Does this email prove an ex parte communication occurred?

It proves an internal email carrying filed papers went to the judge and referenced the State, without the filer on the recipient line. Whether that constitutes improper ex parte contact depends on the docket service records, which have not been produced.

Why does it matter that the filer was pro se?

A represented party is served through counsel, who is routinely copied on courtroom email. A pro se litigant has no such proxy — if he is not on the message, no one on his side is.

The Clerk Emailed the Filings to the Judge and the State. The Person Who Filed Them Was Not on the Message.

A produced October 3, 2025 courtroom-clerk email routed filed papers to Judge Christopher Stride and told colleagues the State would receive them. The filer does not appear anywhere on the recipient line.

courtroom clerk emailChristopher Strideex partecourt access

What the Record Establishes

A courtroom staff member moved filed papers to the assigned judge through an internal channel.
That channel included the court and the prosecution.
It did not include the party who wrote and filed the documents.

What They Have Not Produced

The docket receipt and service notice showing what the filer was independently sent, and when.
The case-management event history for the same papers.
Any judicial-staff handling notes attached to the transmission.

The email is candid, which is what makes it auditable. A Courtroom T-611 representative emailed filed papers to Judge Christopher Stride, stated she was sending them to the State, and then alerted other courtroom participants that the judge had been given the material. The person who wrote those papers — a pro se litigant with no lawyer to be copied through — is not on the header.

Routing or one-sided channel? The distinction is not rhetorical

Clerks route filed papers to judges constantly, and parties are properly served through the docket rather than through internal staff email. This page does not claim the papers were secretly considered. It claims something narrower and entirely visible on the document: an internal communication channel about this case existed, it carried the court and the prosecution, and it did not carry the defendant.

The context that makes it worse, not better

This is the same case in which the clerk’s office refused a pro se filing path in writing on June 8, in which an omnibus filing bears a June 15 stamp on a PDF that reports its own creation on June 18, and in which the public portal recorded the filing as “Correspondence.” A litigant fighting for access to his own docket was, on October 3, the one name absent from the email about his own filings.

The records that end the argument

The docket receipt, the service notice, the case-management event history, and any judicial staff handling notes would establish in minutes whether this email merely duplicated proper service or supplied one side a separate lane. Those records sit inside the Odyssey system this case has been formally demanding since June.

Open the dossier for the courtroom representative who sent it.