supreme Court staff returned a call to me. She said the justices only approved the part of my motion to file the sealed documents, not the part about unsealing. I asked for something in writing, which never was done, but I took down the documents to alleviate any strife.
It didn’t work, because I didn’t understand “hosting”. A person could not go to my site and find the document, but if they had a link from before the document was removed from the post, they could pull the document up from my “media library”.
What was happening was that while I removed the link from my blog post, the file itself was still hosted on my WordPress site and accessible to anyone who has the direct URL. Removing the link from the post doesn’t delete or restrict access to the file—it simply removes the clickable path to it from the blog page.
To prevent anyone from accessing the document via the URL, the issue had to be addressed at the hosting level. How is it done? Here’s one way:
Delete the File
- Log into your WordPress admin dashboard.
- Go to the Media Library (usually found under “Media” in the menu).
- Locate the file and delete it.
- This will make the URL invalid, so anyone clicking on it will receive a “404 Not Found” error.
Here is an easier question to answer. Why didn’t the goliath debt buying company’s IT department or the IT people at Rose Law Firm and Troutman Pepper tell me the four clicks needed to make their super-secret documents disappear? Because they wanted to destroy 15 years of work I have done exposing court corruption and building my audience. They were not acting too concerned about mitigating damages to their confidentiality.
Court Corruption is a national issue
A woman sent a complaint to the Los Angeles district attorney about the dishonest services in the probate courts. This is the email response:
“Good Evening,
“Your email has been received. Please consider contacting the Public Integrity Unit. Please send your complaint in writing to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, Public Integrity Division, 211 West Temple Street, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90012. If you have any questions before sending your complaint, please contact the Public Integrity Unit at (213) 257-2475. Thank you.
“Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office”
Here is the reply, which was sent to the District Attorney, me and others in an email blast: (The rest of this post is cut and pasted from the email)
I will not be mailing you all any documents to the address suggested, GODDOGIT!
DARN IT, get your investigators to work.
“My family has tragically experienced firsthand the devastating consequences of a system riddled with corruption. The actions of court-appointed attorneys, seemingly funded by hidden line items within the County budget, shattered our family unit. These attorneys, despite their ethical obligations and the oaths they swore to uphold, failed to fulfill their duties, leading to irreparable harm.
Our daughter, Breona L. Willis, tragically passed away in April 2018. This personal loss has fueled my determination to ensure that other families do not suffer the same fate. I believe it is crucial for the public to understand the systemic flaws within our probate system – a system that lacks transparency, accountability, and ultimately, respect for the very families it is designed to serve.
One of the most significant problems is the lack of dedicated oversight for probate programs. These programs operate in a shroud of secrecy, with funding often hidden within obscure budget lines. This lack of transparency creates an environment ripe for abuse and misuse of public funds. The State Controller and the County Auditor have a legal and ethical responsibility to investigate these discrepancies.
In our case, we witnessed firsthand the financially devastating consequences of this lack of oversight. For over five years, our granddaughter was represented by a court-appointed attorney who never visited her in person while she went without special needs services. we paid lawyer’s fees, for court transcripts, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yet, attorneys continued to receive public funds, appear in Court on behalf of clients they have not met with, seemingly without any accountability, as a practice and pattern. This blatant disregard for a vulnerable child not only highlights the systemic failures within the probate system but also raises serious concerns about potential ethical violations and breaches of professional conduct by the attorneys involved.
It’s crucial to understand that focusing solely on program funding is treating the symptom, not the disease. The real issue lies in the lack of accountability at the highest levels. We must identify the individuals and departments within the county government who are ultimately responsible for overseeing these critical functions. These individuals and departments, including the Board of Supervisors and the County Auditor, have a fiduciary duty to the public to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used ethically and effectively, and that children are protected from harm.”
You don’t need a paper mailed to you. I am emailing you in public with individuals, agencies, and or departments as our grandchildren are receiving services in both Los Angeles County and Riverside County. Other victims and interested parties are blind copied here.
This is not just about my family’s story. This is about ensuring that all families receive fair and just treatment within the probate system.
I spoke with Aimee this morning and verbally and formally requested a return call from an investigator in the LA District attorney’s office “our grandchildren should NOT suffer in peril without special needs services while everyone collects a DARN check!”
Sincerely,
Donecia Augustus
Judge Rudofsky Gives Pro Se 5 Days for ‘Emergency’ Response, Billion-Dollar Firm Gets 10 to Reply

People who read a law blog might be slow at math. At least it seems Judge Lee P. Rudofsky is, so here it is simplified:
Portfolio Recovery Associates filed an “emergency” order asking to “take down” this blog on December 20, 2024 at 2:30 p.m.
Purportedly I filed documents that were ordered under seal and PRA did not get a copy of my motion to SCOTUS asking to file the documents under seal and then unseal them. PRA in fact received the service copy of the motion on October 28, 2024, according to USPS tracking. The motion was granted in full, in writing on December 9, 2024. On December 10th, someone on the SCOTUS staff called me and said the motion I filed was granted only in part, but to date, there is no writing to memorialize that. I deleted the documents anyhow, because I don’t love chaos as much as PRA does.
It took PRA 11 days to file the “emergency” motion. December 20th was the Friday before Christmas week.
PRA served me by email at 2:44 p.m. Judge Rudofsky denied me access to electronic filing, one of my complaints to the Supreme Court. So, I did not certify and was not required to check my emails daily for notifications. I did not see the motion until Sunday afternoon.
At 3:21 p.m. PRA served me a copy of the text entry order Judge Rudofsky wrote on December 20th, at 2:55 p.m. He ordered me to respond by December 27th. He specified that there would be no extension granted. Because Rudofsky denied me electronic filing privileges, I would need to have four printed copies delivered to the courthouse, a 30-minute drive from my home with perfect road conditions, by 5 p.m. That was seven days if I happened to check my emails on the afternoon of a holiday week.
On Monday, December 23rd, at 10:57 a.m. I sent an email to the Judge’s clerk. I explained that while I was typing the email, a process server came to deliver the motion. I asked for an order granting an extension to Monday, December 30th.
There was no response from the court before December 26th. Since I worked through Christmas, I had a response almost ready by then. The response from the clerk said, “‘Judge says you can have until December 30, 2024. This extension is solely a matter of discretion and not based on any examination of the accuracy of your extension request.'” That was in quotation marks. There was no docket number or indication that this was a signed order. Because the judge has lied before, I did not trust this hearsay, unsigned, unfiled, unserved instruction. (No copy of the permission followed by snail-mail, as is customary. In fact, the court did not send a follow-up paper copy of the December 20th order, either. [UPDATE January 6, 2024: The December 20th order was sent by snail-mail postmarked December 23, 2024. It did not appear on USPS Informed Delivery, which I can prove with screenshots of daily activity. I am just now opening the mail that came after December 22nd that did not seem emergent based on the picture on Informed Delivery, including Christmas cards sent by friends.)
I filed my response at about 3:00 on December 27, 2024. I try to leave my house early, in case of a flat tire, accident, whatever. There were few cars on the road and the street in front of the courthouse had no other parked cars. It felt like the three clerks and four or five guards were there just waiting for me.
Then on January 2, 2025, six days after I filed, and three days after the date the clerk said a judge said I could file the “emergency” motion, Judge Rudofsky wrote a text entry only order on the docket. He told PRA to have its team of attorneys from Rose Law Firm and Troutman Pepper to reply by January 6, 2025.
Are you following the math? The reply was due 10 days after the response to the “emergency” motion was filed.
The “officers of the court” are allowed to file electronically, while sitting at home in their underwear.
Judge Rudofsky effectively gave the billion-dollar company twice as long to reply to the so-called emergency than he gave me to respond.
If Judge Rudofsky, who is not a Christian, had other plans Christmas week that would interfere with making a quick decision…like he made when PRA filed the motion… then why was it so important that I research and write my response during Christmas week?
Answer: He has to keep the Big Business Billionaires happy.
And the Big Business Billionaires are only happy when they can oppress and enslave the commoners.
Firings, Foiled FOIA and Other Infighting at the Arkansas Supreme Court
I don’t know what to make of it. This is what five of the six associate justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court think, in response to newly sworn Chief Justice Karen Baker purportedly firing ten AOC employees:
Pursuant to Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution, the court establishes
Administrative Order 24 to ensure the continued efficient administration of justice. The
court establishes the following procedures to clarify the employment status of persons
working for the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Certain events have recently transpired that require formal, written procedures for
when a court or AOC employee may be terminated. These rules will provide a transparent
process for employees and court members to follow in the event that termination is required.
Sunlight—in the form of a written policy—provides the best process.
The events giving rise to this order have been percolating but came to a head on January 2, 2025, when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Arkansas called the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (“Director”) and the Director of Emergency Preparedness and Chief of Supreme Court Police (“Police Chief”) into her office for a meeting. During the meeting, the Chief Justice confronted the Director and Police Chief about their responses to Freedom of Information Act requests involving her.
The Chief Justice noted that she had prepared letters of termination for the Director and Police Chief, but was unsure whether she would fire them.
The next day, January 3, the Chief Justice intercepted the Police Chief as he walked into the Justice Building and purported to fire him. The Chief Justice had also prepared determination letters for at least ten (10) other employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, including the Director. The Director, however, serves at the pleasure of the entire court, not the Chief Justice alone. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-102(a)(2).
Specifically, the Chief Justice attempted to terminate the following employees:
Director of Administrative Office of the Courts;
Director of Emergency Preparedness and Chief of Supreme Court Police;
Juvenile Justice Division Director;
Director of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs and Director of Judicial
Education;
Director of Finance and Administration;
Legal Services Division Director;
Court Information Systems Division Director;
Court Information Systems Division Deputy Director;
District Court Staff Attorney; and
Administrator of the Commission of Children, Youth, and Families.
If carried out, those terminations would disrupt the administration of justice across the state
of Arkansas.
The Chief Justice did not notify—let alone consult—the court before attempting to unilaterally fire these long-tenured court employees. After learning of the attempt to terminate these employees, a fellow justice asked the Chief Justice to meet with other members of the court to discuss her decisions. The Chief Justice refused. Four members of the court then renewed the request to discuss the attempted terminations, and the Chief Justice again declined. Yet when asked why these ten employees were being terminated, the Chief Justice stated that she had “millions of reasons.” Then, when asked about those
employees’ families and the fact that they were scared and fearful, the Chief Justice responded by saying that it was “good” for those employees to be scared. The Chief Justice then ended that discussion.
Not once did the Chief Justice articulate a specific reason for firing any of these employees, either to the full court or to the employees themselves. Some of these employees have pending human-resource complaints against the Chief Justice for recent incidents. And the Chief Justice has attempted to terminate the recipient of these complaints, the Director of Finance and Administration. These terminations therefore appear to be retaliatory. And given the uncertainty these terminations have created and the potential disruption of the administration of justice, the court hereby adopts the following Administrative Order.
This situation is unnecessary and unfortunate. The court thanks the employees targeted for termination for their service and offers its sincere apologies to their families for this situation. And the court appreciates their continued service to the people of the Natural State.
Administrative Order 24. Employment of Court Personnel
Absent express statutory authority to the contrary, the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts holds sole responsibility to hire and terminate the staff of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-10-102(a)(2) also provides that the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts is “subject to the approval of the Supreme Court and the Arkansas Judicial Council, Inc.” and “serves at the pleasure of the Supreme Court.” The Director therefore cannot be terminated without the express consent of at least four members of the Supreme Court.
As it relates to employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, no employee of the Supreme Court of Arkansas or the Administrative Office of the Courts shall process any termination letter, restrict access to physical space, restrict access to information technology services, cut off payroll, or otherwise restrict employment activity without the express approval of the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
As it relates to the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, no employee of the Supreme Court of Arkansas or the Administrative Office of the Courts shall process any termination letter, restrict access to physical space, restrict access to information technology services, cut off payroll, or otherwise restrict employment activity without the express written approval of at least four members of the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court and Reporter of Decisions also serve at the pleasure of the entire Supreme Court of Arkansas. Ark. Const. amend. 80, § 2(F). The Clerk and Reporter cannot be terminated without the express written approval of four members of the Supreme Court of Arkansas. The Clerk and Reporter retain hiring and firing authority for members of their staff, subject to notice to the entire court.
Absent an emergency, any terminated employee may be reinstated within three days if at least four members of the Supreme Court have given express written notice.
Each justice has hiring and firing authority for his or her immediate chambers staff, which includes two law clerks and a judicial administrative assistant. No other Supreme Court of Arkansas employee or Bar of Arkansas employee may be terminated without the express written approval of four members of the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Any terminations that have occurred on or after January 1, 2025, in contravention of this order are hereby rescinded, effective immediately.
The failure to abide by any provision of this order may result in a citation for contempt.
BAKER, C.J., and HUDSON, J., not participating.
I endorsed Justices Hudson and Baker when they ran for office. Unfortunately, I also voted for Evil Judge Susan Weaver who I now know should be in prison for honest services fraud; so, I get it wrong sometimes.
There was strife about then Associate Justice Baker entering AOC Director Marty Sullivan’s Office. There was also legal wrangling about emails between Justice Hudson and Lisa Ballard, former head of the AOC Office of Professional Conduct. Justice Hudson did not want the emails to be shared with the public.
I posted a story applauding Lisa Ballard once, but my mind is changing about her. She was ineffective. A complaint I filed years ago has still not been concluded.
Well, I need to get some rest and have a mountain of work to do. So, I don’t know when I can add more, and Federal Judge Lee P. Rudofsky may order this blog to be “taken down” as early as Monday morning.
We are living in strange times. It appears a few fascists decided to dismantle the perfect union that was the United States of America and replace it with a tyrannical oligarchy of greed.
Pray.
Here is a FREE Doc of the Day: