People v. Allababidi: the whole docket, in order

Twenty-two hours

Three timestamps carry this record. They are short, they are checkable, and the appellant wrote none of them.

Gap between the State’s certification and the client’s first knowledge of the motion: 21 hours 50 minutes.

It is the second time the prosecuting office has told the Second District, in an instrument verified under 735 ILCS 5/1-109, what the defendant’s own appointed counsel would do. The first was the Objection of August 5, ¶ 14: “OSAD counsel has explicitly confirmed their willingness to seek the relief they may ethically pursue: a stay on the circuit court’s June 17, 2026 order.” That stay was not filed for another thirteen days, and was denied on August 21.

Six doors

Each step is quoted from the actor who took it. None requires bad faith. The outcome does not require it either.

As of August 31: the 180 days and the warrant keep running, because door 01 is still shut.

Update, September 17, 2026 — door 01 opened. The Clerk of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit certified the record on appeal: a 411-page common law record, a 175-page report of proceedings including the June 17 and August 6 hearings, and a 4-page impounded section, e-filed in the Second District at 3:24 p.m. On September 4 the court denied the People’s motion for sanctions without prejudice and advised that any future violation of its orders “will result in the dismissal of this appeal.” The September chapter has both orders verbatim.

What this does not establish

No document in this record shows an agreement, understanding or concert of action between the Office of the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor and the Office of the State Appellate Defender. Paragraphs 14 and 7 establish contact and a communicated position. They do not, by themselves, establish improper motive by either office. Counsel’s stated reasons are reasons a competent lawyer can hold. Intake closure by the ARDC is not a finding that the conduct did or did not occur.

The record that would settle it

Every communication, in any medium, between any person at OSAD and any person at the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor or the Lake County State’s Attorney from July 31, 2026 forward, with headers and timestamps intact. Who communicated the position recited in ¶ 7, on what date and by what method; whether the prosecutor solicited it or counsel volunteered it; whether it came before the client was consulted; and whether any OSAD lawyer confirmed, before August 5, a willingness to seek a stay. Those records have been under a written litigation hold since August 14, 2026.