Bennett explains that this is important because (pay attention now) the same judge that wasn't able to determine what spam looks like also sits more vital cases like child custody, property damage, and rape.
This is news? I thought everybody realized that judges (lawyers in robes) are just as vile and worthless as lawyers in suits. The civil legal system is an old boy's network, but with smarter old boys running it. Regardless of whether you win or lose a case, the lawyers all get their cut.
Appearing Pro Se is worthless except in the most brain-dead of circumstances because decisions are primarily about rules and precedent rather than reason. Unless you have hundreds of hours to devote to becoming an expert, you'd better plan on losing the case. The lawyer in a suit will cite a couple of precedents and the lawyer in a robe will make a decision against you, regardless of your reason-based argument. He might throw you a bone and give you some Latin words that explain why your reason-based argument doesn't matter, even if it is right.